Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33717291›Full record

ArticleAsian bioethics review2018

Technoscience and Biodiversity Conservation.

Christophe Boëte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian bioethics review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Christophe BoëteISEM, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, IRD, EPHE, Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9043-8652

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The discovery of CRISPR/Cas9 has opened new avenues in gene editing. This system, usually considered as molecular scissors, permits the cutting of the DNA at a targeted site allowing the introduction of new genes or the removal or the modification of existing ones. The genome-editing, involving gene drive or not, is then considered with a strong interest in a variety of fields ranging from agriculture to public health and conservation biology. Given its controversial aspects, it is then no surprise that actors in biodiversity conservation do express conflicting views on this emerging and disruptive technology. The positions are ranging from a request for a moratorium to the will to test and deploy it in strategies aiming at eradicating invasive species of mammals on islands. Reviewing some of its recent developments brings light on the conflicts of interest, the financial support, and lobbying currently occurring in this growing field of biotechnology. While an optimistic view on the use of gene drive for ecosystem conservation was first promoted by several molecular biologists, the risks and uncertainties associated have now led to some reservations. Overall, the eventual use of this novel approach for conservation raises concerns related to the engagement of the public, the communication between scientists, and the public and the risk of a manufactured consent. There are also a series of essential ethical and philosophical questions on the relations we have with Nature that needs to be answered.

Indexed as

ConservationCRISPREthicsGene driveInvasive speciesTechnoscience

Identifiers

PMID33717291
PMCPMC7747258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.