ArticlePLoS biology2016
Essential Features of Responsible Governance of Agricultural Biotechnology.
Article in PLoS biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Drivers of farmers' intentions to adopt genome-edited cassava resistant to cassava brown streak disease in Uganda.GM crops & food · 2026Article
- What farmers think about using crop biotechnology to boost photosynthesis in rice and potato.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Building public trust and acceptance towards spray-on RNAi biopesticides: lessons from current ethical, legal and social discourses.GM crops & food · 2025Review
- Regulation as key to fulfilling the promises of agricultural genomics: Going beyond bottlenecks in plant gene technology development.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2025Review
- New genomic techniques, old divides: Stakeholder attitudes towards new biotechnology regulation in the EU and UK.PloS one · 2024Article
- Parameters, practices, and preferences for regulatory review of emerging biotechnology products in food and agriculture.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Climate solution or corporate co-optation? US and Canadian publics' views on agricultural gene editing.PloS one · 2022Article
- Between a rock and a hard place: Farmers' perspectives on gene editing in livestock agriculture in Bavaria.EMBO reports · 2021Article
- Why is it so hard to enact responsible change?: Scientists need to work more closely with other social groups to implement sustainable innovation.EMBO reports · 2020Article
- New Hope for a "Cursed" Crop? Understanding Stakeholder Attitudes to Plant Molecular Farming With Modified Tobacco in Europe.Frontiers in plant science · 2020Article
- Shotguns vs Lasers: Identifying barriers and facilitators to scaling-up plant molecular farming for high-value health products.PloS one · 2020Article
- Comparative Proteomics of Phytase-transgenic Maize Seeds Indicates Environmental Influence is More Important than that of Gene Insertion.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- The ecology and evolution of microbial CRISPR-Cas adaptive immune systems.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019Article
- Dealing With Rejection: An Application of the Exit-Voice Framework to Genome-Edited Food.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2019Article
- Constructing future scenarios as a tool to foster responsible research and innovation among future synthetic biologists.Life sciences, society and policy · 2018Article
- Revisiting Risk Governance of GM Plants: The Need to Consider New and Emerging Gene-Editing Techniques.Frontiers in plant science · 2018Review
- Article
- How biological background assumptions influence scientific risk evaluation of stacked genetically modified plants: an analysis of research hypotheses and argumentations.Life sciences, society and policy · 2017Article
- Is it only the regulatory status? Broadening the debate on cisgenic plants.Environmental sciences Europe · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Agricultural biotechnology continues to generate considerable controversy. We argue that to address this controversy, serious changes to governance are needed. The new wave of genomic tools and products (e.g., CRISPR, gene drives, RNAi, synthetic biology, and genetically modified [GM] insects and fish), provide a particularly useful opportunity to reflect on and revise agricultural biotechnology governance. In response, we present five essential features to advance more socially responsible forms of governance. In presenting these, we hope to stimulate further debate and action towards improved forms of governance, particularly as these new genomic tools and products continue to emerge.
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.