ReviewiScience2022
Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation.
Review in iScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Horizon scanning of potential environmental applications of terrestrial animals, fish, algae and microorganisms produced by genetic modification, including the use of new genomic techniques.Frontiers in genome editing · 2024Pooled it
- De-extinction technology and its application to conservation.The Journal of heredity · 2026Review
- Genetically Modified Microorganisms: Risks and Regulatory Considerations for Human and Environmental Health.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Review
- Bending the curve of global freshwater biodiversity loss: what are the prospects?Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025Review
- The recent genetic modification techniques for improve soil conservation, nutrient uptake and utilization.GM crops & food · 2024Review
- Antioxidant Capacity and Phenolics Profile of Portuguese Traditional Cultivars of Apples and Pears and Their By-Products: On the Way to Newer Applications.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Synthetic biology in Indonesia: Potential and projection in a country with mega biodiversity.Biotechnology notes (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The world's biodiversity is in crisis. Synthetic biology has the potential to transform biodiversity conservation, both directly and indirectly, in ways that are negative and positive. However, applying these biotechnology tools to environmental questions is fraught with uncertainty and could harm cultures, rights, livelihoods, and nature. Decisions about whether or not to use synthetic biology for conservation should be understood alongside the reality of ongoing biodiversity loss. In 2022, the 196 Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity are negotiating the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework that will guide action by governments and other stakeholders for the next decade to conserve the worlds' biodiversity. To date, synthetic biologists, conservationists, and policy makers have operated in isolation. At this critical time, this review brings these diverse perspectives together and emerges out of the need for a balanced and inclusive examination of the potential application of these technologies to biodiversity conservation.
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.