Los Riesgos de las Biotecnologías desde la Mirada de los Científicos: Una Revisión Sistemática de las Publicaciones en los Últimos 20 Años
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21664/2238-8869.2026v15i1.7837Palavras-chave:
biotecnología, riesgos, científicos, revisión sistemáticaResumo
Desde su emergencia, las biotecnologías han generado múltiples controversias respecto de sus riesgos. En las últimas décadas, este campo ha tenido un desarrollo exponencial, emergiendo nuevas técnicas de ingeniería genética como el CRISPR-Cas9, sistemas libres de células y otras herramientas de biología sintética. Con esto en mente, este trabajo realiza una revisión sistemática de la investigación sobre la percepción de los investigadores del ámbito de la biotecnología acerca los riesgos de estas tecnologías. La revisión analizó un corpus de 25 publicaciones indexadas en Web of Science, Scopus y Dimensions en los últimos 20 años. Los resultados indican que, desde la perspectiva de los científicos, la biotecnología presenta pocos o ningún riesgo. Asimismo, los investigadores del área procesan el no-conocimiento y la incertidumbre de un modo radicalmente diferente al público general, considerando a estos últimos, muchas veces, como carentes del conocimiento científico necesario para participar válidamente en el debate sobre los riesgos de la biotecnología.
Referências
Aleksejeva I 2014. EU Experts’ Attitude Towards Use of GMO in Food and Feed and Other Industries. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 110: 494-501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.893
Bauer A, Bogner A 2020. Let’s (not) talk about synthetic biology: Framing an emerging technology in public and stakeholder dialogues. Public Understanding of Science 29(5): 492-507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520907255
Bauer M 2005. Public Perceptions and Mass Media in the Biotechnology Controversy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17(1): 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh054
Beck U 1998. La sociedad del riesgo. Paidós, Barcelona, 304 pp.
Beck U 2002. La sociedad del riesgo global. Siglo XXI, Madrid, 290 pp.
Bijker W 1995. Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. MIT Press, Cambridge, 380 pp.
Bourdieu P 1994. El campo científico. REDES 1(2): 129-160.
Bourdieu P 2008. Homo Academicus. Siglo XXI, Buenos Aires, 315 pp.
Böschen S 2009. Hybrid regimes of knowledge? Challenges for constructing scientific evidence in the context of the GMO-debate. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International 16(5): 508–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-009-0164-y
Callon M, Lascoumes P, Barthe Y 2009. Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. MIT Press, Cambridge, 287 pp.
Chadegani A, Salehi H, Yunus M, Farhadi H, Fooladi M, Farhadi M, Ebrahim N 2013. A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases. Asian Social Science 9(5): 18. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p18
Cuppen E, Hisschemøller M, Midden C 2009. Bias in the exchange of arguments: the case of scientists' evaluation of lay viewpoints on GM food. Public Understanding of Science 18(5): 591-606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662508091021
Dalziell J, Rogers W 2023. Scientists’ Views on the Ethics, Promises and Practices of Synthetic Biology: A Qualitative Study of Australian Scientific Practice. Science and Engineering Ethics 29(41). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00461-1
de Graeff N, Jongsma K, Bredenoord A 2021. Experts’ moral views on gene drive technologies: a qualitative interview study. BMC Medical Ethics 22: 25(2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00588-5
DeFrancesco L 2021. Synthetic virology: The experts speak. Nature Biotechnology 39: 1185-1193. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-01078-0
Ditlevsen K, Glerup C, Sandøe P, Lassen J 2020. Synthetic livestock vaccines as risky interference with nature? Lay and expert arguments and understandings of ‘naturalness’. Public Understanding of Science 29(3): 289-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520906083
Epstein M, Vermeire T 2016. Scientific Opinion on Risk Assessment of Synthetic Biology. Trends in Biotechnology 34(8): 601-603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.04.013
Evanega S, Conrow J, Adams J, Lynas M 2022. The state of the ‘GMO’ debate—Toward an increasingly favorable and less polarized media conversation on ag-biotech? GM Crops & Food 13(1): 38-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2022.2051243
Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J 2012. An introduction to systematic reviews. SAGE, Londres, 288 pp.
Giddens A 1996. Modernidad y autoidentidad. En J Beriain. Las consecuencias perversas de la modernidad: Modernidad, contingencia y riesgo (3ra ed.). Anthropos, Barcelona, pp. 33-72.
Hagemann K, Scholderer J 2007. Consumer versus Expert Hazard Identification: A Mental Models Study of Mutation‐bred Rice. Journal of Risk Research 10(4): 449-464, https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870701417819
Hagemann K, Scholderer J 2009. Hot Potato: Expert-Consumer Differences in the Perception of a Second-Generation Novel Food. Risk Analysis 29(7): 1041-1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01229.x
Harzing A 2019. Two new kids on the block: How do Crossref and Dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science? Scientometrics 120(1): 341-349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03114-y
Heilbroner R 2009. Do machines make history?. En D Johnson, J Wetmore. Technology and society: Building our sociotechnical future. Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 97-106.
Hjörleifsson S, Schei E 2006. Scientific rationality, uncertainty and the governance of human genetics: an interview study with researchers at deCODE genetics. European Journal of Human Genetics 14: 802-808. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201626
Howell E, Scheufele D, Brossard D, Xenos M, Kwon S, Youtie J, Shapira P 2020. Scientists’ and the Publics’ Views of Synthetic Biology”. En B Trump, C Cummings, J Kuzma, I Linkov. Synthetic Biology 2020: Frontiers in Risk Analysis and Governance. Risk, Systems and Decisions. Springer, Cham, pp. 371-387.
Huang J, Peng B, Wang X 2017. Scientists’ attitudes toward agricultural GM technology development and GM food in China. China Agricultural Economic Review 9(3), 369-384. https://doi.org/10.1108/CAER-05-2017-0101
Inaba M, Macer D 2004. Policy, Regulation and Attitudes towards Agricultural Biotechnology in Japan. Journal of International Biotechnology Law 1(2): 45-53. https://doi.org/10.1515/jibl.2004.1.2.45
Jin S, Clark B, Li W, Kuznesof S, Frewer L 2021. Social dimensions of synthetic biology in the agrifood sector: The perspective of Chinese and EU scientists. British Food Journal 123(12): 4135-4154. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2020-1142
Kangmennaang J, Osei L, Armah F, Luginaah I 2016. Genetically modified organisms and the age of (Un) reason? A critical examination of the rhetoric in the GMO public policy debates in Ghana. Futures 83: 37-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.03.002
Kato-Nitta N, Maeda T, Inagaki Y, Tachikawa M 2019. Expert and public perceptions of gene-edited crops: attitude changes in relation to scientific knowledge. Palgrave Communications 5: 137. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0328-4
Knorr-Cetina K 1996. ¿Comunidades científicas o arenas transepistémicas de investigación? Una crítica de los modelos cuasi-económicos de la ciencia. REDES 3(7): 129-160.
Knorr-Cetina K 1999. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 329 pp.
Kuhn T 2013. La estructura de las revoluciones científicas (4ta ed.). Fondo de Cultura Económica, México D.F, 404 pp.
Lassen I 2008. Commonplaces and social uncertainty: negotiating public opinion. Journal of Risk Research 11(8): 1025-1045. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870802323379
Lassoued R, Macall D, Smyth S, Phillips P, Hesseln H 2019. Risk and safety considerations of genome edited crops: Expert opinion. Current Research in Biotechnology 1: 11-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crbiot.2019.08.001
Latour B 1987. Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 288 pp.
Latour B, Woolgar S 1995. La vida en el laboratorio. La construcción de los hechos científicos, Alianza Editorial, Madrid, 326 pp.
Lu Y 2020. Cell-Free Synthetic Biology. Springer, Singapur, 37 pp.
Luhmann N 2006. Sociología del riesgo. Universidad Iberoamericana, México D.F., 294 pp.
Marris C 2015. The Construction of Imaginaries of the Public as a Threat to Synthetic Biology. Science as Culture 24(1): 83-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2014.986320
Marris C, Jefferson C, Lentzos F 2014. Negotiating the dynamics of uncomfortable knowledge: The case of dual use and synthetic biology. BioSocieties 9(4): 393-420. https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2014.32
Merton R 2002. Teoría y estructuras sociales (4ta ed.). Fondo de Cultura Económica, México D.F., 774 pp.
Nisbet M, Huge M 2006. Attention Cycles and Frames in the Plant Biotechnology Debate: Managing Power and Participation through the Press/Policy Connection. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 11(2): 3-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X06286701
Pappalardo G, D’Amico M, Lusk J 2021. Comparing the views of the Italian general public and scientists on GMOs. International Journal of Food Science +Technology 56(7): 3641-3650. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.14993
Petticrew M, Roberts H 2006. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 336 pp.
Priest S 1995. Information Equity, Public Understanding of Science, and the Biotechnology Debate. Journal of Communication 45(1): 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1995.tb00713.x
Ray P, Rampal V 2018. Attitude of stakeholders towards genetically modified crops in Malwa region of Punjab. Indian Journal of Economics and Development 14(1): 66-74. https://doi.org/10.5958/2322-0430.2018.00006.9
Rohden F, Nelson C, Yost C, Anderson C, Moritz R, Vinke S, Wieden H 2022. Proceedings of the Dual Use Research of Concern Panel Discussion: Challenges and perspectives. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 68(5): 377-382. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjm-2021-0343
Rylott E, Bruce N 2020. How synthetic biology can help bioremediation. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 58, 86-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2020.07.004
Singh V, Singh P, Karmakar M, Leta J, Mayr P 2021. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 126(6): 5113-5142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5
Savadori L, Savio S, Nicotra E, Rumiati R, Finucane M, Slovic P 2004. Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology. Risk Analysis 24(5): 1289-1299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00526.x
Shineha R, Inoue Y, Ikka T, Kishimoto A, Yashiro Y 2018. A Comparative Analysis of Attitudes on Communication Toward Stem Cell Research and Regenerative Medicine Between the Public and the Scientific Community. Stem Cells Translational Medicine 7(2): 251–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/sctm.17-0184
Sjöberg L 2008. Genetically Modified Food in The Eyes of the Public and Experts. Risk Management 10: 168-193. https://doi.org/10.1057/rm.2008.2
So A, Habets M, Testerink C, Macnaghten P 2024. The societal roles and responsibilities of plant scientists in the context of genome-edited crops. Plants, People, Planet 6(3): 760-773. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10485
Stahlschmidt S, Stephen D 2022. From indexation policies through citation networks to normalized citation impacts: Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions as varying resonance chambers. Scientometrics 127(5): 2413-2431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04309-6
Stevens B, Reppen R, Linhart M, Gibson K, Parafinuk A, Roberts A, Sanford R, Johnson N 2021. Analysis of biased language in peer-reviewed scientific literature on genetically modified crops. Environmental Research 16: 084035. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1467
Tennant J 2020. Web of Science and Scopus are not global databases of knowledge. European Science Editing 46: e51987. https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e51987
Thelwall M 2018. Dimensions: A competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science? Journal of Informetrics 12(2): 430-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.03.006
Vallejos-Romero A, Garrido J 2019. Las narrativas del riesgo en la Patagonia chilena. Perfiles Latinoamericanos 27(53): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.18504/pl2753-015-2019
van Baalen S, Srinivas K, He G 2023. Challenges of Global Technology Assessment in Biotechnology—Bringing Clarity and Better Understanding in Fragmented Global Governance. En L Hennen, J Hahn, M Ladikas, R Lindner, W Peissl, R van Est. Technology Assessment in a Globalized World: Facing the Challenges of Transnational Technology Governance. Springer, Cham, pp. 149-174.
Voigt C 2012. Synthetic Biology. ACS Synthetic Biology 1(1): 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1021/sb300001c
Wirz C, Howell E, Scheufele D, Brossard D, Xenos M 2023. Examining expertise: Synthetic biology experts' perceptions of risk, benefit, and the public for research and applications regulation. Public Understanding of Science 32(7): 870–888. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231166652
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2026 César Cisternas-Irarrazabal, Arturo Vallejos Romero, Minerva Cordovés-Sánchez, Felipe Sáez-Ardura
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Esta revista oferece acesso livre imediato ao seu conteúdo, seguindo o princípio de que disponibilizar gratuitamente o conhecimento científico ao público proporciona maior democratização mundial do conhecimento.
A partir da publicação realizada na revista os autores possuem copyright e direitos de publicação de seus artigos sem restrições.
A Revista Fronteiras: Journal of Social, Technological and Environmental Science segue os preceitos legais da licença Creative Commons - Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.
