ArticleGM crops & food2019
Estimating the cost of regulating genome edited crops: expert judgment and overconfidence.
Article in GM crops & food, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- From lab to market: industrialization barriers and regulation optimization for new breeding technologies in China.GM crops & food · 2026Article
- Translating functional molecular knowledge into crop-breeding success.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Beyond GMOs: transgene-free gene-edited crops for global food security.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
- Rethinking gene-edited crop regulation: advancing a Principle-based framework for modern biotechnology governance.GM crops & food · 2025Review
- Advancing nutritional quality in oilseed crops through genome editing: a comprehensive review.GM crops & food · 2025Review
- A new level of RNA-based plant protection: dsRNAs designed from functionally characterized siRNAs highly effective against Cucumber mosaic virus.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Risk-appropriate regulations for gene-editing technologies.GM crops & food · 2024Article
- Chloroplast Cell-Free Systems from Different Plant Species as a Rapid Prototyping Platform.ACS synthetic biology · 2024Article
- Overcoming Obstacles to Gene-Edited Solutions to Climate Challenges.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2024Review
- Biosafety regulatory frameworks in Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda and Sweden and their potential impact on international R&D collaborations.GM crops & food · 2023Article
- The economics and policy of genome editing in crop improvement.The plant genome · 2023Review
- CRISPR technology towards genome editing of the perennial and semi-perennial crops citrus, coffee and sugarcane.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Review
- Public perception of plant gene technologies worldwide in the light of food security.GM crops & food · 2022Article
- Review
- Valorization of Starch to Biobased Materials: A Review.Polymers · 2022Review
- Should Gene Editing Be Used to Develop Crops for Continuous-Living-Cover Agriculture? A Multi-Sector Stakeholder Assessment Using a Cooperative Governance Approach.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Removing politics from innovations that improve food security.Transgenic research · 2021Review
- Regulatory approaches for genome edited agricultural plants in select countries and jurisdictions around the world.Transgenic research · 2021Review
- Expert opinions on the regulation of plant genome editing.Plant biotechnology journal · 2021Review
- Maize Transformation: From Plant Material to the Release of Genetically Modified and Edited Varieties.Frontiers in plant science · 2021Review
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
Experts are often called on to inform decision makers with subjective estimates of uncertain events. Their judgment serves as the basis for policy-related decision-making. This paper analyzes survey results used to collect experts' opinions of the likely cost to bring genome edited crops to market. We also examine the effect of expertise (scientific experts versus social scientists in plant biotechnology) and possible knowledge mis-calibration, both in terms of overconfidence (i.e., when subjective knowledge is inflated) and under-confidence (i.e., when subjective knowledge is deflated), on the estimation of cost involved in the development and commercial release of genome edited crops. We found that the expected costs of genome edited crops are case specific and depend on whether crops will likely be regulated as genetically modified or accepted as conventional varieties and not subject to any regulatory oversight by federal regulators. While cost evaluation of genome edited crops did not vary among scientific and social experts, it did vary among domains of knowledge. Hence, expert's performance can be described as task-specific in the context of this study.
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.