ReviewThe Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology2025
Regulation as key to fulfilling the promises of agricultural genomics: Going beyond bottlenecks in plant gene technology development.
Review in The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology, 2025. 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.
- Genome editing between wonder and rejection.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Rethinking gene-edited crop regulation: advancing a Principle-based framework for modern biotechnology governance.GM crops & food · 2025Review
- Turbo-charging crop improvement: harnessing multiplex editing for polygenic trait engineering and beyond.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The development of new gene technologies including gene editing has reinvigorated long-standing global debates about if and how such technologies should be regulated. Many scientists working in agricultural genomics believe that current regulatory approaches are problematic, often emphasizing that the regulatory system is merely a 'bottleneck' that limits research and innovation in crop sciences. The concept of a 'bottleneck' is prominent in discussions in this domain, but we contend that what counts as a 'bottleneck' depends on point of view and the interests and goals of the party that wishes to describe a particular situation as bottlenecked. In this Focused Review, we provide a short account of recent scholarship on gene editing regulation and argue that regulation is an important part of the research development and innovation process that should not merely be viewed as a 'bottleneck.' Regulation permits regulators and diverse publics to engage with research and assess whether the particular application of gene technology is desirable and beneficial beyond the laboratory bench or field. We conclude by providing lessons for scientists working in agricultural genomics, emphasizing the need to move away from visions of 'bottlenecks' and embracing regulation's potential to support the promises associated with agricultural genomics.
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.