ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2020
Gene Editing Regulation and Innovation Economics.
Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Ethical and legal implications of gene editing in plant breeding: a systematic literature review.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2023Pooled it
- Evolution of the Canadian regulatory system for plant biotechnology.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Genome-Edited Fish in the Field.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Recent developments, challenges and opportunities in genome editing for crop science from a societal perspective.Frontiers in genome editing · 2025Review
- Experiences, learnings and perspectives in the regulation of agricultural biotechnology: the view from Argentina.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Risk-appropriate regulations for gene-editing technologies.GM crops & food · 2024Article
- A technical approach to global plant genome editing regulation.Nature biotechnology · 2024Article
- Overcoming Obstacles to Gene-Edited Solutions to Climate Challenges.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2024Review
- Making genome editing a success story in Africa.Nature biotechnology · 2024Article
- Global regulatory trends of genome editing technology in agriculture and food.Breeding science · 2024Article
- Global regulatory policies for animal biotechnology: overview, opportunities and challenges.Frontiers in genome editing · 2024Review
- 3Bs of CRISPR-Cas mediated genome editing in plants: exploring the basics, bioinformatics and biosafety landscape.Physiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2023Review
- New precision-breeding law unlocks gene editing in England.Nature biotechnology · 2023Article
- The economics and policy of genome editing in crop improvement.The plant genome · 2023Review
- From Transgenesis to Genome Editing in Crop Improvement: Applications, Marketing, and Legal Issues.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- CRISPR technology towards genome editing of the perennial and semi-perennial crops citrus, coffee and sugarcane.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Review
- GMOs or non-GMOs? The CRISPR Conundrum.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Review
- Genome editing in maize: Toward improving complex traits in a global crop.Genetics and molecular biology · 2023Article
- Plant breeding advancements with "CRISPR-Cas" genome editing technologies will assist future food security.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Review
- Divergence and convergence in international regulatory policies regarding genome-edited food: How to find a middle ground.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Review
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
Argentina was the first country that enacted regulatory criteria to assess if organisms resulting from new breeding techniques (NBTs) are to be regarded as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or not. The country has now accumulated 4 year of experience applying such criteria, reaching a considerable number of cases, composed mostly of gene-edited plants, animals, and microorganisms of agricultural use. This article explores the effects on economic innovation of such regulatory experience. This is done by comparing the cases of products derived from gene editing and other NBTs that have been presented to the regulatory system, against the cases of GMOs that have been deregulated in the country. Albeit preliminary, this analysis suggests that products from gene editing will have different profiles and market release rates compared with the first wave of products from the so called "modern biotechnology." Gene editing products seems to follow a much faster development rate from bench to market. Such development is driven by a more diverse group of developers, and led mostly by small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and public research institutions. In addition, product profiles are also more diversified in terms of traits and organisms. The inferences of these findings for the agricultural and biotechnology sectors, particularly in developing countries, are discussed.
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.