Jennifer Kuzma

Ensuring Sustainable Novel Plant Biotechnologies Requires Formalized Research and Assessment Programs

Grieger, K., & Kuzma, J. (2023, October 19). ACS AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 3, pp. 970–972.

Identifying sustainability assessment parameters for genetically engineered agrifoods

Wei, W., Grieger, K., Cummings, C. L., Loschin, N., & Kuzma, J. (2023, July 22). PLANTS PEOPLE PLANET, Vol. 7.

Synthetic biology and governance research in China: a 40-year evolution

Tang, L., Kuzma, J., Zhang, Xi, Song, X., Li, Y., Liu, H., & Hu, G. (2023, July 18). SCIENTOMETRICS, Vol. 7.

Exploring the value of a global gene drive project registry

Taitingfong, R. I., Triplett, C., Vasquez, V. N., Rajagopalan, R. M., Raban, R., Roberts, A., … Bloss, C. S. (2022, December 15). NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY, Vol. 12.

Fostering Responsible Innovation through Stakeholder Engagement: Case Study of North Carolina Sweetpotato Stakeholders

Sustainability, 14(4), 2274.

Genes drive organisms and slippery slopes

Resnik, D. B., Medina, R. F., Gould, F., Church, G., & Kuzma, J. (2022, December 23). PATHOGENS AND GLOBAL HEALTH, Vol. 12.

Governance of Gene-edited Plants: Insights from the History of Biotechnology Oversight and Policy Process Theory

Kuzma, J. (2022, June 23). SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES, Vol. 6.

How can we promote the responsible innovation of nano-agrifood research?

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY, 137, 185–190.

Narrative policy framework at the macro level-cultural theory-based beliefs, science-based narrative strategies, and their uptake in the Canadian policy process for genetically modified salmon

Williams, T. T., & Kuzma, J. (2022, February 14). PUBLIC POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION, Vol. 2.

Should Gene Editing Be Used to Develop Crops for Continuous-Living-Cover Agriculture? A Multi-Sector Stakeholder Assessment Using a Cooperative Governance Approach

FRONTIERS IN BIOENGINEERING AND BIOTECHNOLOGY, 10.

Barriers to responsible innovation of nanotechnology applications in food and agriculture: A study of US experts and developers

NANOIMPACT, 23.

Responsible Innovation Definitions, Practices, and Motivations from Nanotechnology Researchers in Food and Agriculture

NanoEthics, 15(3), 229–243.

Responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods: Insights and views from U.S. stakeholders

NanoImpact, 24, 100365.

Community Led Governance for Gene Edited Crops

Science.

Community-led governance for gene-edited crops A post-market certification process could promote transparency and trust

Kuzma, J., & Grieger, K. (2020, November 20). SCIENCE, Vol. 370, pp. 916–918.

Core Committments for Field Trials of Gene Drive ORganisms

Science.

Engineered Gene Drives: Ecological, environmental, and societal concerns

In A. Chaurasia, D. L. Hawksworth, & M. Pessoa de Miranda (Eds.), GMOs: Implications for Biodiversity Conservation and Ecological Processes. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Responsible Innovation in Biotechnology: Stakeholder Attitudes and Implications for Research Policy

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 8(1), 47.

Synthetic Biology 2020: Frontiers in Risk Analysis and Governance

In Risk, Systems and Decisions.

Synthetic Biology: Perspectives on Risk Analysis, Governance, Communication, and ELSI

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY 2020: FRONTIERS IN RISK ANALYSIS AND GOVERNANCE, pp. 1–18.

The Role of Expert Disciplinary Cultures in Assessing Risks and Benefits of Synthetic Biology

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY 2020: FRONTIERS IN RISK ANALYSIS AND GOVERNANCE, pp. 351–370.

Anticipating risks, governance needs, and public perceptions of de-extinction

Journal of Responsible Innovation, 6(2), 211–231.

Best practices from nano-risk analysis relevant for other emerging technologies

Nature Nanotechnology, 14(11), 998–1001.

Biotechnology Oversight Gets an Early Make-Over by Trump’s White House and USDA: Part 1—The Executive Order

https://research.ncsu.edu/ges/2019/06/ag-biotech-oversight-makeover-part-1-eo/

Biotechnology Oversight Gets an Early Make-Over by Trump’s White House and USDA: Part 2 – The USDA-APHIS Rule

Kuzma, J. (2019, July 2). https://research.ncsu.edu/ges/2019/07/ag-biotech-oversight-makeover-part-2-usda-aphis-rule/

Procedurally Robust Risk Assessment Framework for Novel Genetically Engineered Organisms and Gene Drives

Regulation & Governance, 15(4), 1144–1165.

A decision analytic model to guide early-stage government regulatory action: Applications for synthetic biology

REGULATION & GOVERNANCE, 12(1), 88–100.

A roadmap for gene drives: using institutional analysis and development to frame research needs and governance in a systems context

Journal of Responsible Innovation, 5(S1), S13–S39.

Cataloguing the barriers facing RRI in innovation pathways: a response to the dilemma of societal alignment

JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION, Vol. 5, pp. 338–346.

Comparative, collaborative, and integrative risk governance for emerging technologies

Environment Systems and Decisions, 38(2), 170–176.

Editing nature: Local roots of global governance

Science, 362(6414), 527–529.

Genome Editing in Agriculture—Methods, Applications, and Governance

(Issue Paper No. 60). Council on Agriculture Science and Technology.

Regulating Gene-edited Crops

Issues in Science and Technology, 35(1), 80–85.

Regulating animals with gene drive systems: lessons from the regulatory assessment of a genetically engineered mosquito

JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION, 5, S203–S222.

Space for the Social Sciences in Engineering Biology

Kuzma, J. (2018, March 18). http://issp.uottawa.ca/en/news/space-social-sciences-engineering-biology

Wicked evolution: Can we address the sociobiological dilemma of pesticide resistance?

Science, 360(6390), 728–732.

‘Mapping research and governance needs for gene drives’

‘Mapping research and governance needs for gene drives.’ Journal of Responsible Innovation, 5(sup1), S4–S12.

A cooperative governance network for crop genome editing

Jordan, N. R., Dorn, K. M., Smith, T. M., Wolf, K. E., Ewing, P. M., Fernandez, A. L., … al. (2017, October). EMBO REPORTS, Vol. 18, pp. 1683–1687.

Ethics and responsible innovation in biotechnology communities: A pedagogy of engaged scholarship

ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, 2017-June. http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85030554888&partnerID=MN8TOARS

Forum: Biosecurity Governance for a Realistic New World

Issues in Science and Technology, 33(2).

Politics “Trumps” Science in the Regulation of Genetically Engineered Crops

Kuzma, J. (2017, November 7). https://research.ncsu.edu/ges/2017/11/politics-trumps-science-regulation-genetically-engineered-crops/

Preparing for the Future Products of Biotechnology

[National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine Committee Report].

Rethinking biosecurity

Risk, Environmental Governance, and Emerging Biotechnology

In R. Durant, D. J. Fiorino, & R. O'Leary (Eds.), Environmental Governance Reconsidered: Challenges, Choices, and Opportunities (2nd ed.). https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/environmental-governance-reconsidered-0

Societal Risk Evaluation Scheme (SRES): Scenario-Based Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Synthetic Biology Applications

PLOS ONE, 12(1).

Society and policy maker’s responsibilities

In Consumer Perception of Product Risks and Benefits (pp. 547–566).

Trails and Trials in Biotechnology Policy

WOMEN IN SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY: KEY ADVANCES AND PERSPECTIVES ON EMERGING TOPICS, pp. 85–96.

A missed opportunity for US biotechnology regulation

Kuzma, J. (2016, September 16). SCIENCE, Vol. 353, pp. 1211–1213.

As technology advances, how do we avoid losing touch with our values?

In World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/technology-how-do-we-avoid-losing-values/

Attitudes towards governance of gene editing

Asian Biotechnology and Development Review, 18(1), 69–92. http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85026651835&partnerID=MN8TOARS

Engineering the Wild: Gene Drives and Intergenerational Equity

Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 56(3), 279–296.

Future Generations and Gene Drives: the Importance of Intergenerational Equity

In Questions for a Resilient Future: Center for Humans and Nature. https://www.humansandnature.org/future-generations-and-gene-drives

Is adaptation or transformation needed? Active nanomaterials and risk analysis

JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, 18(7).

New genetic engineering is slipping past old regulations

Kuzma, J. (2016, May 6). Aeon Magazine.

Reboot the debate on genetic engineerin

Kuzma, J. (2016, March 10). NATURE, Vol. 531, pp. 165–167.

Altruism and skepticism in public attitudes toward food nanotechnologies

JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, 17(3).

Deextinction

(GES Center Issue Brief No. #2015.1).

Forum

Issues in Science and Technology, 32(1), 5–12. http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85020049912&partnerID=MN8TOARS

Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences for Nanotechnology and Genetic-modification Technology in Food Products

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 66(2), 308–328.

Investigating factors influencing consumer willingness to buy GM food and nano-food

JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, 17(7).

SynBio 101 Screenplay Draft

Durham, NC: Museum of Life and Science.

Synthetic Biology Governance: Delphi Study Workshop Report

(GES Center Report No. #2015.2). Retrieved from research.ncsu.edu/ges

Technology governance alternatives

Issues in Science and Technology, 32(1), 10–11.

Technology governance alternatives

Transformation or Adaptation: Active Nanomaterials and Risk Governance. Workshop paper for “Next Generation Nano Governance

[Workshop Paper]. American Chemical Society, CNS-ASU, and Notre Dame NSF Funded Workshop.

Translational governance research for synthetic biology

JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION, 2(1), 109–112.

CORRESPONDENCE: Synthetic biology: Missing the point

Nature, 510(7504), 218.

Conflicting Futures

Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 34(3-4), 108–120.

Governance of genetic biocontrol technologies for invasive fish

BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS, 16(6), 1299–1312.

Mapping the emerging field of genome editing

TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT, 26(3), 321–352.

Translational risk governance research

Workshop on Research Agenda in the Societal Aspects of Synthetic Biology. Presented at the Workshop on Research Agenda in the Societal Aspects of Synthetic Biology, Arizona State University.

Consumer knowledge of genetically engineered organisms (GEOs)

Journal of Science Policy and Governance, 3(1), 1–39.

Envisioning future governance of the bioeconomy

The Environmental Forum, 30(3).

Examining the Oversight Challenges of Plant TagMo

[Workshop Report]. University of Minnesota.

Hungry for Information: Public Attitudes Toward Food Nanotechnology and Labeling

REVIEW OF POLICY RESEARCH, 30(5), 512–548.

Innovation in emerging energy technologies: A case study analysis to inform the path forward for algal biofuels

ENERGY POLICY, 61, 1595–1607.

Properly paced? Examining the past and present governance of GMOS in the United States

In Innovative Governance Models for Emerging Technologies (pp. 176–197).

Should Citizens Have a Say About Emerging Technologies?

Scholar’s Strategy Network, Policy Brief. https://scholars.org/contribution/should-citizens-have-say-about-emerging-technologies

Social Robotics and Governance Challenges

[Workshop Report]. University of Minnesota Initiative on Governance and Emerging Technological Systems.

Biosafety Technical Series No. 2: Summary and comparative analysis of nine national approaches to ecological risk assessment of living modified organisms in the context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Annex III

http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/cpb_technicalseries/cpb-ts-02-en.pdf

Facing the Emerald Ash Borer in Minnesota

Minneapolis, MN: Stakeholder Public Dialogue, Humphrey School of Public Affairs.

Genetically Modified Foods: Policy Context and Safety

(Policy Brief No. 1). Food Policy Research Center.

Policy Innovation in Synthetic Biology Governance

In 21st Century Borders/Synthetic Biology: Focus on Responsibility and Governance: conference convened by the ISGP in partnership with the University of Arizona at the Hilton El Conquistador Hotel, Tucson, Arizona, U.S., Dec. 4-7, 2012. Tucson, AZ: Institute on Science for Global Policy (ISGP),

Allhoff, Fritz, Patrick Lin, and Daniel Moore. 2010. What is nanotechnology and why does it matter? From science to ethics

JOURNAL OF BIOETHICAL INQUIRY, 8(2), 209–211.

Corporate social responsibility for nanotechnology oversight

MEDICINE HEALTH CARE AND PHILOSOPHY, 14(4), 407–419.

Dynamic oversight for nanobiotechnology

Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13(4), 1345–1371.

Introduction: designing nanobiotechnology oversight

Fatehi, L., Wolf, S. M., Ramachandran, G., & Kuzma, J. (2011, April). JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, Vol. 13, pp. 1341–1343.

Minnesota Nanotechnology : A report to the state legislature

St. Paul, MN: Minnesota State Legislature.

Nanotechnology governance and publics: Making connections in policy

In Nanotechnology and the Public Sphere. Taylor & Francis.

Nanotechnology, voluntary oversight, and corporate social performance: does company size matter?

JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, 13(4), 1499–1512.

Recommendations for oversight of nanobiotechnology: Dynamic oversight for complex and convergent technology

Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13(4), 1345–1371.

Renegotiating GM crop regulation

EMBO Reports, 12(9), 883–888.

The "Revolving Door" between Regulatory Agencies and Industry: A Problem That Requires Reconceptualizing Objectivity

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS, 24(6), 575–599.

Web vulnerability study of online pharmacy sites

INFORMATICS FOR HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE, 36(1), 20–34.

Evidence review and experts’ opinion on consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology

Unpublished.

Expert opinion of emerging technologies oversight: Lessons for nanotechnology from biotechnology

In Understanding Nanotechnology: Philosophy, Policy, and Publics (pp. 133–156). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Multi-criteria decision making for studying nanotechnology & society

Multi-criteria decision making for studying nanotechnology & society. In Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society.

Nanotechnology in animal production-Upstream assessment of applications

Kuzma, J. (2010, May). LIVESTOCK SCIENCE, Vol. 130, pp. 14–24.

Nanotechnology regulation and oversight

In Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Communication.

Nanotechnology, Risk, and Oversight: Learning Lessons from Related Emerging Technologies

RISK ANALYSIS, 30(11), 1688–1698.

Nanotechnology: Piecing Together the Puzzle of Risk

In Controversies in Science and Technology. Volume 3: From Evolution to Energy. Daniel Lee Kleinman (Ed.),

Nanotechnology: A History Lesson

Momentum Magazine.

Nanotechnology: Environmental benefits

In Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society.

Sizing Up Nanotechnology Oversight

Kuzma, J. (2010, July). Minnesota Nano E-Newsletter, (13).

Systems Mapping of Consumer Acceptance of Agrifood Nanotechnology

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER POLICY, 33(4), 299–322.

Unpackaging synthetic biology: Identification of oversight policy problems and options

REGULATION & GOVERNANCE, 4(1), 92–112.

A possible change in the U.S. risk -based decision making for emerging technological products: Compromised or enhanced objectivity?

EMBO Reports, 10, 1–6.

Biotechnology

In A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology (pp. 523–531).

Biotechnology: Technology and future, prosperity and risks

In S. A. P. Jan-Kyrre Berg Olsen & V. F. Hendricks (Eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology. Malden, MA : Wiley-Blackwell.

Developing US Oversight Strategies for Nanobiotechnology: Learning from Past Oversight Experiences

JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE & ETHICS, 37(4), 688–705.

Evaluating Oversight Systems for Emerging Technologies: A Case Study of Genetically Engineered Organisms

[Review of ]. JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE & ETHICS, 37(4), 546–586.

FAO/WHO Expert Meeting on the Application of Nanotechnologies in the Food and Agriculture Sectors: Meeting Report.

In United Nations FAO/WHO [Meeting Report].

Global Challenges

In A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology (pp. 538–545).

Improving oversight of genetically engineered organisms

Policy and Society, 28(4), 279–299.

Introduction: The challenge of developing oversight approaches to nanobiotechnology

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 37(4), 543–545.

The public option

EMBO Reports, 10(12), 1288–1293.

An Integrated Approach to Oversight Assessment for Emerging Technologies

Risk Analysis, 28(5), 1197–1220.