ReviewFrontiers in plant science2018
Revisiting Risk Governance of GM Plants: The Need to Consider New and Emerging Gene-Editing Techniques.
Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 81 citations in OpenAlex.
- Building public trust and acceptance towards spray-on RNAi biopesticides: lessons from current ethical, legal and social discourses.GM crops & food · 2025Review
- Deciphering and targeting oncogenic pathways through integrated approaches and amino acid metabolism in hematologic malignancies.Discover oncology · 2025Review
- Environmental Applications of GM Microorganisms: Tiny Critters Posing Huge Challenges for Risk Assessment and Governance.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Revolutionizing Tomato Cultivation: CRISPR/Cas9 Mediated Biotic Stress Resistance.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Review
- Processes for regulating genetically modified and gene edited plants.GM crops & food · 2023Review
- Guidelines for Performing CRISPR/Cas9 Genome Editing for Gene Validation and Trait Improvement in Crops.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Unlocking the Secret to Higher Crop Yield: The Potential for Histone Modifications.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Genome editing technologies, mechanisms and improved production of therapeutic phytochemicals: Opportunities and prospects.Biotechnology and bioengineering · 2023Review
- Genome Editing for Sustainable Crop Improvement and Mitigation of Biotic and Abiotic Stresses.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Sustainable use of CRISPR/Cas in fish aquaculture: the biosafety perspective.Transgenic research · 2022Review
- Are null segregants new combinations of heritable material and should they be regulated?Frontiers in genome editing · 2022Article
- Modulation of Phototropin Signalosome with Artificial Illumination Holds Great Potential in the Development of Climate-Smart Crops.Current genomics · 2021Review
- CRISPR/dCas9-Based Systems: Mechanisms and Applications in Plant Sciences.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Responsible governance of gene editing in agriculture and the environment.Nature biotechnology · 2021Article
- Biosafety of Genome Editing Applications in Plant Breeding: Considerations for a Focused Case-Specific Risk Assessment in the EU.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2021Review
- Genome-Edited Plants: Opportunities and Challenges for an Anticipatory Detection and Identification Framework.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Use of Mathematical Methods for the Biosafety Assessment of Agricultural Crops.Applied biochemistry and microbiology · 2021Article
- PEG-Delivered CRISPR-Cas9 Ribonucleoproteins System for Gene-Editing Screening of Maize Protoplasts.Genes · 2020Article
- Genome Editing in Cereals: Approaches, Applications and Challenges.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New and emerging gene-editing techniques make it possible to target specific genes in species with greater speed and specificity than previously possible. Of major relevance for plant breeding, regulators and scientists are discussing how to regulate products developed using these gene-editing techniques. Such discussions include whether to adopt or adapt the current framework for GMO risk governance in evaluating the impacts of gene-edited plants, and derived products, on the environment, human and animal health and society. Product classification or definition is one of several aspects of the current framework being criticized. Further, knowledge gaps related to risk assessments of gene-edited organisms-for example of target and off-target effects of intervention in plant genomes-are also of concern. Resolving these and related aspects of the current framework will involve addressing many subjective, value-laden positions, for example how to specify protection goals through ecosystem service approaches. A process informed by responsible research and innovation practices, involving a broader community of people, organizations, experts, and interest groups, could help scientists, regulators, and other stakeholders address these complex, value-laden concerns related to gene-editing of plants with and for society.
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.