ArticleSystems and synthetic biology2012
Are we doing synthetic biology?
Article in Systems and synthetic biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Words, images and gender: Lessons from a survey on the public perception of synthetic biology and related disciplines.EMBO reports · 2019Article
- Creating life and the media: translations and echoes.Life sciences, society and policy · 2018Review
- Designing with living systems in the synthetic yeast project.Nature communications · 2018Review
- Synthetic biology in the German press: how implications of metaphors shape representations of morality and responsibility.Life sciences, society and policy · 2018Article
- Cartoons on bacterial balloons: scientists' opinion on the popularization of synthetic biology.Systems and synthetic biology · 2014Article
- iGEM 2.0--refoundations for engineering biology.Nature biotechnology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Synthetic Biology is a singular, revolutionary scenario with a vast range of practical applications but, is SB research really based on engineering principles? Is it contributing to the artificial synthesis of life or using approaches "sophisticated" enough to fall outside the scope of biotechnology or metabolic engineering? We have reviewed the state of the art on synthetic biology and we conclude that most research projects actually describe an extension of metabolic engineering. We draw this conclusion because the complexity of living organisms, their tight dependence on evolution and our limited knowledge of the interactions between the molecules they are made of, actually make life difficult to engineer. We therefore propose the term synthetic biology should be used more sparingly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.