ReviewBMC proceedings2018
Towards inclusive social appraisal: risk, participation and democracy in governance of synthetic biology.
Review in BMC proceedings, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging trends in genome editing of wild animals.Transgenic research · 2026Review
- Engineering biology applications for environmental solutions: potential and challenges.Nature communications · 2025Review
- Public attitudes to genetic technology for invasive pest control and preferences for engagement and information: a segmentation analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Conceptual risk assessment of mosquito population modification gene-drive systems to control malaria transmission: preliminary hazards list workshops.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Review
- Recommendations for environmental risk assessment of gene drive applications for malaria vector control.Malaria journal · 2022Article
- Hurdles in responsive community engagement for the development of environmental biotechnologies.Synthetic biology (Oxford, England) · 2022Review
- Gene drive strategies of pest control in agricultural systems: Challenges and opportunities.Evolutionary applications · 2021Article
- Controlling the Implementation of Transgenic Microbes: Are We Ready for What Synthetic Biology Has to Offer?Molecular cell · 2020Review
- The potential of genomics for restoring ecosystems and biodiversity.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2019Review
- Two unresolved issues in community engagement for field trials of genetically modified mosquitoes.Pathogens and global health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Frameworks that govern the development and application of novel products, such as the products of synthetic biology, should involve all those who are interested or potentially affected by the products. The governance arrangements for novel products should also provide a democratic mechanism that allows affected parties to express their opinions on the direction that innovation does or does not take. In this paper we examine rationales, obstacles and opportunities for public participation in governance of novel synthetic biology products. Our analysis addresses issues such as uncertainties, the considering of alternative innovations, and broader social and environmental implications. The crucial issues in play go beyond safety alone, to include contending social values around diverse notions of benefit and harm. The paper highlights the need for more inclusive social appraisal mechanisms to inform governance of Synthetic Biology and alternative products, and discusses a few practical methods to help achieve this goal.
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.