ReviewJournal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea)2026
Co-evolutionary pathways of synthetic biology regulation: A comparative analysis of major countries and Korea's strategic legislation.
Review in Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea), 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The convergence of synthetic biology and artificial intelligence is widening the gap between technological advancement and existing regulatory frameworks - a phenomenon known as regulatory lag. As global competition intensifies to capture a synthetic biology market projected to reach approximately $70 billion by 2030, nations are responding to this challenge through markedly different approaches. This study applies a comparative legal methodology, drawing on co-evolutionary theory and the Law 1.0/2.0/3.0 framework, to analyze the regulatory responses of the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea. The analysis reveals that national differences stem less from institutional design choices than from the triggers that initiate regulatory change, yielding four distinct co-evolutionary pathways. In the United States, a shift in the judicial environment prompted regulatory adaptation; in the United Kingdom, a political transition created the conditions for legislative reform; and in Japan, administrative reinterpretation of existing rules enabled regulatory adjustment. South Korea represents a fundamentally different case. By enacting the world's first standalone synthetic biology legislation prior to full technological maturation, Korea has pursued a top-down co-evolutionary model in which institutional design precedes and shapes the trajectory of technological development. Three conclusions emerge from this analysis: there is no single optimal co-evolutionary pathway; institutional flexibility determines the sustainability of co-evolution; and co-evolution can itself be an object of proactive design. For Korea's preemptive model to prove effective, it requires a sufficient scientific foundation, institutional flexibility, and coherence with existing regulatory frameworks - conditions that offer a reference point for other nations confronting similar governance challenges.
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.