ArticleGM crops & food2023
Gene editing achieves consistently higher favorability in social and traditional media than GMOs.
Article in GM crops & food, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engineering crop determinacy: CRISPR/Cas based advances in self-pruning gene function and application.Molecular biology reports · 2026Review
- Woody Plant Transformation: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The impact of 'framing' in the adoption of GM crops.GM crops & food · 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
While GMOs have been the subject of negative discourse over a long time period, it is possible that newer breeding technologies like gene editing are viewed more favorably. We present data for a 5-year period between January 2018 and December 2022, showing that in content specific to agricultural biotechnology, gene editing achieves consistently higher favorability ratings than GMOs in both social and traditional English-language media. Our sentiment analysis shows that favorability is especially positive in social media, with close to 100% favorability achieved in numerous monthly values throughout our 5 years of analysis. We believe that the scientific community can therefore be cautiously optimistic based on current trends that gene editing will be accepted by the public and be able to achieve its promise of making a substantial contribution to future food security and environmental sustainability worldwide. However, there are some recent indications of more sustained downward trends, which may be a cause for concern.
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.