Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40522595›Full record

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.

Michail Ivanov, Emily A Buddle, Rachel A Ankeny

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Genome editing between wonder and rejection.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Michail IvanovSchool of Humanities, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, 5005, Australia.
Emily A BuddleSchool of Humanities, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, 5005, Australia.
Rachel A AnkenySchool of Humanities, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, 5005, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1547-6031

Funding

Australian Research Council IC210100047
6 · The paper itself

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

AgricultureCrops, AgriculturalGene EditingGenomicsGenome, Plantagricultural genomicsbiotechnologybottlenecksgene editinggene technologygenetic modificationpublic engagement in scienceregulationresponsible research and innovation

Identifiers

PMID40522595
PMCPMC12169205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.