ReviewTransgenic research2013
Novel GM animal technologies and their governance.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regulation of Molecular Farming Products.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Genomic and phenotypic analyses of six offspring of a genome-edited hornless bull.Nature biotechnology · 2020Article
- Proposed U.S. regulation of gene-edited food animals is not fit for purpose.NPJ science of food · 2019Review
- Genome edited animals: Learning from GM crops?Transgenic research · 2017Article
- Use of Genomic Tools to Improve Cattle Health in the Context of Infectious Diseases.Frontiers in genetics · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
23780762What 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.