ArticleTransgenic research2024
Narratives in European debate concerning new genomic techniques.
Article in Transgenic research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the complexity of agricultural problems, it is essential to develop acceptable solutions for various stakeholders with diverse knowledge, viewpoints, and preferences. However, European public opinion has become highly polarized, making constructive discussions on these issues difficult. We present the results of the narrative analysis of media debate on new genomic techniques. The study identified two primary narrative groups: 'precaution-focused' and 'innovation-focused.' The former emphasizes caution, potential risks, and the need for stringent regulation, while the latter highlights benefits, progress, and the promise of genome editing for sustainable agricultural practices. Within each group of narratives, several distinct narratives were identified. The research has revealed that despite the high polarization, the narratives shared important values and beliefs. Going beyond the dividing narratives and concentrating on common values can depolarize the debate and set the stage for new narratives, enabling constructive debate, concentrating on solving problems, and maximizing collective outcomes.
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.