ReviewSynthetic biology (Oxford, England)2024
Data hazards in synthetic biology.
Review in Synthetic biology (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge preservation in the era of big science and AI: strategies for sustainable scientific research.Nature communications · 2026Review
- APMSR: an intelligent QA system for synthetic biology empowered by adaptive prompting and multi-source knowledge retrieval.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- From consultors to collaborators - An SOP for advancing ethics engagement in science.Synthetic and systems biotechnology · 2025Article
- Data Hazards as An Ethical Toolkit for Neuroscience.Neuroethics · 2025Article
- Emerging trends in genome integration tools for precision engineering of diverse bacterial species.Synthetic biology (Oxford, England) · 2025Review
- Leveraging uncertainty quantification to optimize CRISPR guide RNA selection.Biology methods & protocols · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data science is playing an increasingly important role in the design and analysis of engineered biology. This has been fueled by the development of high-throughput methods like massively parallel reporter assays, data-rich microscopy techniques, computational protein structure prediction and design, and the development of whole-cell models able to generate huge volumes of data. Although the ability to apply data-centric analyses in these contexts is appealing and increasingly simple to do, it comes with potential risks. For example, how might biases in the underlying data affect the validity of a result and what might the environmental impact of large-scale data analyses be? Here, we present a community-developed framework for assessing data hazards to help address these concerns and demonstrate its application to two synthetic biology case studies. We show the diversity of considerations that arise in common types of bioengineering projects and provide some guidelines and mitigating steps. Understanding potential issues and dangers when working with data and proactively addressing them will be essential for ensuring the appropriate use of emerging data-intensive AI methods and help increase the trustworthiness of their applications in synthetic biology.
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.