@article{streicker_griffiths_antia_bergner_bowman_moraes_esvelt_famulare_gilbert_he_et al._2024, title={Developing transmissible vaccines for animal infections}, volume={384}, ISSN={["1095-9203"]}, DOI={10.1126/science.adn3231}, abstractNote={Intrinsically safe designs and a staged transparent development process will be essential.}, number={6693}, journal={SCIENCE}, author={Streicker, Daniel G. and Griffiths, Megan E. and Antia, Rustom and Bergner, Laura and Bowman, Peter and Moraes, Maria Vitoria dos Santos and Esvelt, Kevin and Famulare, Mike and Gilbert, Amy and He, Biao and et al.}, year={2024}, month={Apr}, pages={275–277} }
 @article{kendig_selfa_thompson_anthony_bauchspies_blue_das_harrison_henke_jin_et al._2024, title={The need for more inclusive deliberation on ethics and governance in agricultural and food biotechnology}, volume={11}, ISSN={["2329-9037"]}, DOI={10.1080/23299460.2024.2304383}, abstractNote={An inclusive and socially legitimate governance structure is absent to address concerns over new agricultural biotechnologies. Establishing an agricultural bioethics commission devoted to inclusive deliberation on ethics and governance in agricultural and food biotechnology is urgent. Highlighting the social and ethical dimensions of current agricultural bioengineering disputes in the food system, we discuss how a nationally recognized policy forum could improve decision-making and increase public understanding of the issues. We clarify ways the concepts that are used to categorize food and frame governance of food affect consumer choices, and how dissemination of information and the mode of dissemination can contribute to social inequities. We cite the record of medically-oriented bioethic commissions and the history of international bioethic commissions in support of our argument, and end by discussing what such a commission dedicated to agriculture and food issues could reasonably be expected to achieve.}, number={1}, journal={JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION}, author={Kendig, Catherine and Selfa, Theresa and Thompson, Paul B. and Anthony, Raymond and Bauchspies, Wenda and Blue, Gwendolyn and Das, Ashmita and Harrison, Rebecca and Henke, Chris and Jin, Shan and et al.}, year={2024}, month={Dec} }
 @article{medina_kuzma_2023, title={Engineered and natural gene drives: mechanistically the same, yet not same in kind}, volume={14}, ISSN={["2041-1723"]}, DOI={10.1038/s41467-023-41727-3}, abstractNote={We propose the use of the terms natural gene drive (NGD) and engineered gene drive (EGD) arguing against James et al.1, who think both should be included within the term “gene drive”, based on their mechanistic similarities.}, number={1}, journal={NATURE COMMUNICATIONS}, author={Medina, Raul F. and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2023}, month={Sep} }
 @article{grieger_kuzma_2023, title={Ensuring Sustainable Novel Plant Biotechnologies Requires Formalized Research and Assessment Programs}, volume={3}, ISSN={["2692-1952"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1021/acsagscitech.3c00380}, DOI={10.1021/acsagscitech.3c00380}, abstractNote={ADVERTISEMENT RETURN TO ARTICLES ASAPViewpointNEXTEnsuring Sustainable Novel Plant Biotechnologies Requires Formalized Research and Assessment ProgramsKhara Grieger*Khara GriegerDepartment of Applied Ecology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607, United StatesNorth Carolina Plant Sciences Initiative, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27606, United StatesGenetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, United States*[email protected]More by Khara Griegerhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0821-0534 and Jennifer KuzmaJennifer KuzmaGenetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, United StatesSchool of Public and International Affairs, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, United StatesMore by Jennifer KuzmaCite this: ACS Agric. Sci. Technol. 2023, XXXX, XXX, XXX-XXXPublication Date (Web):October 19, 2023Publication History Received14 September 2023Accepted10 October 2023Revised9 October 2023Published online19 October 2023https://doi.org/10.1021/acsagscitech.3c00380© 2023 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0. License Summary*You are free to share (copy and redistribute) this article in any medium or format within the parameters below:Creative Commons (CC): This is a Creative Commons license.Attribution (BY): Credit must be given to the creator.Non-Commercial (NC): Only non-commercial uses of the work are permitted. No Derivatives (ND): Derivative works may be created for non-commercial purposes, but sharing is prohibited. View full license*DisclaimerThis summary highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. Carefully review the actual license before using these materials. This publication is Open Access under the license indicated. Learn MoreArticle Views-Altmetric-Citations-LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICSArticle Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated. Share Add toView InAdd Full Text with ReferenceAdd Description ExportRISCitationCitation and abstractCitation and referencesMore Options Share onFacebookTwitterWechatLinked InReddit PDF (1 MB) Get e-AlertscloseSUBJECTS:Biotechnology,Food,Plants,Sustainability,Testing and assessment Get e-Alerts}, number={11}, journal={ACS AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY}, author={Grieger, Khara and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2023}, month={Oct}, pages={970–972} }
 @article{wei_grieger_cummings_loschin_kuzma_2023, title={Identifying sustainability assessment parameters for genetically engineered agrifoods}, volume={7}, ISSN={["2572-2611"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10411}, DOI={10.1002/ppp3.10411}, abstractNote={Societal Impact StatementA diverse portfolio of genetically engineered food crops, as well as animal livestock and fish, are currently being developed and commercialized. To ensure their contributions to long‐term sustainability, a broad range of environmental, health, ethical, and societal parameters should be used in their evaluations. This paper proposes a set of parameters to evaluate the sustainability of genetically engineered food and agriculture products and discusses mechanisms to improve their governance and oversight. With such holistic evaluations, genetic engineering applications that are deemed beneficial to sustainable agriculture could be identified in an effort to foster sustainability.SummaryTo achieve international sustainable development goals, food and agricultural production need to rely on sustainable and resilient practices. Traditional breeding as well as the use of new agricultural technologies, including genetic engineering and gene editing, have the potential to help achieve sustainable agrifood production. Although numerous oversight mechanisms exist to guarantee the secure and sustainable advancement and utilization of genetically engineered agrifoods, the majority of these mechanisms heavily depend on a narrow set of parameters to assess risks and safety concerning human health and nontarget organisms. However, a more comprehensive range of parameters should be considered to promote environmental and social sustainability in a more holistic manner. This Opinion article argues that to achieve a more sustainable agrifood production that relies on genetic engineering, governance systems related to new agrifood biotechnologies should incorporate a broader array of environmental, health, ethical, and societal factors to ensure their sustainability in the long‐term. To facilitate this process, we propose a set of parameters to help evaluate the sustainability of agrifoods that rely on genetic engineering. We then discuss major challenges and opportunities for formalizing sustainability parameters in US governance policy and decision‐making systems. Overall, this work contributes to further developing a more comprehensive assessment framework that aims to minimize potential risks and maximize potential benefits of agrifood biotechnology while also fostering sustainability.}, journal={PLANTS PEOPLE PLANET}, author={Wei, Wei and Grieger, Khara and Cummings, Christopher L. and Loschin, Nick and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2023}, month={Jul} }
 @article{tang_kuzma_zhang_song_li_liu_hu_2023, title={Synthetic biology and governance research in China: a 40-year evolution}, volume={7}, ISSN={["1588-2861"]}, DOI={10.1007/s11192-023-04789-0}, journal={SCIENTOMETRICS}, author={Tang, Li and Kuzma, Jennifer and Zhang, Xi and Song, Xinyu and Li, Yin and Liu, Hongxu and Hu, Guangyuan}, year={2023}, month={Jul} }
 @article{taitingfong_triplett_vasquez_rajagopalan_raban_roberts_terradas_baumgartner_emerson_gould_et al._2022, title={Exploring the value of a global gene drive project registry}, volume={12}, ISSN={["1546-1696"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85144085721&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1038/s41587-022-01591-w}, number={1}, journal={NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY}, author={Taitingfong, Riley I. and Triplett, Cynthia and Vasquez, Valeri N. and Rajagopalan, Ramya M. and Raban, Robyn and Roberts, Aaron and Terradas, Gerard and Baumgartner, Bridget and Emerson, Claudia and Gould, Fred and et al.}, year={2022}, month={Dec} }
 @article{grieger_zarate_barnhill-dilling_hunt_jones_kuzma_2022, title={Fostering Responsible Innovation through Stakeholder Engagement: Case Study of North Carolina Sweetpotato Stakeholders}, volume={14}, ISSN={2071-1050}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14042274}, DOI={10.3390/su14042274}, abstractNote={Stakeholder and community engagement are critical for the successful development of new technologies that aim to be integrated into sustainable agriculture systems. This study reports on an approach used to engage stakeholders within the sweetpotato community in North Carolina to understand their preferences, needs, and concerns as they relate to a new sensing and diagnostic platform. This work also demonstrates an example of real-time technology assessment that also fosters responsible innovation through inclusivity and responsiveness. Through the conduction of 29 interviews with sweetpotato stakeholders in North Carolina, we found that participants found the most value in detecting external sweetpotato characteristics, as well as the ability to use or connect to a smartphone that can be used in field. They also found value in including environmental parameters and having a Spanish language module. Most participants indicated that they were comfortable with sharing data as long as it benefited the greater North Carolina sweetpotato industry, and were concerned with sharing these data with “outside” competitors. We also observed differences and variations between stakeholder groups. Overall, this work demonstrates a relatively simple, low-cost approach to eliciting stakeholder needs within a local agricultural context to improve sustainability, an approach that could be leveraged and transferred to other local agrifood systems.}, number={4}, journal={Sustainability}, publisher={MDPI AG}, author={Grieger, Khara and Zarate, Sebastian and Barnhill-Dilling, Sarah Kathleen and Hunt, Shelly and Jones, Daniela and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2022}, month={Feb}, pages={2274} }
 @article{resnik_medina_gould_church_kuzma_2022, title={Genes drive organisms and slippery slopes}, volume={12}, ISSN={["2047-7732"]}, DOI={10.1080/20477724.2022.2160895}, abstractNote={The bioethical debate about using gene drives to alter or eradicate wild populations has focused mostly on issues concerning short-term risk assessment and management, governance and oversight, and public and community engagement, but has not examined big-picture- 'where is this going?'-questions in great depth. In other areas of bioethical controversy, big-picture questions often enter the public forum via slippery slope arguments. Given the incredible potential of gene drive organisms to alter the Earth's biota, it is somewhat surprising that slippery slope arguments have not played a more prominent role in ethical and policy debates about these emerging technologies. In this article, we examine a type of slippery slope argument against using gene drives to alter or suppress wild pest populations and consider whether it has a role to play in ethical and policy debates. Although we conclude that this argument does not provide compelling reasons for banning the use of gene drives in wild pest populations, we believe that it still has value as a morally instructive cautionary narrative that can motivate scientists, ethicists, and members of the public to think more clearly about appropriate vs. inappropriate uses of gene drive technologies, the long-term and cumulative and emergent risks of using gene drives in wild populations, and steps that can be taken to manage these risks, such as protecting wilderness areas where people can enjoy life forms that have not been genetically engineered.}, journal={PATHOGENS AND GLOBAL HEALTH}, author={Resnik, David B. and Medina, Raul F. and Gould, Fred and Church, George and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2022}, month={Dec} }
 @article{kuzma_2022, title={Governance of Gene-edited Plants: Insights from the History of Biotechnology Oversight and Policy Process Theory}, volume={6}, ISSN={["1552-8251"]}, DOI={10.1177/01622439221108225}, abstractNote={ The history of US biotechnology oversight for genetically modified plants is analyzed in the context of policy process theories to derive insights for contemporary governance of gene-edited plants. The Advocacy Coalition Framework sheds light on how opposing coalitions with different policy beliefs struggled to influence oversight, along with coalition disputes over the scope of issues that should be considered in regulatory policy-making. The Multiple Streams Approach and Punctuated Equilibrium Theory explain how focusing events arising from these struggles opened “windows of opportunity” to put issues on the public policy agenda and force changes to oversight over time. For example, nongovernmental organizations had a prominent role in bringing legal challenges through federal courts or in raising attention to risk issues in the media—efforts that prompted advancements in federal regulations, guidance documents, or risk-mitigation practices for biotechnology oversight. These policy dynamics depended on public information to bring controversies to light and elicit a policy response. However, recent biotech regulations allow for gene-edited crops to enter the marketplace without requirements for public disclosure or tracking. Lack of transparency jeopardizes the public legitimacy of gene-edited crops, venues for public participation in biotechnology oversight, and ultimately responsiveness to adapt oversight to future biotech products and emerging risks. }, journal={SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2022}, month={Jun} }
 @article{merck_grieger_kuzma_2022, title={How can we promote the responsible innovation of nano-agrifood research?}, volume={137}, ISSN={["1873-6416"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.envsci.2022.08.027}, abstractNote={The use of nanotechnology and engineered nanomaterials in food and agriculture (nano-agrifoods) may provide numerous benefits to society. At the same time, there is also a chance that nano-agrifood innovations may pose new or unknown risks to human or environmental health and safety. To understand these issues and be more responsive to public concerns, researchers are beginning to discuss and adopt an emerging best practice in science and technology communities known as “responsible innovation” (RI). Originally developed by researchers over ten years ago, RI is now a well-established framework that is already a part of science policymaking in the European Union (as “responsible research and innovation”). In the United States, however, there are numerous structural and institutional barriers for scientists to align their research with RI principles and goals. This perspective briefly reviews RI, why it is needed for nano-agrifoods, and how it could be institutionalized more effectively in the U.S. to ensure that future nano-agrifood research is better aligned with societal needs, expectations, and concerns. This work also identifies several pathways to institutionalize RI in nano-agrifoods, ranging from a public legal mandate to privately enforced organizational norms. Further, a set of strategies and/or best practices for implementing RI in the U.S. context is presented that are applicable to both public and private organizations. While key findings from this work are focused on the need for RI of nano-agrifoods in the U.S., implementation of these best practices could have positive benefits for other emerging technologies and in other national contexts as well. • More attention to responsible innovation (RI) is needed for nano-agrifood research. • Pathways to institutionalize RI in U.S. nano-agrifood research are outlined. • Best practices to achieve RI include priority-setting, incentives, and monitoring. • Public-private cooperation can help promote RI in the U.S. context.}, journal={ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY}, author={Merck, Ashton W. and Grieger, Khara D. and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2022}, month={Nov}, pages={185–190} }
 @article{williams_kuzma_2022, title={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}, volume={2}, ISSN={["1749-4192"]}, DOI={10.1177/09520767211065609}, abstractNote={ This study utilizes the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) and cultural theory to examine the use of policy narratives by coalitions (meso-level) and the institutional uptake (macro-level). We analyze Parliamentary hearings about genetically modified (GM) salmon in Canada to associate narrative strategies with certain cultural worldviews and policy-stances. We explore narrative strategies used by cultural groups with regard to whether they contain the scope of GM salmon issues to “science-only” (direct health and environmental impacts) or expand the issues to “science-plus” (to include broader economic, social, or cultural impacts). Finally, we examine whether certain framings of GM salmon issues or specific cultural narratives are preferentially taken up in the final policy documents generated after the hearings. Our findings reveal significant relationships between policy-stance (pro-vs anti-GM), the cultural disposition of a policy narrative, the narrative strategies being used, and ultimately policy uptake. For example, narratives with hierarchical cultural dispositions were more likely to expand the scope of the issue to science-plus when supporting their own policy position (typically pro-GM) but contain the scope to “science-only” when refuting an anti-GM policy-stance. With regard to policy uptake, final government documents referred more to narratives that contained the scope to “science-only” and expressed hierarchical or individualistic dispositions in comparison to the hearings. This study has practical implications for understanding whose perspectives and arguments are legitimized in national policy debates about GM foods. It also extends NPF theory to how narratives containing specific cultural dispositions and risk-based framings influence policy uptake at the macro-level. }, journal={PUBLIC POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION}, author={Williams, Teshanee T. and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2022}, month={Feb} }
 @article{jordan_kuzma_ray_foot_snider_miller_wilensky-lanford_amarteifio_2022, title={Should Gene Editing Be Used to Develop Crops for Continuous-Living-Cover Agriculture? A Multi-Sector Stakeholder Assessment Using a Cooperative Governance Approach}, volume={10}, ISSN={["2296-4185"]}, DOI={10.3389/fbioe.2022.843093}, abstractNote={Continuous-living-cover (CLC) agriculture integrates multiple crops to create diversified agroecosystems in which soils are covered by living plants across time and space continuously. CLC agriculture can greatly improve production of many different ecosystem services from agroecosystems, including climate adaptation and mitigation. To go to scale, CLC agriculture requires crops that not only provide continuous living cover but are viable in economic and social terms. At present, lack of such viable crops is strongly limiting the scaling of CLC agriculture. Gene editing (GE) might provide a powerful tool for developing the crops needed to expand CLC agriculture to scale. To assess this possibility, a broad multi-sector deliberative group considered the merits of GE—relative to alternative plant-breeding methods—as means for improving crops for CLC agriculture. The group included many of the sectors whose support is necessary to scaling agricultural innovations, including actors involved in markets, finance, policy, and R&D. In this article, we report findings from interviews and deliberative workshops. Many in the group were enthusiastic about prospects for applications of GE to develop crops for CLC agriculture, relative to alternative plant-breeding options. However, the group noted many issues, risks, and contingencies, all of which are likely to require responsive and adaptive management. Conversely, if these issues, risks, and contingencies cannot be managed, it appears unlikely that a strong multi-sector base of support can be sustained for such applications, limiting their scaling. Emerging methods for responsible innovation and scaling have potential to manage these issues, risks, and contingencies; we propose that outcomes from GE crops for CLC agriculture are likely to be much improved if these emerging methods are used to govern such projects. However, both GE of CLC crops and responsible innovation and scaling are unrefined innovations. Therefore, we suggest that the best pathway for exploring GE of CLC crops is to intentionally couple implementation and refinement of both kinds of innovations. More broadly, we argue that such pilot projects are urgently needed to navigate intensifying grand challenges around food and agriculture, which are likely to create intense pressures to develop genetically-engineered agricultural products and equally intense social conflict.}, journal={FRONTIERS IN BIOENGINEERING AND BIOTECHNOLOGY}, author={Jordan, Nicholas R. and Kuzma, Jennifer and Ray, Deepak K. and Foot, Kirsten and Snider, Madison and Miller, Keith and Wilensky-Lanford, Ethan and Amarteifio, Gifty}, year={2022}, month={Feb} }
 @article{cummings_kuzma_kokotovich_glas_grieger_2021, title={Barriers to responsible innovation of nanotechnology applications in food and agriculture: A study of US experts and developers}, volume={23}, ISSN={["2452-0748"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.impact.2021.100326}, abstractNote={The use of nanotechnology and engineered nanomaterials in food and agriculture (nano-agrifood) sectors is intended to provide several potential benefits to consumers and society, such as the provision of more nutritious processed foods, edible food coatings to extend shelf lives of fresh cut produce, and more sustainable alternatives to traditional agrochemicals. The responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods may be particularly important to pursue given previous case studies involving other agrifood technologies that experienced significant public consternation. Here, we define responsible innovation following Stilgoej et al. (2013) that establishes processes to iteratively review and reflect upon one's innovation, engage stakeholders in dialogue, and to be open and transparent throughout innovation stages - processes that go beyond primary focuses of understanding environmental, health, and safety impacts of nano-enabled products and implementing safe-by-design principles. Despite calls for responsible nano-innovation across diverse sectors, it has not yet been clear what types of barriers are faced by nano-agrifood researchers and innovators in particular. This study therefore identifies and builds the first typology of barriers to responsible innovation as perceived by researchers and product developers working in nano-agrifood sectors in the United States. Our findings report 5 key barriers to responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods: Lack of Data (reported by 70% of all interview participants, and represented 34.6% of all barrier-related excerpts), Lack of Product Oversight (reported by 60% of participants, and represented 28.7% of excerpts), Need for Ensuring Marketability & Use (reported by 70% of participants, and represented 21.3% of all barrier-related excerpts), Need for Increased Collaboration (reported by 40% of participants, and represented 10.3% of excerpts), and finally Lack of Adequate Training & Workforce (reported by 30% of participants, and represented by 5.1% of excerpts). We also relate these key barriers across three main nano-innovation phases, including 1) Scientific and Technical R&D, 2) Product Oversight, and 3) Post-commercialization Marketability & Use, and discuss how these barriers may impact stakeholders as well as present opportunities to align with principles of responsible innovation. Overall, these findings may help illuminate challenges that researchers and innovators face in the pursuit of responsible innovation relevant for the field of nanotechnology with relevancy for other emerging food and agricultural technologies more broadly.}, journal={NANOIMPACT}, author={Cummings, Christopher L. and Kuzma, Jennifer and Kokotovich, Adam and Glas, David and Grieger, Khara}, year={2021}, month={Jul} }
 @article{kokotovich_kuzma_cummings_grieger_2021, title={Responsible Innovation Definitions, Practices, and Motivations from Nanotechnology Researchers in Food and Agriculture}, volume={15}, ISSN={1871-4757 1871-4765}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11569-021-00404-9}, DOI={10.1007/s11569-021-00404-9}, abstractNote={AbstractThe growth of responsible innovation (RI) scholarship has been mirrored by a proliferation of RI definitions and practices, as well as a recognition of the importance of context for RI. This study investigates how researchers in the field of nanotechnology for food and agriculture (nano-agrifoods) define and practice RI, as well as what motivations they see for pursuing RI. We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with nano-agrifood researchers from industry and academia in the USA, where we asked them to describe their RI definitions, practices, and motivations. We analyzed the emergent themes from these interviews, including how the themes aligned with four prominent RI principles (anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, responsiveness). We found that nano-agrifood researchers largely focused their descriptions of RI definitions, practices, and motivations around a narrow envisioning of the RI principle of anticipation — emphasizing product safety, efficacy, and efficiency. We also found noteworthy tensions surrounding the less frequently mentioned RI principles. For example, some researchers envisioned inclusion as a way to align products with industry interests while others saw it as a way to align products with the public good. Concerning motivations for RI, some researchers viewed RI as a way to protect one’s reputation and avoid lawsuits while others viewed it as a way to improve human well-being and solve societal problems. Given these findings, future efforts to foster RI within nano-agrifoods should promote discussions among researchers concerning what it means to responsibly innovate and what practices this could entail, particularly beyond ensuring product safety, efficacy, and efficiency.}, number={3}, journal={NanoEthics}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Kokotovich, Adam E. and Kuzma, Jennifer and Cummings, Christopher L. and Grieger, Khara}, year={2021}, month={Dec}, pages={229–243} }
 @article{grieger_merck_cuchiara_binder_kokotovich_cummings_kuzma_2021, title={Responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods: Insights and views from U.S. stakeholders}, volume={24}, ISSN={2452-0748}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2021.100365}, DOI={10.1016/j.impact.2021.100365}, abstractNote={To date, there has been little published work that has elicited diverse stakeholder views of nano-agrifoods and of how nano-agrifoods align with the goals of responsible innovation. This paper aims to fill this research gap by investigating views of nano-agrifoods, how well their development adheres to principles of responsible innovation, and potential challenges for achieving responsible nano-agrifood innovation. Using an online engagement platform, we find that U.S. stakeholder views of responsible innovation were dominated by environmental, health, and safety (EHS) contexts, considerations of societal impacts, opportunities for stakeholder engagement, and responding to societal needs. These views overlap with scholarly definitions of responsible innovation, albeit stakeholders were more focused on impacts of products, while the field of responsible innovation strives for more "upstream" considerations of the process of innovation. We also find that views of nano-agrifoods differed across applications with dietary supplements and improved whitening of infant formula viewed least favorably, and environmental health or food safety applications viewed most favorably. These findings align with the larger body of literature, whereby stakeholders are expected to be more supportive of nanotechnology used in agricultural applications compared to directly within food and food supplements. Overall, participants indicated they held relatively neutral views on research and innovation for nano-agrifoods being conducted responsibly, and they identified key challenges to ensuring their responsible innovation that were related to uncertainties in EHS studies, the need for public understanding and acceptance, and adequate regulation. In light of these results, we recommend future research efforts on EHS impacts and risk-benefit frameworks for nano-agrifoods, better understanding stakeholder views on what constitutes effective regulation, and addressing challenges with effective regulation and responsible innovation practices.}, journal={NanoImpact}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Grieger, Khara D. and Merck, Ashton W. and Cuchiara, Maude and Binder, Andrew R. and Kokotovich, Adam and Cummings, Christopher L. and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2021}, month={Oct}, pages={100365} }
 @article{community led governance for gene edited crops_2020, journal={Science}, year={2020}, month={Nov} }
 @article{kuzma_grieger_2020, title={Community-led governance for gene-edited crops A post-market certification process could promote transparency and trust}, volume={370}, ISSN={["1095-9203"]}, DOI={10.1126/science.abd1512}, abstractNote={A post–market certification process could promote transparency and trust}, number={6519}, journal={SCIENCE}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer and Grieger, Khara}, year={2020}, month={Nov}, pages={916–918} }
 @article{core committments for field trials of gene drive organisms_2020, journal={Science}, year={2020}, month={Dec} }
 @inbook{kuzma_2020, place={Cham, Switzerland}, title={Engineered Gene Drives: Ecological, environmental, and societal concerns}, booktitle={GMOs: Implications for Biodiversity Conservation and Ecological Processes}, publisher={Springer}, author={Kuzma, J.}, editor={Chaurasia, Anurag and Hawksworth, David L. and Pessoa de Miranda, ManoelaEditors}, year={2020} }
 @article{roberts_herkert_kuzma_2020, title={Responsible Innovation in Biotechnology: Stakeholder Attitudes and Implications for Research Policy}, volume={8}, ISSN={["2325-1026"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/elementa.446}, DOI={10.1525/elementa.446}, abstractNote={This article explores attitudes of stakeholders involved in biotechnology towards the Responsible Innovation (RI) framework. As a framework for governance, RI has received increasing scholarly attention but has yet to be successfully integrated into U.S. research and innovation policy. Using a mixed methods approach, we analyzed the attitudes of different biotechnology stakeholders, particularly those working in areas related to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture and the environment, towards the principles and practices of RI. Homogenous focus groups (organized by stakeholder affiliation) and pre- and post-focus group surveys were used to measure attitudes towards RI. We designed the survey questions according to the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and examined the agreement of stakeholders with policy core beliefs (general principles of RI) and secondary beliefs (implementation practices of RI). Although all stakeholder groups had neutral to positive attitudes towards RI general principles, we found significant differences in their reactions to the scholarly definitions of RI and in their attitudes towards practices to implement RI. In comparison to government and advocacy groups, stakeholders promoting biotechnology innovations–industry, trade organizations, and academics–had more negative reactions to social science definitions of RI and to RI practices that relinquish control to people outside of technology development pipelines. Qualitative analysis of focus-groups revealed barriers for implementing RI practices. For example, innovators were cynical about including external voices in innovation pathways due to inflexible funding programs and were concerned about potential delays to innovation given the highly competitive environments for financing and patents. In order to help address these tensions, we call for the co-design of RI practices between biotechnology innovators and other stakeholders. The opening-up of biotechnology innovation to RI practices of anticipation, inclusion, responsiveness and reflexivity will likely be important for future, public legitimacy of emerging genetic engineering applications such as gene editing and gene drives.}, number={1}, journal={Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene}, publisher={University of California Press}, author={Roberts, J.P. and Herkert, J. and Kuzma, J.}, editor={Iles, Alastair and Macnaghten, PhilipEditors}, year={2020}, month={Aug}, pages={47} }
 @article{valdez_kuzma_cummings_nils peterson_2019, title={Anticipating risks, governance needs, and public perceptions of de-extinction}, volume={6}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85063940651&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1080/23299460.2019.1591145}, abstractNote={Advances in biotechnology may allow for de-extinction. Potential impacts of de-extinct species remain uncertain; they may improve ecosystem function, or hinder conservation efforts and damage socio...}, number={2}, journal={Journal of Responsible Innovation}, author={Valdez, R.X. and Kuzma, J. and Cummings, C.L. and Nils Peterson, M.}, year={2019}, pages={211–231} }
 @article{grieger_jones_hansen_hendren_jensen_kuzma_baun_2019, title={Best practices from nano-risk analysis relevant for other emerging technologies}, volume={14}, ISSN={1748-3387 1748-3395}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41565-019-0572-1}, DOI={10.1038/s41565-019-0572-1}, abstractNote={The experiences gained from the past 15 years of nanomaterial risk analysis may be useful for the risk analysis efforts of other emerging technologies.}, number={11}, journal={Nature Nanotechnology}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Grieger, Khara and Jones, Jacob L. and Hansen, Steffen Foss and Hendren, Christine Ogilvie and Jensen, Keld Alstrup and Kuzma, Jennifer and Baun, Anders}, year={2019}, month={Nov}, pages={998–1001} }
 @misc{kuzma_2019, place={Raleigh, NC}, title={Biotechnology Oversight Gets an Early Make-Over by Trump’s White House and USDA: Part 1—The Executive Order}, url={https://research.ncsu.edu/ges/2019/06/ag-biotech-oversight-makeover-part-1-eo/}, journal={GES Blog}, publisher={Genetic Engineering and Society Center/North Carolina State University}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2019} }
 @misc{kuzma_2019, place={Raleigh, NC}, title={Biotechnology Oversight Gets an Early Make-Over by Trump’s White House and USDA: Part 2 – The USDA-APHIS Rule}, url={https://research.ncsu.edu/ges/2019/07/ag-biotech-oversight-makeover-part-2-usda-aphis-rule/}, journal={GES Blog}, publisher={Genetic Engineering and Society Center/North Carolina State University}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2019}, month={Jul} }
 @article{kuzma_2019, title={Procedurally Robust Risk Assessment Framework for Novel Genetically Engineered Organisms and Gene Drives}, volume={15}, ISSN={1748-5983 1748-5991}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rego.12245}, DOI={10.1111/rego.12245}, abstractNote={AbstractIn this article, a new framework for improving risk assessments of novel genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) is developed and applied. The Procedurally Robust Risk Assessment Framework (PRRAF) provides a set of principles and criteria for assessing and enhancing risk assessment protocols for GEOs under conditions of high uncertainty. The application of PRRAF is demonstrated using the case of a genetically engineered mosquito designed to kill its wild population and therefore decrease disease transmission. Assessments for regulatory approval of this genetically engineered insect fall short of several PPRAF criteria under the principles of humility, procedural validity, inclusion, anticipation, and reflexivity. With the emergence of GEOs designed to spread in ecosystems, such as those with gene drives, it will become increasingly important for regulatory agencies and technology developers to bolster their risk analysis methods and processes prior to field testing. PRRAF can be used as a flexible guide for doing so within a variety of institutional, regulatory, and governance contexts.}, number={4}, journal={Regulation & Governance}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2019}, month={Mar}, pages={1144–1165} }
 @book{trump_cummings_kuzma_linkov_2020, place={Cham, Switzerland}, series={Risk, Systems and Decisions}, title={Synthetic Biology 2020: Frontiers in Risk Analysis and Governance}, ISBN={9783030272630 9783030272647}, ISSN={2626-6717 2626-6725}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27264-7}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-030-27264-7}, abstractNote={This volume provides, in a single location, various international perspectives on the subject of synthetic biology practice in social and experimental sciences. Synthetic biology is an emerging field with substantial growth potential, yet equally challenging and uncertain risk.}, journal={Risk, Systems and Decisions}, publisher={Springer International Publishing}, year={2020}, collection={Risk, Systems and Decisions} }
 @article{trump_cummings_galaitsi_kuzma_linkov_2020, title={Synthetic Biology: Perspectives on Risk Analysis, Governance, Communication, and ELSI}, ISBN={["978-3-030-27263-0"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27264-7_1}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-030-27264-7_1}, abstractNote={Synthetic biology is a technology with incredible promise yet equally galling uncertainty. The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity defines synthetic biology as “biotechnology that combines science, technology, and engineering to facilitate and accelerate the understanding, design, redesign, manufacture, and/or modification of genetic materials, living organisms, and biological systems” (Convention of Biological Diversity). Synthetic biology can produce entirely new organisms, some of which may pose risks to naturally existing ecosystems. While humans have been selectively breeding plants and animals for millennia, synthetic biology and its enabling technologies allow combining genetic material from organisms that cannot procreate in nature and grant more deliberate and precise control over the selection of genetic processes.}, journal={SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY 2020: FRONTIERS IN RISK ANALYSIS AND GOVERNANCE}, author={Trump, Benjamin D. and Cummings, Christopher L. and Galaitsi, S. E. and Kuzma, Jennifer and Linkov, Igor}, year={2020}, pages={1–18} }
 @article{ndoh_cummings_kuzma_2020, title={The Role of Expert Disciplinary Cultures in Assessing Risks and Benefits of Synthetic Biology}, ISBN={["978-3-030-27263-0"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27264-7_15}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-030-27264-7_15}, abstractNote={Like other technological fields before it, synthetic biology (SB) has been ascribed different definitions by different scholars (Pauwels 2013; Smith 2013; Wang et al. 2013). One commonly used definition of SB is the extraction of living parts for organisms that are then inserted into other organisms to create a "new" organism with parts from the donor and recipient (Benner and Sismour 2005). Synthetic biology has also been described as "the use of computer assisted, biological engineering to design and construct new synthetic biological part" (Hoffman and Newman 2012). Others like the National Science Foundation and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council have noted that synthetic biology is the identification and application of biology in the design of biological parts and systems for use in the creation or redesign of natural biological systems for useful purposes (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council 2009).}, journal={SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY 2020: FRONTIERS IN RISK ANALYSIS AND GOVERNANCE}, author={Ndoh, Christina and Cummings, Christopher L. and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2020}, pages={351–370} }
 @article{kuzma_roberts_2018, title={Cataloguing the barriers facing RRI in innovation pathways: a response to the dilemma of societal alignment}, volume={5}, ISSN={["2329-9037"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85054195188&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1080/23299460.2018.1511329}, abstractNote={ABSTRACTRibeiro et al. (“Introducing the Dilemma of Societal Alignment for Inclusive and Responsible Research and Innovation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation. doi:10.1080/23299460.2018.1495033) ...}, number={3}, journal={JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer and Roberts, Pat}, year={2018}, pages={338–346} }
 @article{linkov_trump_anklam_berube_boisseasu_cummings_ferson_florin_goldstein_hristozov_et al._2018, title={Comparative, collaborative, and integrative risk governance for emerging technologies}, volume={38}, ISSN={2194-5403 2194-5411}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-018-9686-5}, DOI={10.1007/s10669-018-9686-5}, abstractNote={Various emerging technologies challenge existing governance processes to identify, assess, and manage risk. Though the existing risk-based paradigm has been essential for assessment of many chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear technologies, a complementary approach may be warranted for the early-stage assessment and management challenges of high uncertainty technologies ranging from nanotechnology to synthetic biology to artificial intelligence, among many others. This paper argues for a risk governance approach that integrates quantitative experimental information alongside qualitative expert insight to characterize and balance the risks, benefits, costs, and societal implications of emerging technologies. Various articles in scholarly literature have highlighted differing points of how to address technological uncertainty, and this article builds upon such knowledge to explain how an emerging technology risk governance process should be driven by a multi-stakeholder effort, incorporate various disparate sources of information, review various endpoints and outcomes, and comparatively assess emerging technology performance against existing conventional products in a given application area. At least in the early stages of development when quantitative data for risk assessment remain incomplete or limited, such an approach can be valuable for policymakers and decision makers to evaluate the impact that such technologies may have upon human and environmental health.}, number={2}, journal={Environment Systems and Decisions}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Linkov, Igor and Trump, Benjamin D. and Anklam, Elke and Berube, David and Boisseasu, Patrick and Cummings, Christopher and Ferson, Scott and Florin, Marie-Valentine and Goldstein, Bernard and Hristozov, Danail and et al.}, year={2018}, month={May}, pages={170–176} }
 @article{kofler_collins_kuzma_marris_esvelt_nelson_newhouse_rothschild_vigliotti_semenov_et al._2018, title={Editing nature: Local roots of global governance}, volume={362}, ISSN={0036-8075 1095-9203}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aat4612}, DOI={10.1126/science.aat4612}, abstractNote={Environmental gene editing demands collective oversight}, number={6414}, journal={Science}, publisher={American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)}, author={Kofler, Natalie and Collins, James P. and Kuzma, Jennifer and Marris, Emma and Esvelt, Kevin and Nelson, Michael Paul and Newhouse, Andrew and Rothschild, Lynn J. and Vigliotti, Vivian S. and Semenov, Misha and et al.}, year={2018}, month={Nov}, pages={527–529} }
 @book{bogdanove_donovan_elorriaga_kuzma_pauwels_strauss_voytas_2018, title={Genome Editing in Agriculture—Methods, Applications, and Governance}, number={60}, institution={Council on Agriculture Science and Technology}, author={Bogdanove, A. and Donovan, D.M. and Elorriaga, E. and Kuzma, J. and Pauwels, K. and Strauss, S and Voytas, D.M.}, year={2018}, month={Jun} }
 @article{kuzma_2018, title={Regulating Gene-edited Crops}, volume={35}, url={https://www.jstor.org/stable/26594291?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents}, DOI={10.2307/26594291.}, note={Accessed March 23,}, number={1}, journal={Issues in Science and Technology}, author={Kuzma, J.E.N.N.I.F.E.R.}, year={2018}, month={Mar}, pages={80–85} }
 @misc{kuzma_2018, place={Ottawa, Ontario, Canada}, title={Space for the Social Sciences in Engineering Biology}, url={http://issp.uottawa.ca/en/news/space-social-sciences-engineering-biology}, journal={Institute for Science, Society and Policy Blog}, publisher={University of Ottawa}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2018}, month={Mar} }
 @article{gould_brown_kuzma_2018, title={Wicked evolution: Can we address the sociobiological dilemma of pesticide resistance?}, volume={360}, ISSN={0036-8075 1095-9203}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aar3780}, DOI={10.1126/science.aar3780}, abstractNote={Resistance to insecticides and herbicides has cost billions of U.S. dollars in the agricultural sector and could result in millions of lives lost to insect-vectored diseases. We mostly continue to use pesticides as if resistance is a temporary issue that will be addressed by commercialization of new pesticides with novel modes of action. However, current evidence suggests that insect and weed evolution may outstrip our ability to replace outmoded chemicals and other control mechanisms. To avoid this outcome, we must address the mix of ecological, genetic, economic, and sociopolitical factors that prevent implementation of sustainable pest management practices. We offer an ambitious proposition.}, number={6390}, journal={Science}, publisher={American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)}, author={Gould, Fred and Brown, Zachary S. and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2018}, month={May}, pages={728–732} }
 @article{delborne_kuzma_gould_frow_leitschuh_sudweeks_2018, title={‘Mapping research and governance needs for gene drives’}, volume={5}, ISSN={2329-9460 2329-9037}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1419413}, DOI={10.1080/23299460.2017.1419413}, abstractNote={‘Mapping research and governance needs for gene drives’ Jason Delborne, Jennifer Kuzma, Fred Gould, Emma Frow, Caroline Leitschuh & Jayce Sudweeks To cite this article: Jason Delborne, Jennifer Kuzma, Fred Gould, Emma Frow, Caroline Leitschuh & Jayce Sudweeks (2018): ‘Mapping research and governance needs for gene drives’, Journal of Responsible Innovation, DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2017.1419413 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1419413}, number={sup1}, journal={Journal of Responsible Innovation}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Delborne, Jason and Kuzma, Jennifer and Gould, Fred and Frow, Emma and Leitschuh, Caroline and Sudweeks, Jayce}, year={2018}, month={Jan}, pages={S4–S12} }
 @article{jordan_dorn_smith_wolf_ewing_fernandez_runck_williams_lu_kuzma_et al._2017, title={A cooperative governance network for crop genome editing}, volume={18}, ISSN={["1469-3178"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85030029022&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.15252/embr.201744394}, abstractNote={Emerging biotechnologies, such as genome editing, may revolutionize agricultural development through rapid and precise genetic manipulation of a wide range of crop traits without having to transfer foreign DNA [1]. If so, these new genetic‐engineering (GE) technologies can help to generate crop varieties to address critical challenges in agricultural development, such as climate resilience or nutrient uptake, or diet‐related problems in nutrition and health in poorer countries. However, society must also be protected from potential harmful effects of genetically manipulated crops on the environment, human health, or social welfare. Governance of these crops must therefore balance agricultural developments with risk assessment and prevention of potential harm.

> …genome editing is being used to improve the characteristics of major crop plants, but the governance of crop genome editing is poorly defined and developed

Presently, genome editing is being used to improve the characteristics of major crop plants, but the governance of crop genome editing is poorly defined and developed. Influential groups concerned with the potential hazards of such crops view this situation with growing alarm, which has created tensions with the academic community and regulatory agencies [2]. Both the USA and the European Commission are currently reviewing the governance of crops produced by genome editing and other new technologies. On the US side, at least, the review process appears unlikely to result in governance approaches that will satisfy parties that are concerned with either over‐ or under‐regulation of such crops, and tension and conflicts about them are likely to heighten.

We propose an alternative approach for governance of these crops that may help to defuse tensions and enable exploration of genome editing technologies’ potential while protecting society from harm: a cooperative governance network. Such networks have performed well in …}, number={10}, journal={EMBO REPORTS}, author={Jordan, N.R. and Dorn, K.M. and Smith, T.M. and Wolf, K.E. and Ewing, P.M. and Fernandez, A.L. and Runck, B.C. and Williams, A. and Lu, Y. and Kuzma, Jennifer and et al.}, year={2017}, month={Oct}, pages={1683–1687} }
 @article{trump_cummings_kuzma_linkov_2018, title={A decision analytic model to guide early-stage government regulatory action: Applications for synthetic biology}, volume={12}, ISSN={["1748-5991"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85013754176&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/rego.12142}, abstractNote={AbstractSynthetic biology (SB) involves the alteration of living cells and biomolecules for specific purposes. Products developed using these approaches could have significant societal benefits, but also pose uncertain risks to human and environmental health. Policymakers currently face decisions regarding how stringently to regulate and monitor various SB applications. This is a complex task, in which policymakers must balance uncertain economic, political, social, and health‐related decision factors associated with SB use. We argue that formal decision analytical tools could serve as a method to integrate available evidence‐based information and expert judgment on the impacts associated with SB innovations, synthesize that information into quantitative indicators, and serve as the first step toward guiding governance of these emerging technologies. For this paper, we apply multi‐criteria decision analysis to a specific case of SB, a micro‐robot based on biological cells called “cyberplasm.” We use data from a Delphi study to assess cyberplasm governance options and demonstrate how such decision tools may be used for assessments of SB oversight.}, number={1}, journal={REGULATION & GOVERNANCE}, author={Trump, Benjamin and Cummings, Christopher and Kuzma, Jennifer and Linkov, Igor}, year={2018}, month={Mar}, pages={88–100} }
 @article{kuzma_gould_brown_collins_delborne_frow_esvelt_guston_leitschuh_oye_et al._2018, title={A roadmap for gene drives: using institutional analysis and development to frame research needs and governance in a systems context}, volume={5}, ISSN={2329-9460 2329-9037}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1410344}, DOI={10.1080/23299460.2017.1410344}, abstractNote={ABSTRACTThe deployment of gene drives is emerging as an alternative for protecting endangered species, controlling agricultural pests, and reducing vector-borne diseases. This paper reports on a workshop held in February 2016 to explore the complex intersection of political, economic, ethical, and ecological risk issues associated with gene drives. Workshop participants were encouraged to use systems thinking and mapping to describe the connections among social, policy, economic, and ecological variables as they intersect within governance systems. In this paper, we analyze the workshop transcripts and maps using the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework to categorize variables associated with gene drive governance and account for the complexities of socio-ecological systems. We discuss how the IAD framework can be used in the future to test hypotheses about how features of governance systems might lead to certain outcomes and inform the design of research programs, public engagement, and...}, number={S1}, journal={Journal of Responsible Innovation}, publisher={Taylor & Francis}, author={Kuzma, J. and Gould, F. and Brown, Z. and Collins, J. and Delborne, J. and Frow, E. and Esvelt, K. and Guston, D. and Leitschuh, C. and Oye, K. and et al.}, year={2018}, pages={S13–S39} }
 @inproceedings{herkert_kuzma_roberts_banks_stauffer_2017, title={Ethics and responsible innovation in biotechnology communities: A pedagogy of engaged scholarship}, volume={2017-June}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85030554888&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, booktitle={ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings}, author={Herkert, J.R. and Kuzma, J. and Roberts, J.P. and Banks, E. and Stauffer, S.A.}, year={2017} }
 @article{kuzma_2017, title={Forum: Biosecurity Governance for a Realistic New World}, volume={33}, number={2}, journal={Issues in Science and Technology}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2017} }
 @misc{kuzma_2017, place={Raleigh, NC}, title={Politics “Trumps” Science in the Regulation of Genetically Engineered Crops}, url={https://research.ncsu.edu/ges/2017/11/politics-trumps-science-regulation-genetically-engineered-crops/}, journal={GES Center Blog}, publisher={Genetic Engineering and Society Center/North Carolina State University}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2017}, month={Nov} }
 @book{murray_amasino_bradbury_evans_evans_isaacs_krebs_kuzma_maxon_medina_et al._2017, place={Washington DC}, title={Preparing for the Future Products of Biotechnology}, ISBN={9780309452052}, DOI={10.17226/24605}, abstractNote={Between 1973 and 2016, the ways to manipulate DNA to endow new characteristics in an organism (that is, biotechnology) have advanced, enabling the development of products that were not previously possible. What will the likely future products of biotechnology be over the next 5–10 years? What scientific capabilities, tools, and/or expertise may be needed by the regulatory agencies to ensure they make efficient and sound evaluations of the likely future products of biotechnology? Preparing for Future Products of Biotechnology analyzes the future landscape of biotechnology products and seeks to inform forthcoming policy making. This report identifies potential new risks and frameworks for risk assessment and areas in which the risks or lack of risks relating to the products of biotechnology are well understood.}, publisher={National Academies Press}, author={Murray, R. and Amasino, R. and Bradbury, S. and Evans, B. and Evans, S. and Isaacs, Farren and Krebs, M. and Kuzma, J. and Maxon, M and Medina, R and et al.}, year={2017} }
 @article{meghani_kuzma_2018, title={Regulating animals with gene drive systems: lessons from the regulatory assessment of a genetically engineered mosquito}, volume={5}, ISSN={["2329-9037"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85045068987&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1080/23299460.2017.1407912}, abstractNote={ABSTRACTFor the purposes of conservation or suppression of species, gene drive technology has significant potential. Theoretically speaking, with the release of even relatively few animals with gene drive systems in an ecosystem, beneficial or harmful genes could be introduced into the entire wild-type population of that species. Given the profound impact that gene drives could have on species and ecosystems, their use is a highly contentious issue. Communities and groups have differing beliefs about nature and its conservation or preservation, as well as concerns about the ecological safety of the eradication, replacement or enhancement of particular species of animals by means of genetic engineering. For all those reasons, the rigorous regulation of insects and other animals with gene drive systems is crucial. In this paper, we consider the question of whether the United States Food and Drug Administration is prepared to effectively regulate insects and other animals with gene drives.}, journal={JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION}, author={Meghani, Zahra and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2018}, pages={S203–S222} }
 @misc{kuzma_2017, title={Rethinking biosecurity}, volume={33}, number={2}, journal={Issues in Science and Technology}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2017}, pages={12–12} }
 @inbook{kuzma_2017, place={Cmabridge, MA}, edition={2nd}, title={Risk, Environmental Governance, and Emerging Biotechnology}, url={https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/environmental-governance-reconsidered-0}, booktitle={Environmental Governance Reconsidered: Challenges, Choices, and Opportunities}, publisher={MIT Press}, author={Kuzma, J.}, editor={Durant, R. and Fiorino, D.J. and O'Leary, R.Editors}, year={2017} }
 @article{cummings_kuzma_2017, title={Societal Risk Evaluation Scheme (SRES): Scenario-Based Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Synthetic Biology Applications}, volume={12}, ISSN={["1932-6203"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85008354426&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1371/journal.pone.0168564}, abstractNote={Synthetic biology (SB) applies engineering principles to biology for the construction of novel biological systems designed for useful purposes. From an oversight perspective, SB products come with significant uncertainty. Yet there is a need to anticipate and prepare for SB applications before deployment. This study develops a Societal Risk Evaluation Scheme (SRES) in order to advance methods for anticipatory governance of emerging technologies such as SB. The SRES is based upon societal risk factors that were identified as important through a policy Delphi study. These factors range from those associated with traditional risk assessment, such as health and environmental consequences, to broader features of risk such as those associated with reversibility, manageability, anticipated levels of public concern, and uncertainty. A multi-disciplinary panel with diverse perspectives and affiliations assessed four case studies of SB using the SRES. Rankings of the SRES components are compared within and across the case studies. From these comparisons, we found levels of controllability and familiarity associated with the cases to be important for overall SRES rankings. From a theoretical standpoint, this study illustrates the applicability of the psychometric paradigm to evaluating SB cases. In addition, our paper describes how the SRES can be incorporated into anticipatory governance models as a screening tool to prioritize research, information collection, and dialogue in the face of the limited capacity of governance systems. To our knowledge, this is the first study to elicit data on specific cases of SB with the goal of developing theory and tools for risk governance.}, number={1}, journal={PLOS ONE}, author={Cummings, Christopher L. and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2017}, month={Jan} }
 @inbook{kuzma_2017, title={Society and policy maker’s responsibilities}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85034015085&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-319-50530-5_29}, booktitle={Consumer Perception of Product Risks and Benefits}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2017}, pages={547–566} }
 @article{kuzma_2017, title={Trails and Trials in Biotechnology Policy}, ISBN={["978-3-319-52200-5"]}, ISSN={["2509-6427"]}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-319-52201-2_6}, abstractNote={In this chapter, I reflect on my transition from natural science work in biochemistry and biotechnology to becoming a professor in the social and policy sciences. I discuss how I’ve viewed biotechnology policy from standpoints of ethics and philosophy, biochemistry and molecular biology, risk analysis, science and technology policy, and the social sciences. The “trails” of each period of this career have informed my recent work on the policy “trials” or controversies surrounding governance of emerging technologies, including agricultural biotechnology. At this critical juncture of enormous advances in biotechnology (e.g. synthetic biology, gene editing, and gene drives), I end the chapter with a plea for each of us to recognize our own biases and respect the viewpoints of others. I hope to see the current biotechnology revolution shaped by many different viewpoints, so it is done in the best interest of all of society. Only then will we be able to move past the inflamed and divisive rhetoric and enable safe, responsible, socially-desirable and appropriate use of genetic engineering.}, journal={WOMEN IN SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY: KEY ADVANCES AND PERSPECTIVES ON EMERGING TOPICS}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2017}, pages={85–96} }
 @article{kuzma_2016, title={A missed opportunity for US biotechnology regulation}, volume={353}, ISSN={["1095-9203"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84988383003&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1126/science.aai7854}, abstractNote={Policy options for change were not on the table}, number={6305}, journal={SCIENCE}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2016}, month={Sep}, pages={1211–1213} }
 @book{kuzma_2016, title={As technology advances, how do we avoid losing touch with our values?}, url={https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/technology-how-do-we-avoid-losing-values/}, journal={World Economic Forum}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2016} }
 @article{kuzma_kokotovich_kuzhabekova_2016, title={Attitudes towards governance of gene editing}, volume={18}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85026651835&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, number={1}, journal={Asian Biotechnology and Development Review}, author={Kuzma, J. and Kokotovich, A. and Kuzhabekova, A.}, year={2016}, pages={69–92} }
 @article{kuzma_rawls_2016, title={Engineering the Wild: Gene Drives and Intergenerational Equity}, volume={56}, number={3}, journal={Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science and Technology}, author={Kuzma, J. and Rawls, L.}, year={2016}, pages={279–296} }
 @book{kuzma_2016, title={Future Generations and Gene Drives: the Importance of Intergenerational Equity}, url={https://www.humansandnature.org/future-generations-and-gene-drives}, journal={Questions for a Resilient Future: Center for Humans and Nature}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2016} }
 @article{kuzma_roberts_2016, title={Is adaptation or transformation needed? Active nanomaterials and risk analysis}, volume={18}, ISSN={["1572-896X"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84979993804&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/s11051-016-3506-y}, number={7}, journal={JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer and Roberts, John Patrick}, year={2016}, month={Jul} }
 @article{kuzma_2016, title={New genetic engineering is slipping past old regulations}, journal={Aeon magazine}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2016}, month={May} }
 @article{kuzma_2016, title={Reboot the debate on genetic engineerin}, volume={531}, ISSN={["1476-4687"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84961761141&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1038/531165a}, abstractNote={Arguments about whether process or product should be the focus of regulation are stalling progress, says Jennifer Kuzma.}, number={7593}, journal={NATURE}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2016}, month={Mar}, pages={165–167} }
 @article{brown_fatehi_kuzma_2015, title={Altruism and skepticism in public attitudes toward food nanotechnologies}, volume={17}, ISSN={["1572-896X"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84924352521&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/s11051-015-2926-4}, number={3}, journal={JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH}, author={Brown, J. and Fatehi, L. and Kuzma, J.}, year={2015}, month={Mar} }
 @book{sears_stauffer_kuzma_2015, title={Deextinction}, number={#2015.1}, author={Sears, K. and Stauffer, S, and Kuzma, J.}, year={2015} }
 @article{carnevale_jaffe_park_stacey_luterbacher_kuzma_christ_johnson_2015, title={Forum}, volume={32}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85020049912&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, number={1}, journal={Issues in Science and Technology}, author={Carnevale, A.P. and Jaffe, G. and Park, J. and Stacey, W.M. and Luterbacher, U. and Kuzma, J. and Christ, C. and Johnson, A.T.}, year={2015}, pages={5–12} }
 @article{yue_zhao_cummings_kuzma_2015, title={Investigating factors influencing consumer willingness to buy GM food and nano-food}, volume={17}, ISSN={["1572-896X"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84934298160&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/s11051-015-3084-4}, abstractNote={Emerging technologies applied to food products often evoke controversy about their safety and whether to label foods resulting from their use. As such, it is important to understand the factors that influence consumer desires for labeling and their willingness-to-buy (WTB) these food products. Using data from a national survey with US consumers, this study employs structural equation modeling to explore relationships between potential influences such as trust in government to manage technologies, views on restrictive government policies, perceptions about risks and benefits, and preferences for labeling on consumer's WTB genetically modified (GM) and nano-food products. Some interesting similarities and differences between GM- and nano-food emerged. For both technologies, trust in governing agencies to manage technologies did not influence labeling preferences, but it did influence attitudes about the food technologies themselves. Attitudes toward the two technologies, as measured by risk–benefit comparisons and comfort with consumption, also greatly influenced views of government restrictive policies, labeling preferences, and WTB GM or nano-food products. For differences, labeling preferences were found to influence WTB nano-foods, but not WTB GM foods. Gender and religiosity also had varying effects on WTB and labeling preferences: while gender and religiosity influenced labeling preferences and WTB for GM foods, they did not have a significant influence for nano-foods. We propose some reasons for these differences, such as greater media attention and other heuristics such as value-based concerns about "modifying life" with GM foods. The results of this study can help to inform policies and communication about the application of these new technologies in food products.}, number={7}, journal={JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH}, author={Yue, Chengyan and Zhao, Shuoli and Cummings, Christopher and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2015}, month={Jul} }
 @book{siplon_herring_kuzma_delborne_2015, place={Durham, NC}, title={SynBio 101 Screenplay Draft}, institution={Museum of Life and Science}, author={Siplon, G. and Herring, B. and Kuzma, J. and Delborne, J.}, year={2015} }
 @book{roberts_stauffer_cummings_kuzma_2015, title={Synthetic Biology Governance: Delphi Study Workshop Report}, url={research.ncsu.edu/ges}, number={#2015.2}, author={Roberts, J.P. and Stauffer, S. and Cummings, C and Kuzma, J.}, year={2015} }
 @article{kuzma_2015, title={Technology governance alternatives}, volume={32}, number={1}, journal={Issues in Science and Technology}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2015}, pages={10–11} }
 @misc{kuzma_2015, title={Technology governance alternatives}, volume={32}, number={1}, journal={Issues in Science and Technology}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2015}, pages={10–11} }
 @article{kuzma_roberts_2015, place={Washington DC}, title={Transformation or Adaptation: Active Nanomaterials and Risk Governance. Workshop paper for “Next Generation Nano Governance}, journal={American Chemical Society, CNS-ASU, and Notre Dame NSF funded workshop}, author={Kuzma, J and Roberts, J.P.}, year={2015}, month={Oct} }
 @article{kuzma_2015, title={Translational governance research for synthetic biology}, volume={2}, ISSN={["2329-9037"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85045039599&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1080/23299460.2014.1002055}, abstractNote={This article argues that ethical, legal, and societal implications research on synthetic biology should inform the processes and methods for the design and implementation of governance systems, as well as the policy and technological choices made within them. Historically, this type of work has fallen in the gap between practical policy-making and basic social science or humanities research. Little of it has been funded, yet it is one of the most critical areas for scholarly contributions to how technologies are formed and overseen in society. In this article, key areas for ‘translational governance research’ are proposed alongside foundations for integrating its results and methods into decision-making.}, number={1}, journal={JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2015}, pages={109–112} }
 @article{evans_jasanoff_calvert_delborne_doubleday_frow_funtowicz_green_guston_hurlburt_et al._2014, title={CORRESPONDENCE: Synthetic biology: Missing the point}, volume={510}, ISSN={0028-0836 1476-4687}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/510218b}, DOI={10.1038/510218b}, number={7504}, journal={Nature}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Evans, S.W. and Jasanoff, S. and Calvert, J. and Delborne, J. and Doubleday, R. and Frow, E. and Funtowicz, S. and Green, B. and Guston, D.H. and Hurlburt, B. and et al.}, year={2014}, month={Jun}, pages={218} }
 @article{kokotovich_kuzma_2014, title={Conflicting Futures}, volume={34}, ISSN={0270-4676 1552-4183}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0270467614565695}, DOI={10.1177/0270467614565695}, abstractNote={ Novel targeted genetic modification (TagMo) techniques for plants have the potential to increase the speed and ease of genetic modification and fall outside existing regulatory authority. We conducted 31 interviews with expert-stakeholders to explore the differing visions they have for the future of plant TagMo environmental regulation. To guide our analysis we review the tenets of anticipatory governance in light of future studies literature on emerging technology, focusing on how to contribute to reflexivity by making explicit the assumptions within envisioned futures. Our findings reveal that the environmental regulation futures articulated by expert-stakeholders could be classified into three categories—optimistic, pragmatic, and critical—based on their differing underlying assumptions concerning what constitutes environmental risk and the adequacy of existing U.S. genetically modified plant regulations. By gathering these diverse perspectives on the future and studying how they differ, we hope to further the anticipatory governance-informed engagement with regulation and foster a more productive discussion of plant TagMo regulation. }, number={3-4}, journal={Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Kokotovich, Adam and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2014}, month={Jun}, pages={108–120} }
 @article{yue_zhao_kuzma_2015, title={Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences for Nanotechnology and Genetic-modification Technology in Food Products}, volume={66}, ISSN={["1477-9552"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84928198403&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/1477-9552.12090}, abstractNote={AbstractThis study investigates heterogeneous consumer preferences for nanofood and genetically‐modified (GM) food and the associated benefits using the results of choice experiments with 1,117 US consumers. We employ a latent class logit model to capture the heterogeneity in consumer preferences by identifying consumer segments. Our results show that nano‐food evokes fewer negative reactions compared with GM food. We identify four consumer groups: ‘Price Oriented/Technology Adopters’, ‘Technology Averse’, ‘Benefit Oriented’, and ‘New Technology Rejecters’. Each consumer group has a distinctive demographic background, which generates deeper insights into the diversified public acceptance of nano‐food and GM food. Our results have policy implications for the adoption of new food technologies.}, number={2}, journal={JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS}, author={Yue, Chengyan and Zhao, Shuoli and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2015}, month={Jun}, pages={308–328} }
 @inproceedings{kuzma_2014, title={Translational risk governance research}, booktitle={Workshop on Research Agenda in the Societal Aspects of Synthetic Biology}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2014} }
 @article{korslund_stephenson_victor_laird_kuzma_2013, title={Consumer knowledge of genetically engineered organisms (GEOs)}, volume={3}, number={1}, journal={Journal of Science Policy and Governance}, author={Korslund, K. and Stephenson, S. and Victor, A. and Laird, A. and Kuzma, J.}, year={2013}, pages={1–39} }
 @article{kuzma_2013, title={Envisioning future governance of the bioeconomy}, volume={30}, number={3}, journal={The Environmental Forum}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2013} }
 @book{korslund_victor_brown_kuzma_2013, title={Examining the Oversight Challenges of Plant TagMo}, institution={University of Minnesota}, author={Korslund, K. and Victor, A. and Brown, J. and Kuzma, J.}, year={2013} }
 @article{gilna_kuzma_otts_2014, title={Governance of genetic biocontrol technologies for invasive fish}, volume={16}, ISSN={["1573-1464"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84900002278&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/s10530-012-0367-x}, number={6}, journal={BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS}, author={Gilna, Ben and Kuzma, Jennifer and Otts, Stephanie Showalter}, year={2014}, month={Jun}, pages={1299–1312} }
 @article{brown_kuzma_2013, title={Hungry for Information: Public Attitudes Toward Food Nanotechnology and Labeling}, volume={30}, ISSN={["1541-1338"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84885699460&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/ropr.12035}, abstractNote={AbstractWhat people think about food nanotechnology (nanofood) is under‐explored in the United States, especially outside of quantitative surveys. As such, we set out to examine public attitudes toward food nanotechnology in conversational, focus group settings in order to identify policy options for nanofood governance, and in particular, options for labeling. Through analysis of focus groups in six U.S. locations, we found that the vast majority of the participants wanted nanotechnology labels for all types of food products, and most were willing to pay a premium for labeling. Participants cited abilities to choose and avoid potential risk as the main purposes of nanofood labels. However, they recognized that labels alone do not provide much meaning and that information concerning food nanotechnology products needs to be sought and supplied beyond the label to enable informed choices. Additionally, willingness‐to‐use and risk–benefit perceptions varied according to the position and intended functions of the nanomaterials in food products.}, number={5}, journal={REVIEW OF POLICY RESEARCH}, author={Brown, Jonathan and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2013}, month={Sep}, pages={512–548} }
 @article{haase_bielicki_kuzma_2013, title={Innovation in emerging energy technologies: A case study analysis to inform the path forward for algal biofuels}, volume={61}, ISSN={["1873-6777"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84881664527&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.029}, abstractNote={Algal biofuel is an emerging energy source that has the potential to improve upon the environmental benefits realized by conventional biofuels and contribute to the biofuels mandate set by the Renewable Fuel Standard.While there has been much research into producing fuel from algae, a commercial operation has not yet been built.This paper examines theoretical models of innovation and two case studies of innovation in energy technologies in the United States, first generation biodiesel and solar photovoltaics (PV), using a technological innovation system (TIS) framework to provide relevant lessons and inform the path forward for commercializing algal biofuel.The case study analysis identified five event types as being the most influential to the innovation process: changing expectations, technology development, demonstration projects, policy targets, and government subsidies.There have been some demonstration projects for algal biofuel, and it does fall under the mandates laid out by the Renewable Fuel Standard (a policy target) but currently does not receive production subsidies.If societal expectations and national priorities regarding fuel and energy sources are aligned with the potential benefits of algal biofuels, providing subsidies for algal biofuel production could significantly contribute to advancing its commercialization process.The main finding from the case study analysis is that government interventions had a high level of influence in the innovation processes of first generation biodiesel and solar PV and will likely also be key factors in the commercialization of algal biofuel.The feasibility of these interventions is an area for future study.}, journal={ENERGY POLICY}, author={Haase, Rachel and Bielicki, Jeffrey and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2013}, month={Oct}, pages={1595–1607} }
 @article{kuzhabekova_kuzma_2014, title={Mapping the emerging field of genome editing}, volume={26}, ISSN={["1465-3990"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84893932064&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1080/09537325.2013.850657}, abstractNote={Targeted genetic modification (TagMo) technologies are being used for new approaches to genetic engineering often called ‘genome editing’. These approaches are in the early stages of development, and basic understandings of what TagMo is, of its likely future, and how it should be governed are still being established. In order to inform these discussions and increase their transparency, we map the scientific landscape of TagMo using advances in tech mining and bibliometrics and in consultation with experts in the field. We assess the sub-topics and disciplines associated with TagMo research, and the actors, institutions, and nations involved, while making observations about the funding of research and the collaborative patterns among actors. The technology assessment approach used in this article has important implications for anticipatory governance of TagMo plant products. It is designed to help scientists, managers, and policy-makers understand trends in TagMo technological development in order to prepare for future governance.}, number={3}, journal={TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT}, author={Kuzhabekova, Aliya and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2014}, month={Mar}, pages={321–352} }
 @inbook{kuzma_2013, title={Properly paced? Examining the past and present governance of GMOS in the United States}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85032162691&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.4337/9781782545644.00016}, abstractNote={Emerging technologies create challenges for traditional regulatory approaches. The contributors to this book – leading scholars in law, innovation, and technology – address the need for new governance methods and models.}, booktitle={Innovative Governance Models for Emerging Technologies}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2013}, pages={176–197} }
 @article{kuzma_2013, title={Should Citizens Have a Say About Emerging Technologies?}, url={https://scholars.org/contribution/should-citizens-have-say-about-emerging-technologies}, journal={Scholar’s Strategy Network, Policy Brief}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2013} }
 @book{victor_fatehi_kuzma_2013, title={Social Robotics and Governance Challenges}, institution={University of Minnesota Initiative on Governance and Emerging Technological Systems}, author={Victor, A. and Fatehi, L and Kuzma, J.}, year={2013} }
 @book{flint_heidel_loss_osborne_prescott_smith_kuzma_andow_2012, place={Montreal}, title={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}, url={http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/cpb_technicalseries/cpb-ts-02-en.pdf}, institution={Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity}, author={Flint, Shelby and Heidel, Thelma and Loss, Scott and Osborne, Jacob and Prescott, Kristina and Smith, David and Kuzma, Jennifer and Andow, Dave}, year={2012} }
 @book{dunens_haase_kuzma_quick_2012, place={Minneapolis, MN}, title={Facing the Emerald Ash Borer in Minnesota}, institution={Stakeholder Public Dialogue, Humphrey School of Public Affairs}, author={Dunens, E. and Haase, R. and Kuzma, J. and Quick, K.}, year={2012}, month={Apr} }
 @book{kuzma_haase_2012, title={Genetically Modified Foods: Policy Context and Safety}, number={1}, institution={Food Policy Research Center}, author={Kuzma, J. and Haase, R.}, year={2012} }
 @inbook{fatehi_kuzma_2012, title={Policy Innovation in Synthetic Biology Governance}, booktitle={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}, publisher={Tucson, AZ: Institute on Science for Global Policy (ISGP),}, author={Fatehi, L. and Kuzma, J.}, year={2012} }
 @article{kuzma_2011, title={Allhoff, Fritz, Patrick Lin, and Daniel Moore. 2010. What is nanotechnology and why does it matter? From science to ethics}, volume={8}, ISSN={["1176-7529"]}, DOI={10.1007/s11673-011-9289-z}, number={2}, journal={JOURNAL OF BIOETHICAL INQUIRY}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2011}, month={Jun}, pages={209–211} }
 @article{kuzma_kuzhabekova_2011, title={Corporate social responsibility for nanotechnology oversight}, volume={14}, ISSN={["1572-8633"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-80053920526&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/s11019-011-9330-3}, abstractNote={Growing public concern and uncertainties surrounding emerging technologies suggest the need for socially-responsible behavior of companies in the development and implementation of oversight systems for them. In this paper, we argue that corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an important aspect of nanotechnology oversight given the role of trust in shaping public attitudes about nanotechnology and the lack of data about the health and environmental risks of nanoproducts. We argue that CSR is strengthened by the adoption of stakeholder-driven models and attention to moral principles in policies and programs. In this context, we examine drivers of CSR, contextual and leadership factors that influence CSR, and strategies for CSR. To illustrate these concepts, we discuss existing cases of CSR-like behavior in nanotechnology companies, and then provide examples of how companies producing nanomedicines can exhibit morally-driven CSR behavior.}, number={4}, journal={MEDICINE HEALTH CARE AND PHILOSOPHY}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer and Kuzhabekova, Aliya}, year={2011}, month={Nov}, pages={407–419} }
 @article{ramachandran_s. paradise_kuzma_hall_fatehi_2011, title={Dynamic oversight for nanobiotechnology}, volume={13}, number={4}, journal={Journal of Nanoparticle Research}, author={Ramachandran, G. Wolf and S. Paradise, J. and Kuzma, J. and Hall, R. and Fatehi, L.}, year={2011}, pages={1345–1371} }
 @article{fatehi_wolf_ramachandran_kuzma_2011, title={Introduction: designing nanobiotechnology oversight}, volume={13}, ISSN={["1572-896X"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-79956133813&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/s11051-011-0231-4}, number={4}, journal={JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH}, author={Fatehi, Leili and Wolf, Susan M. and Ramachandran, Gurumurthy and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2011}, month={Apr}, pages={1341–1343} }
 @book{campbell_haynes_kuzma_moody_newberry_ramachandran_2011, place={St. Paul, MN}, title={Minnesota Nanotechnology : A report to the state legislature}, institution={Minnesota State Legislature}, author={Campbell, S. and Haynes, C. and Kuzma, J. and Moody, C. and Newberry, D. and Ramachandran, G.}, year={2011}, month={Jan} }
 @inbook{kuzma_2011, title={Nanotechnology governance and publics:  Making connections in policy}, booktitle={Nanotechnology and the Public Sphere}, publisher={Taylor & Francis}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2011} }
 @article{kuzma_kuzhabekova_2011, title={Nanotechnology, voluntary oversight, and corporate social performance: does company size matter?}, volume={13}, ISSN={["1572-896X"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-79956157518&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/s11051-011-0235-0}, number={4}, journal={JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer and Kuzhabekova, Aliya}, year={2011}, month={Apr}, pages={1499–1512} }
 @article{ramachandran_wolf_paradise_kuzma_hall_kokkoli_fatehi_2011, title={Recommendations for oversight of nanobiotechnology: Dynamic oversight for complex and convergent technology}, volume={13}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-79956119141&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/s11051-011-0233-2}, number={4}, journal={Journal of Nanoparticle Research}, author={Ramachandran, G. and Wolf, S.M. and Paradise, J. and Kuzma, J. and Hall, R. and Kokkoli, E. and Fatehi, L.}, year={2011}, pages={1345–1371} }
 @article{kuzma_kokotovich_2011, title={Renegotiating GM crop regulation}, volume={12}, ISSN={1469-221X 1469-3178}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/embor.2011.160}, DOI={10.1038/embor.2011.160}, abstractNote={Targeted genetic modification, which enables scientists to genetically engineer plants more efficiently and precisely, challenges current process‐based regulatory frameworks for genetically modified crops.}, number={9}, journal={EMBO reports}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer and Kokotovich, Adam}, year={2011}, month={Aug}, pages={883–888} }
 @article{kuzma_2011, title={Web vulnerability study of online pharmacy sites}, volume={36}, ISSN={["1753-8157"]}, DOI={10.3109/17538157.2010.520418}, abstractNote={Consumers are increasingly using online pharmacies, but these sites may not provide an adequate level of security with the consumers’ personal data. There is a gap in this research addressing the problems of security vulnerabilities in this industry. The objective is to identify the level of web application security vulnerabilities in online pharmacies and the common types of flaws, thus expanding on prior studies. Technical, managerial and legal recommendations on how to mitigate security issues are presented. The proposed four-step method first consists of choosing an online testing tool. The next steps involve choosing a list of 60 online pharmacy sites to test, and then running the software analysis to compile a list of flaws. Finally, an in-depth analysis is performed on the types of web application vulnerabilities. The majority of sites had serious vulnerabilities, with the majority of flaws being cross-site scripting or old versions of software that have not been updated. A method is proposed for the securing of web pharmacy sites, using a multi-phased approach of technical and managerial techniques together with a thorough understanding of national legal requirements for securing systems.}, number={1}, journal={INFORMATICS FOR HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE}, author={Kuzma, Joanne}, year={2011}, month={Jan}, pages={20–34} }
 @inproceedings{evidence review and experts’ opinion on consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology_2010, DOI={10.13140/2.1.3005.7282}, booktitle={Unpublished}, year={2010} }
 @inbook{kuzma_kuzhabekova_priest_yerhot_2010, title={Expert opinion of emerging technologies oversight: Lessons for nanotechnology from biotechnology}, booktitle={Understanding Nanotechnology:  Philosophy, Policy, and Publics}, publisher={Amsterdam: IOS Press}, author={Kuzma, J. and Kuzhabekova, A. and Priest, S. and Yerhot, L.}, year={2010}, pages={133–156} }
 @inbook{kuzma_2010, title={Multi-criteria decision making for studying nanotechnology & society}, DOI={10.4135/9781412972093.n246}, booktitle={Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society}, publisher={Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2010} }
 @article{kuzma_2010, title={Nanotechnology in animal production-Upstream assessment of applications}, volume={130}, ISSN={["1871-1413"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-77951091174&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.006}, abstractNote={Agrifood nanotechnology is at critical stage in which analysis and deliberation can help shape funding priorities for research and development, risk assessment, and oversight activities. Significant benefits to society could arise from nanotechnology applied to animal production; however, there is a need to prepare for oversight, health and environmental safety, and other societal issues that are likely to arise from these applications. In this paper, I examine case studies of nanotechnology applied to animal production that are in research and development in order to demonstrate potential future challenges and opportunities associated with their market entry and diffusion. The case studies are analyzed from multiple viewpoints including potential societal benefits and risks, public perception, and other science and technology policy challenges. Broader conclusions about technical and policy preparation are derived from the case studies in order to help inform the development of the field of nanotechnology applied to animal production as it matures. The diversity of nanotechnology applications makes it difficult to discuss nanotechnology as a whole, yet it is suggested that dialogue and deliberation about specific cases and their associated issues prior to market entry can help to ensure the safe, responsible, and equitable deployment of nanotechnology to livestock production.}, number={1-3}, journal={LIVESTOCK SCIENCE}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2010}, month={May}, pages={14–24} }
 @inbook{kuzma_2010, title={Nanotechnology regulation and oversight}, DOI={10.4135/9781412959216.n168}, booktitle={Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Communication}, publisher={Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2010} }
 @article{kuzma_priest_2010, title={Nanotechnology, Risk, and Oversight: Learning Lessons from Related Emerging Technologies}, volume={30}, ISSN={["1539-6924"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-78349265351&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01471.x}, abstractNote={Emerging technologies are defined by their novelty and thus are accompanied by significant uncertainty in determining appropriate ways to manage risks associated with them. Yet, there is a body of prior knowledge about risk management and oversight policy for other technologies that have already permeated society. Here, we describe two ways in which prospective oversight policy analysis for emerging technologies can draw upon these past experiences. One involves comparing specific products that have already been marketed to similar products of the emerging technology (cognate‐product approach). The other treats the emerging technology as a body of products and methods and relates it to another technological field that has already emerged and penetrated markets (whole‐technology approach). In this article, we describe our work using these approaches to inform risk and oversight policy for nanotechnology and its products. We draw parallels between biotechnology and nanotechnology as whole fields of development and also between genetically engineered organisms in the food supply and agricultural products of nanotechnology. Through these comparisons, we find that both approaches to historical learning have value and present lessons that could be applied to nanotechnology.}, number={11}, journal={RISK ANALYSIS}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer and Priest, Susanna}, year={2010}, month={Nov}, pages={1688–1698} }
 @inbook{kuzma_2010, title={Nanotechnology:  Piecing Together the Puzzle of Risk}, booktitle={Controversies in Science and Technology. Volume 3: From Evolution to Energy}, publisher={Daniel Lee Kleinman (Ed.),}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2010} }
 @article{kuzma_2010, title={Nanotechnology: A History Lesson}, journal={Momentum Magazine}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2010} }
 @inbook{kuzma_johnson_2010, title={Nanotechnology: Environmental benefits}, DOI={10.4135/9781412972093.n108}, booktitle={Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society}, publisher={Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer and Johnson, R. L.}, year={2010} }
 @article{kuzma_2010, title={Sizing Up Nanotechnology Oversight}, number={13}, journal={Minnesota Nano E-Newsletter}, author={Kuzma, J}, year={2010}, month={Jul} }
 @article{yawson_kuzma_2010, title={Systems Mapping of Consumer Acceptance of Agrifood Nanotechnology}, volume={33}, ISSN={["1573-0700"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-78249286489&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/s10603-010-9134-5}, abstractNote={Application of nanotechnology in the agrifood system and the rising number of nanofood products on the market are creating concerns among consumers and other stakeholders. These concerns and other potential barriers to the commercialization of agrifood nanotechnology products may limit the ability to capture its full potential. Understanding the emerging trends and the links between underlying values, expressed attitudes, and actual behaviors involving consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology is important for governance, risk regulation, and the achievement of the full potential of agrifood nanotechnology. The purpose of the study was to use systems mapping to examine and analyze critical links between consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology and factors such as trust, stakeholders, institutions, knowledge, and human environmental health risks. The study used a meta-analysis of the risk perception literature and solicited the opinions of experts to develop the systems map. Factors affecting consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology are dynamic, complex, interactive, and interdependent, and consumer decisions to accept agrifood nanotechnology were found to be the results of complex feedback structure. This study suggests several consumer policy and programmatic levels in the system toward enhancing consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology products where warranted.}, number={4}, journal={JOURNAL OF CONSUMER POLICY}, author={Yawson, Robert M. and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2010}, month={Dec}, pages={299–322} }
 @article{meghani_kuzma_2011, title={The "Revolving Door" between Regulatory Agencies and Industry: A Problem That Requires Reconceptualizing Objectivity}, volume={24}, ISSN={["1187-7863"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-80054026295&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/s10806-010-9287-x}, number={6}, journal={JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS}, author={Meghani, Zahra and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2011}, month={Dec}, pages={575–599} }
 @article{kuzma_tanji_2010, title={Unpackaging synthetic biology: Identification of oversight policy problems and options}, volume={4}, ISSN={["1748-5991"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-77952919492&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/j.1748-5991.2010.01071.x}, abstractNote={AbstractThe emerging field of synthetic biology (SB) is just entering policy debates. Reports from non‐governmental organizations, such as the ETC Group and the International Risk Governance Council, have recently been issued, but there have been few systematic analyses of the policy problems that we will likely face as this area develops. Biosecurity issues are the most defined; other societal oversight issues and implications have not been well explored. Although SB could assist in addressing pressing global challenges, such as sustainable and renewable energy, there are considerable societal concerns that accompany its development and applications. This article is designed to anticipate and prepare for these concerns by identifying policy problems associated with SB oversight, upstream of its development. Projected applications of SB are reviewed and a typology of them is developed. Key oversight policy problems are then identified based on historical experiences with other emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology and biotechnology. Problems associated with biosecurity, biosafety, intellectual property, and ethics are discussed in relation to the typology of SB applications to identify applications of the highest potential concern. Finally, policy options for SB oversight are considered, preventative to promotional. We propose that different categories of SB application may warrant different oversight regimes: there might not be an appropriate “one size fits all” approach. We stop short of making specific recommendations, but suggest that the typology, problems, and oversight options identified in this article be used as a starting point for deliberative, democratic decisionmaking processes that take into account a wide range of perspectives about risk, economic impact, scientific progress, and moral reasoning in the design of oversight systems.}, number={1}, journal={REGULATION & GOVERNANCE}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer and Tanji, Todd}, year={2010}, month={Mar}, pages={92–112} }
 @article{kuzma_meghani_2009, title={A possible change in the U.S. risk -based decision making for emerging technological products: Compromised or enhanced objectivity?}, volume={10}, journal={EMBO Reports}, author={Kuzma, J. and Meghani, Z.}, year={2009}, pages={1–6} }
 @inbook{kuzma_2009, title={Biotechnology}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84891036666&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1002/9781444310795.ch94}, abstractNote={This chapter contains sections titled: Decision-making about New Technologies Case Studies for Biotechnology Guidance from the Public References and Further Reading}, booktitle={A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2009}, pages={523–531} }
 @inbook{kuzma_2009, title={Biotechnology: Technology and future, prosperity and risks}, booktitle={A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology}, publisher={Malden, MA : Wiley-Blackwell}, author={Kuzma, J.}, editor={Jan-Kyrre Berg Olsen, Stig Andur Pedersen and Hendricks, Vincent F.Editors}, year={2009} }
 @article{paradise_wolf_kuzma_kuzhabekova_tisdale_kokkoli_ramachandran_2009, title={Developing US Oversight Strategies for Nanobiotechnology: Learning from Past Oversight Experiences}, volume={37}, ISSN={["1748-720X"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-76149098834&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/j.1748-720x.2009.00441.x}, abstractNote={Devising appropriate oversight for nanotechnology is a challenge. The field spans many scientific disciplines and product areas, capitalizing on the unusual properties and capabilities of material at the atomic scale. The critical feature of nanotechnology is not only the size at which manufacture occurs (˜1-100 nanometers), but also the ability to control and manipulate the novel chemical, physical, and mechanical properties that emerge at this scale, including increased conductivity, optical properties, and reactivity. As nano-products enter the research and development (R&D) phase, hit the market, and enter consumer households, debate has emerged on oversight approaches. Regulators, manufacturers, and commentators are considering whether existing oversight systems are sufficient, those oversight systems need adjustment, or new oversight systems are needed.}, number={4}, journal={JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE & ETHICS}, author={Paradise, Jordan and Wolf, Susan M. and Kuzma, Jennifer and Kuzhabekova, Aliya and Tisdale, Alison W. and Kokkoli, Efrosini and Ramachandran, Gurumurthy}, year={2009}, pages={688–705} }
 @misc{kuzma_najmaie_larson_2009, title={Evaluating Oversight Systems for Emerging Technologies: A Case Study of Genetically Engineered Organisms}, volume={37}, ISSN={["1748-720X"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-76149114606&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/j.1748-720x.2009.00431.x}, abstractNote={U.S. approaches to oversight of research and technological products have developed over time in an effort to ensure safety to humans, animals, and the environment and to control use in a social context. In modern times, regulatory and oversight tools have evolved to include diverse approaches such as performance standards, tradable allowances, consultations between government and industry, and pre-market safety and efficacy reviews. The decision whether to impose an oversight system, the oversight elements, the level of oversight (for example, federal, state, local), the choice of approach (for example, mandatory or voluntary), and its execution can profoundly affect technological development, individual and collective interests, and public confidence in technological products. Oversight is conducted by a range of institutions with various capabilities, cultures, and motives. Avenues for disputing oversight decisions are also important, and some argue that the U.S. operates in an adversarial regulatory culture in which Congress, the media, and stakeholders regularly contest the decisions of federal agencies.}, number={4}, journal={JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE & ETHICS}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer and Najmaie, Pouya and Larson, Joel}, year={2009}, pages={546–586} }
 @book{abbot_bartholomaeus_biesalski_bouwmeester_chaudhry_cheesman_chen_gatti_hirose_kuzma_et al._2009, title={FAO/WHO Expert Meeting on the Application of Nanotechnologies in the Food and Agriculture Sectors: Meeting Report.}, journal={United Nations FAO/WHO}, author={Abbot, L. and Bartholomaeus, A.R. and Biesalski, H.K. and Bouwmeester, H. and Chaudhry, Q. and Cheesman, M.A. and Chen, H. and Gatti, A.M. and Hirose, A. and Kuzma, J. and et al.}, year={2009} }
 @inbook{kuzma_2009, title={Global Challenges}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84890984995&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1002/9781444310795.ch96}, abstractNote={This chapter contains sections titled: Cases of S&T Applied to the MDGs Ways Forward References and Further Reading}, booktitle={A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology}, publisher={Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2009}, pages={538–545} }
 @article{kuzma_kuzhabekova_wilder_2009, title={Improving oversight of genetically engineered organisms}, volume={28}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-71549146325&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.09.003}, abstractNote={AbstractGenetic engineering (GE) has been used to produce plants with desirable qualities for over two decades, and widespread, world-wide market adoption of engineered crops with pest and disease resistance characteristics has occurred. Genetically engineered organisms (GEOs), including GE crops, have been formally overseen by the U.S. government since the mid-1980s. In this article, our previous work on identifying strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. GEO oversight system is reviewed, and a new analysis of the system based on expert and stakeholder interviews is presented. Using both analyses and an examination of historical controversies surrounding GEOs, three categories of improvements to oversight are identified: democratization of oversight processes, establishing clear mechanisms for inter-agency and -organization coordination, and taking on uncertainty through upstream and fluid approaches. The paper also discusses feasibility issues and barriers associated with implementing changes in these areas, notably the overarching U.S. approach to regulation and legal authorities.}, number={4}, journal={Policy and Society}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer and Kuzhabekova, A. and Wilder, K.M.}, year={2009}, pages={279–299} }
 @article{paradise_wolf_kuzma_ramachandran_kokkoli_2009, title={Introduction: The challenge of developing oversight approaches to nanobiotechnology}, volume={37}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-76149086168&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00430.x}, abstractNote={This symposium of 19 articles grows out of a 4-year project funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) (grant #SES-0608791) on “Evaluating Oversight Models for Active Nanostructures and Nanosystems: Learning from Past Technologies in a Societal Context” (Susan M. Wolf, Principal Investigator (PI); Co-PIs: Efrosini Kokkoli, Jennifer Kuzma, Jordan Paradise, Gurumurthy Ramachandran). The goal of this project was to develop oversight recommendations for nanobiotechnology grounded in historical analysis and evaluation of oversight approaches to five cognate technologies: drugs, devices, human gene transfer research (“gene therapy”), chemicals in the workplace, and genetically modified organisms in the food supply. The investigators utilized expert elicitation and literature analysis to develop a structured survey to aid analysis of the successes and failures of these prior oversight regimes. The methodology is presented in the symposium and described in depth in additional team publications cited here. The survey instrument devised represents a significant new tool for evaluating science and technology oversight, including regulatory regimes. This symposium publishes the five historical case studies plus commentaries, an article co-authored by the investigators comparing across the five case studies to derive overarching lessons for nanobio oversight, and seven articles on cross-cutting ideas including nanobio governance and oversight, risk communication, and approaches to expert elicitation. The symposium includes the work of 30 authors and breaks new ground on policy approaches to emerging science and technology.}, number={4}, journal={Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics}, author={Paradise, J. and Wolf, S.M. and Kuzma, J. and Ramachandran, G. and Kokkoli, E.}, year={2009}, pages={543–545} }
 @article{kuzma_meghani_2009, title={The public option}, volume={10}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-73849105909&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1038/embor.2009.250}, abstractNote={US President Barack Obama has called for more public participation in regulatory decisions. Jennifer Kuzma and Zahra Meghani explore the possible consequences for the regulation and approval of genetically modified crops in the USA.}, number={12}, journal={EMBO Reports}, author={Kuzma, J. and Meghani, Z.}, year={2009}, pages={1288–1293} }
 @article{kuzma_paradise_ramachandran_kim_kokotovich_wolf_2008, title={An Integrated Approach to Oversight Assessment for Emerging Technologies}, volume={28}, ISSN={0272-4332 1539-6924}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01086.x}, DOI={10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01086.x}, abstractNote={Analysis of oversight systems is often conducted from a single disciplinary perspective and by using a limited set of criteria for evaluation. In this article, we develop an approach that blends risk analysis, social science, public administration, legal, public policy, and ethical perspectives to develop a broad set of criteria for assessing oversight systems. Multiple methods, including historical analysis, expert elicitation, and behavioral consensus, were employed to develop multidisciplinary criteria for evaluating oversight of emerging technologies. Sixty‐six initial criteria were identified from extensive literature reviews and input from our Working Group. Criteria were placed in four categories reflecting the development, attributes, evolution, and outcomes of oversight systems. Expert elicitation, consensus methods, and multidisciplinary review of the literature were used to refine a condensed, operative set of criteria. Twenty‐eight criteria resulted spanning four categories: seven development criteria, 15 attribute criteria, five outcome criteria, and one evolution criterion. These criteria illuminate how oversight systems develop, operate, change, and affect society. We term our approach “integrated oversight assessment” and propose its use as a tool for analyzing relationships among features, outcomes, and tradeoffs of oversight systems. Comparisons among historical case studies of oversight using a consistent set of criteria should result in defensible and evidence‐supported lessons to guide the development of oversight systems for emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology.}, number={5}, journal={Risk Analysis}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer and Paradise, Jordan and Ramachandran, Gurumurthy and Kim, Jee-Ae and Kokotovich, Adam and Wolf, Susan M.}, year={2008}, month={Oct}, pages={1197–1220} }
 @book{warner_riebe_kuzma_2008, title={Climate Change and Sustainable Development: Workshop Report}, institution={Center for Science Technology and Public Policy, University of Minnesota}, year={2008} }
 @article{paradise_wolf_ramachandran_kokkoli_hall_j._2008, title={Developing oversight frameworks for nanobiotechnology}, volume={9}, number={1}, journal={Minnesota Journal of Law, Science, and Technology}, author={Paradise, J. and Wolf, S. and Ramachandran, G. and Kokkoli, E. and Hall, R. and J., Kuzma}, year={2008}, pages={399–416} }
 @article{kuzma_besley_2008, title={Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: From bio- to nanotechnology}, volume={2}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-53149122089&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/s11569-008-0035-x}, number={2}, journal={NanoEthics}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer and Besley, J.C.}, year={2008}, pages={149–162} }
 @article{talukder_kuzma_2008, title={Evaluating technology oversight through multiple frameworks: A case study of genetically engineered cotton in India}, volume={35}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-42949148311&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.3152/030234208x285409}, abstractNote={Oversight systems for emerging technologies involve a diversity of institutions, stakeholders, and goals; yet they are usually based upon one or a few perspectives. This paper uses a multi-framework approach to evaluate the oversight system for genetically engineered organisms in India. It uses four established frameworks — policy options, risk assessment, risk management and regulatory oversight — and ethics, to assess strengths and weaknesses of the system. Through the case study, the authors argue that multiple frameworks should be used in the design and evaluation of oversight systems for emerging technologies. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.}, number={2}, journal={Science and Public Policy}, author={Talukder, K. and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2008}, pages={121–138} }
 @inbook{kuzma_2008, title={FDA, the environment and ethics}, booktitle={Encyclopedia of environmental ethics and philosophy}, publisher={Farmington Hills, Mich. : ?b Gale, Cengage Learning}, author={Kuzma, J.}, editor={Callicott, J. Baird and Frodeman, RobertEditors}, year={2008} }
 @article{kuzma_paradise_kim_kokotovich_g. ramachandran_wolf_2008, title={Integrated oversight assessment:  A historical case study and multicriteria approach}, volume={28}, number={5}, journal={Risk Analysis}, author={Kuzma, J. and Paradise, J. and Kim, J. and Kokotovich, A. and G. Ramachandran and Wolf, S.}, year={2008}, pages={1179–1195} }
 @inbook{kuzma_2008, title={Nanotechnology, ethics and the environment}, booktitle={Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy}, publisher={Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, Cengage Learning}, author={Kuzma, J.}, editor={Callicott, J. Baird and Frodeman, RobertEditors}, year={2008} }
 @article{kuzma_romanchek_kokotovich_2008, title={Upstream Oversight Assessment for Agrifood Nanotechnology: A Case Studies Approach}, volume={28}, ISSN={["1539-6924"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-48349093922&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01071.x}, abstractNote={Although nanotechnology is broadly receiving attention in public and academic circles, oversight issues associated with applications for agriculture and food remain largely unexplored. Agrifood nanotechnology is at a critical stage in which informed analysis can help shape funding priorities, risk assessment, and oversight activities. This analysis is designed to help society and policymakers anticipate and prepare for challenges posed by complicated, convergent applications of agrifood nanotechnology. The goal is to identify data, risk assessment, regulatory policy, and engagement needs for overseeing these products so they can be addressed prior to market entry. Our approach, termed upstream oversight assessment (UOA), has potential as a key element of anticipatory governance. It relies on distinct case studies of proposed applications of agrifood nanotechnology to highlight areas that need study and attention. As a tool for preparation, UOA anticipates the types and features of emerging applications; their endpoints of use in society; the extent to which users, workers, ecosystems, or consumers will be exposed; the nature of the material and its safety; whether and where the technologies might fit into current regulatory system(s); the strengths and weaknesses of the system(s) in light of these novel applications; and the possible social concerns related to oversight for them.}, number={4}, journal={Risk Analysis}, author={Kuzma, J. and Romanchek, J. and Kokotovich, A.}, year={2008}, pages={1081–1098} }
 @article{kuzma_2007, title={Moving forward responsibly: Oversight for the nanotechnology-biology interface}, volume={9}, DOI={10.1007/978-1-4020-5859-2_16}, number={1}, journal={Journal of Nanoparticle Research}, author={Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2007}, pages={165–182} }
 @article{kuzma_ahl_2006, title={Living with BSE}, volume={26}, ISSN={["0272-4332"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-33745394552&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00768.x}, abstractNote={No abstract available.}, number={3}, journal={RISK ANALYSIS}, author={Kuzma, J and Ahl, A}, year={2006}, month={Jun}, pages={585–588} }
 @article{kuzma_2007, title={Moving forward responsibly: Oversight for the nanotechnology-biology interface}, volume={9}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-33845951492&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/s11051-006-9151-0}, number={1}, journal={Journal of Nanoparticle Research}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2007}, pages={165–182} }
 @book{kuzma_verhage_2006, place={Washington DC}, title={Nanotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production: Anticipated Applications.}, institution={Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars}, author={Kuzma, J. and VerHage, P.}, year={2006}, month={Sep} }
 @article{kuzma_2006, title={Nanotechnology oversight:  Just do it}, volume={36}, journal={Environmental Law Reporter}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2006}, pages={10913–10920} }
 @book{kuzma_2005, title={Global Challenges and Biotechnology}, journal={Economic Perspectives}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2005}, month={Oct} }
 @book{kuzma_dobrovolny_2005, title={The Global Climate and Economic Development}, institution={Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy. Humphrey Institute}, year={2005} }
 @book{kuzma_2005, title={The Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight}, institution={Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy, University of Minnesota}, year={2005}, month={Sep} }
 @book{kuzma_2004, place={Washington, DC}, title={Indicators for Waterborne Pathogens}, ISBN={9780309529419 9780309091220}, publisher={National Academies Press}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2004} }
 @book{kuzma_2004, place={Minneapolis, MN}, title={The Search for Quality and Value in Health Care}, institution={Medical Technology Leadership Forum (MTLF)}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2004}, month={Feb} }
 @book{kuzma_2003, place={Minneapolis, MN}, title={Breaking Down the Institutional Barriers to Multi-Disciplinary Research}, institution={Medical Technology Leadership Forum}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2003}, month={Apr} }
 @book{kuzma_2003, place={Minneapolis, MN}, title={Facilitating the Continuum from Experimental to Clinical Use: Designing Alternative Models}, institution={Medical Technology Leadership Forum}, author={Kuzma, J}, year={2003}, month={Jul} }
 @book{kuzma_2003, place={Washington D.C}, title={The Environmental Impact of Agriculture and Energy Use: How new technologies, including biotechnology, can provide sustainable solutions}, volume={June 30}, journal={Research & Technology Seminar at the Intersection of Energy, Agriculture, and Biotechnology}, institution={The Royal Norwegian Embassy, University of Minnesota}, year={2003}, month={Jun} }
 @article{moon_kirk-baer_ascher_cook_franz_hoy_husnik_jensen_keller_lederberg_et al._2003, title={US agriculture is vulnerable to bioterrorism}, volume={30}, ISSN={["0748-321X"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0043069812&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.3138/jvme.30.2.96}, abstractNote={The leadership of our nation is currently grappling with a multitude of issues related to potential future terrorist activities for which there are no easy answers. Society is increasingly dependent on advances in science and technology to facilitate the examination and development of solutions to the critical problems we face today. For more than a century, the nation has turned to the National Academies— National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council—for independent, objective scientific advice. A new report of the National Academies Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Countering Agricultural Bioterorrism, addresses the nation’s vulnerability to terrorist attacks against agriculture and provides recommendations for strengthening our ability to prepare and respond to such attacks.}, number={2}, journal={JOURNAL OF VETERINARY MEDICAL EDUCATION}, author={Moon, HW and Kirk-Baer, C and Ascher, M and Cook, RJ and Franz, DR and Hoy, M and Husnik, DF and Jensen, HH and Keller, KH and Lederberg, J and et al.}, year={2003}, pages={96–104} }
 @book{animal biotechnology_2002, place={Washington, DC}, ISBN={9780309084390}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/10418}, DOI={10.17226/10418}, publisher={National Academies Press}, year={2002}, month={Nov} }
 @book{countering agricultural bioterrorism_2002, place={Washington, DC}, ISBN={9780309085458}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/10505}, DOI={10.17226/10505}, publisher={National Academies Press}, year={2002}, month={Apr} }
 @book{countering bioterrorism: the role of science and technology_2002, place={Washington, DC}, ISBN={9780309086073}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/10536}, DOI={10.17226/10536}, publisher={National Academies Press}, year={2002}, month={Dec} }
 @book{kuzma_2002, place={Washington, DC}, title={Environmental Issues Associated with Transgenic Plants}, institution={National Research Council}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2002} }
 @book{kuzma_2002, place={Washington, DC}, title={Marine Biotechnology in the 21st Century}, institution={National Research Council}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2002} }
 @inbook{kuzma_2002, title={Report of the Lignin Modification Group}, booktitle={Criteria for Field Testing Plants with Engineered Regulatory, Metabolic and Signaling Pathways}, publisher={Blaxksburg: Information Systems for Biotechnology}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2002} }
 @article{gould_kuzma_2002, title={The academy responds}, volume={16}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0037078703&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, number={20}, journal={Scientist}, author={Gould, F. and Kuzma, J.}, year={2002}, pages={12} }
 @book{andow_2001, place={Washington, DC}, title={Ecological Monitoring of Genetically Modified Crops: A Workshop Summary}, ISBN={9780309073356}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/10068}, DOI={10.17226/10068}, abstractNote={On July 13-14, 2000, the National Research Council held a workshop on Ecological Monitoring of Genetically Modified Crops. As the title suggests, the workshop specifically excluded monitoring aimed at detecting effects on human health. Its focus was on monitoring for effects that genetically modified crops might have on the surrounding ecosystems, including plants, animals, and microorganisms. The purpose was to lay out the issues surrounding such monitoring, to describe what was known, and to identify what needed further attention.}, publisher={National Academies Press}, author={Andow, D.A.}, year={2001}, month={Feb} }
 @book{kuzma_2001, place={Washington, DC}, title={Risk Assessment of the Public Health Impact of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 in Ground Beef}, institution={USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={2001} }
 @book{bioinformatics: converting data to knowledge_2000, place={Washington, DC}, ISBN={9780309072564}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/9990}, DOI={10.17226/9990}, publisher={National Academies Press}, year={2000}, month={Nov} }
 @book{genetically modified pest-protected plants: science and regulation_2000, place={Washington, DC}, ISBN={9780309069304}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/9795}, DOI={10.17226/9795}, publisher={National Academies Press}, year={2000}, month={Aug} }
 @book{finding the path: issues of access to research resources_1999, place={Washington, DC}, ISBN={9780309066259}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/9629}, DOI={10.17226/9629}, publisher={National Academies Press}, year={1999}, month={Oct} }
 @article{ahl_kuzma_1999, title={Microbes, food safety and the environment:  Issues in risk analysis}, volume={6}, journal={Technology}, author={Ahl, A. and Kuzma, J.}, year={1999}, pages={363–369} }
 @article{kuzma_1999, title={Virtual access}, volume={36}, number={12}, journal={Communications News}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={1999}, pages={36-} }
 @inproceedings{meekhof_kuzma_mauriello_osborn_powell_rice_shafer_1998, title={Adaptive risk analysis for resource conservation programs}, booktitle={Risk-Based Decision Making in Water Resources VIII}, author={Meekhof, R. and Kuzma, J. and Mauriello, D. and Osborn, T. and Powell, M. and Rice, C. and Shafer, S.}, year={1998}, pages={172–186} }
 @book{kuzma_1998, place={Washington, DC}, title={Salmonella Enteritidis Risk Assessment: Shell Eggs and Egg Products}, institution={USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service}, author={Kuzma, J.}, year={1998}, month={Jun} }
 @article{wu_kuzma_marechal_graeff_lee_foster_chua_1997, title={Abscisic acid signaling through cyclic ADP-Ribose in plants}, volume={278}, ISSN={["0036-8075"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0031444350&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1126/science.278.5346.2126}, abstractNote={
            Abscisic acid (ABA) is the primary hormone that mediates plant responses to stresses such as cold, drought, and salinity. Single-cell microinjection experiments in tomato were used to identify possible intermediates involved in ABA signal transduction. Cyclic ADP–ribose (cADPR) was identified as a signaling molecule in the ABA response and was shown to exert its effects by way of calcium. Bioassay experiments showed that the amounts of cADPR in
            Arabidopsis thaliana
            plants increased in response to ABA treatment and before ABA-induced gene expression.
          }, number={5346}, journal={SCIENCE}, author={Wu, Y and Kuzma, J and Marechal, E and Graeff, R and Lee, HC and Foster, R and Chua, NH}, year={1997}, month={Dec}, pages={2126–2130} }
 @inproceedings{meekhof_kuzma_mauriello_osborn_powell_rice_shafer_1997, title={Adaptive risk analysis for resource conservation programs}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0031384773&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, booktitle={Risk-Based Decision Making in Water Resources, Proceedings of the Conference}, author={Meekhof, Ronald and Kuzma, Jennifer and Mauriello, David and Osborn, Tim and Powell, Mark and Rice, Cliff and Shafer, Steven}, year={1997}, pages={172–186} }
 @article{kuzma_nemecek-marshall_pollock_fall_1995, title={Bacteria produce the volatile hydrocarbon isoprene}, volume={30}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0028968247&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/BF00294190}, abstractNote={Various bacterial species, both Gram-negative and Gram-positive, were found to produce the volatile hydrocarbon isoprene (2-methyl-1,3-butadiene). Out of the tested cultures, Bacillus produced the most isoprene. The production of isoprene from bacteria was confirmed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Media and growth effects on isoprene production were investigated: growth in rich media led to higher levels of isoprene than growth in minimal media, and highest isoprene emission rates were seen in log-phase cultures. Temperature profiles for bacterial isoprene production showed an optimum of 45 degrees C and were suggestive of an enzymatic mechanism for isoprene formation.}, number={2}, journal={Current Microbiology}, author={Kuzma, J. and Nemecek-Marshall, M. and Pollock, W.H. and Fall, R.}, year={1995}, pages={97–103} }
 @article{nemecek-marshall_wojciechowski_kuzma_silver_fall_1995, title={Marine Vibrio species produce the volatile organic compound acetone}, volume={61}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0028976291&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, number={1}, journal={Applied and Environmental Microbiology}, author={Nemecek-Marshall, M and Wojciechowski, C and Kuzma, J and Silver, GM and Fall, R}, year={1995}, pages={44–47} }
 @inproceedings{kuzma_fall_1994, title={Bacterial production of Isoprene}, booktitle={International Symposium on the Genetics of Microogranisms}, author={Kuzma, J. and Fall, R.}, year={1994} }
 @article{kuzma_fall_1994, title={Leaf isoprene emission rate is dependent on leaf development and the level of isoprene synthase (vol 101, pg 435, 1993)}, volume={106}, ISSN={["0032-0889"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0001127362&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1104/pp.101.2.435}, abstractNote={Isoprene (2-methyl-1,3-butadiene) is a major volatile hydrocarbon produced by many plant species. Here we report that in velvet bean (Mucuna sp.), isoprene emission is strongly dependent on leaf developmental state and that changes in extractable isoprene synthase activity parallel isoprene emission rates during leaf development. Both leaf emission and enzyme activity exhibit over 100-fold increases from leaf emergence to leaf age 14 d and exhibit similar patterns to 23 d. This suggests that the enzyme, isoprene synthase, is responsible for the in vivo production of isoprene and that the level of the enzyme regulates the pattern of isoprene emission in response to leaf development.}, number={3}, journal={Plant Physiology}, author={Kuzma, J. and Fall, R.}, year={1994}, pages={1233–1233} }