ArticleTransgenic research2024
Regulation of genome edited organisms in Australia.
Article in Transgenic research, 2024. 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.
- High-throughput yeast engineering in biofoundries: towards autonomous and scalable synthetic biology.FEMS yeast research · 2026Review
- Beyond GMOs: transgene-free gene-edited crops for global food security.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
- Bioleaching for critical metal recovery from bauxite residue- unlocking waste valorization.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whether organisms developed with the use of genome editing techniques, or food derived from such organisms, are, or should be, regulated as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically modified (GM) food, respectively, remains a subject of debate globally. Much of the discussion has been scientific and focussed on the similar genetic outcomes of some genome editing techniques and 'conventional' or natural mutagenesis. Many jurisdictions, including Australia, have considered, or are considering, how their regulatory frameworks will deal with such organisms and products. In Australia, organisms developed with site directed nuclease 1 (SDN-1, with no added template to guide homology-directed repair) are not regulated as GMOs, pursuant to exclusions in the Gene Technology Regulations 2001. The exclusion of SDN-1 organisms from regulation in Australia is sometimes misrepresented, including in scientific peer reviewed publications, as extending to all genome edited organisms. This highlights the importance for researchers, developers and other stakeholders to understand that whether genome edited organisms are, or are not, subject to regulation as GMOs in a particular jurisdiction may quintessentially be a legal question, not a scientific one.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39446213What 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.