Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23780762›Full record

ReviewTransgenic research2013

Novel GM animal technologies and their governance.

Ann Bruce, David Castle, Corrina Gibbs, Joyce Tait, C Bruce A Whitelaw

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Transgenic research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Regulation of Molecular Farming Products.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ann BruceESRC Institute for Innovation Generation INNOGEN, The University of Edinburgh, Old Surgeons Hall, High School Yards, Edinburgh, EH1 1LZ, UK. ann.bruce@ed.ac.uk
David Castle
Corrina Gibbs
Joyce Tait
C Bruce A Whitelaw

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/05251442Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/05251443Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/05251444Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/05251445
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientific advances in methods of producing genetically modified (GM) animals continue, yet few such animals have reached commercial production. Existing regulations designed for early techniques of genetic modification pose formidable barriers to commercial applications. Radically improved techniques for producing GM animals invite a re-examination of current regulatory regimes. We critically examine current GM animal regulations, with a particular focus on the European Union, through a framework that recognises the importance of interactions among regulatory regimes, innovation outcomes and industry sectors. The current focus on the regulation of risk is necessary but is unable to discriminate among applications and tends to close down broad areas of application rather than facilitate innovation and positive industry interactions. Furthermore, the fields of innovative animal biosciences appear to lack networks of organisations with co-ordinated future oriented actions. Such networks could drive coherent programmes of innovation towards particular visions and contribute actively to the development of regulatory systems for GM animals. The analysis presented makes the case for regulatory consideration of each animal bioscience related innovation on the basis of the nature of the product itself and not the process by which it was developed.

Indexed as

Animals, Genetically ModifiedDrug IndustryAnimalsBiotechnologyEconomicsEuropean UnionResearch

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.