ArticleTransgenic research2012
Can science justify regulatory decisions about the cultivation of transgenic crops?
Article in Transgenic research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are Limits of Concern a useful concept to improve the environmental risk assessment of GM plants?Environmental sciences Europe · 2017Article
- Guidance to develop specific protection goals options for environmental risk assessment at EFSA, in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2016Article
- Article
- Post-release monitoring: the Brazilian system, its aims and requirements for information.Transgenic research · 2014Article
- Towards a more open debate about values in decision-making on agricultural biotechnology.Transgenic research · 2014Article
- EFSA's scientific activities and achievements on the risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) during its first decade of existence: looking back and ahead.Transgenic research · 2014Review
- Genetically engineered trees for plantation forests: key considerations for environmental risk assessment.Plant biotechnology journal · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Results of scientific studies are sometimes claimed to provide scientific justification for regulatory decisions about the cultivation of certain transgenic crops. A decision may be scientifically justified if objective analysis shows that the decision is more likely than alternatives to lead to the achievement of specific policy objectives. If policy objectives are not defined operationally, as is often the case, scientific justification for decisions is not possible. The search for scientific justification for decisions leads to concentration on reducing scientific uncertainty about the behaviour of transgenic crops instead of reducing uncertainty about the objectives of policies that regulate their use. Focusing on reducing scientific uncertainty at the expense of clarifying policy objectives may have detrimental effects on scientists, science and society.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22476694What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.