Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26924471›Full record

ReviewTransgenic research2016

History and future of genetically engineered food animal regulation: an open request.

Kevin D Wells

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Transgenic research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

1 author.

Kevin D WellsDivision of Animal Sciences, Animal Sciences Research Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA. wellskev@missouri.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern biotechnology resulted from of a series of incremental improvements in the understanding of DNA and the enzymes that nature evolved to manipulate it. As the potential impact of genetic engineering became apparent, scientists began the process of trying to identify the potential unintended consequences. Restrictions to recombinant DNA experimentation were at first self-imposed. Collaborative efforts between scientists and lawyers formalized an initial set of guidelines. These guidelines have been used to promulgate regulations around world. However, the initial guidelines were only intended as a starting point and were motivated by a specific set of concerns. As new data became available, the guidelines and regulations should have been adapted to the new knowledge. Instead, other social drivers drove the development of regulations. For most species and most applications, the framework that was established has slowly allowed some products to reach the market. However, genetically engineered livestock that are intended for food have been left in a regulatory state of limbo. To date, no genetically engineered food animal is available in the marketplace. A short history and a U.S.-based genetic engineer's perspective are presented. In addition, a request to regulatory agencies is presented for consideration as regulation continues to evolve. Regulators appear to have shown preference for the slow, random progression of evolution over the efficiency of intentional design.

Indexed as

Food, Genetically ModifiedAnimalsBiotechnologyGenetic EngineeringLivestockPlants, Genetically ModifiedGenetically engineered foodGenetic engineeringRegulations

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.