Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42626403›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2026

Confusion, communication, and consent: ELSI barriers to genomics-enhanced remediation in Alberta's oil sands.

Michelle Tilford-Shaw, Max Pospisil, Lori Bradford, Graham Strickert, Diane Dupont

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Michelle Tilford-ShawSchool of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Max PospisilSchool of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Lori BradfordRon and Jane Graham School of Professional Development, College of Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Graham StrickertSchool of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Diane DupontDepartment of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharine's, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While constructed treatment wetland systems (CTWS) and genomics have been identified as viable remediation options for oil sands processed-affected water, researchers have paid limited attention to the priorities of affected groups. To address this gap, we used focus groups to explore the perspectives on CTWS and genomics held by Indigenous Peoples, oil and gas industry employees, CTWS and genomics researchers, and government regulators and policymakers affected by oil sands remediation in northern Alberta. We identify six key concerns: confusion about the options themselves; challenges with communication about the options; differing perspectives on naturality; differing risk tolerances; questions about long term effects and who will maintain liability; and cultural impacts to Indigenous Peoples. Importantly, participants identified barriers related to ethical, legal, social, environmental, and governance implications, often referred to as ELSI, that affect their participation in decision-making about genomics-enhanced oil sands remediation. We recommend directions for improving meaningful engagement and participation.

Indexed as

constructed wetlandsgenomicsindigenous engagementoil sands processed water (OSPW)traditional knowledge

Identifiers

PMID42626403
PMCPMC13493081

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.