ReviewTransgenic research2026
Emerging trends in genome editing of wild animals.
Review in Transgenic research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Legal, ethical and moral dilemma of human cloning: the conflict between technological progress and human dignity.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Globally, nearly one million species are currently threatened with extinction, highlighting the need for more efficient solutions to biological conservation. Genome editing, which allows for faster and more precise changes in genomes, is a promising technique for boosting populations through facilitated adaptation, management of invasive or pathogenic populations, and potentially even facilitating the revival of extinct species. These approaches belong to a new field of research termed conservation biotechnology, which places a great responsibility on researchers and decision makers to ensure sustainability. In this paper, we have mapped the emerging trends in genome editing of wild animals. Current projects primarily focus on population control and de-extinction, with fewer initiatives aimed at preserving threatened species. We then explore four critical dimensions of conservation biotechnology: the technology itself, new perspectives on conservation practices, research organization, and governance and policy. Despite its potential, key questions remain-particularly whether genome editing can increase genetic diversity without causing unintended non-target impacts. Genome editing also provokes new perspectives on conservation practices where ecosystem-wide impact assessment, case-by-case evaluations, and post-release monitoring needs to be prioritized. Furthermore, conservation biotechnology is heavily funded through private funding showing varying stakeholder interest, which can lead to untraditional and less transparent research processes. Stakeholders, including local and indigenous people, are only to a certain degree involved, which may weaken inclusion of local knowledge and monitoring efforts. Finally, concerning governance and policy, there is an urgent need to develop more adequate regulation of conservation biotechnology, as environmental release of genome-edited animals challenges definitions and guidelines in current nature protection laws and GMO regulations. Based on our analysis, we outline key points for further investigation toward a more sustainable approach to conservation biotechnology.
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.