Literature DB >> 26961641

Policy: Reboot the debate on genetic engineering.

Jennifer Kuzma1.   

Abstract

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26961641     DOI: 10.1038/531165a

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nature        ISSN: 0028-0836            Impact factor:   49.962


× No keyword cloud information.
  5 in total

1.  Europe's genetically edited plants stuck in legal limbo.

Authors:  Alison Abbott
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-12-17       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  A proposed regulatory framework for genome-edited crops.

Authors:  Sanwen Huang; Detlef Weigel; Roger N Beachy; Jiayang Li
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 38.330

3.  A face-lift for biotech rules begins.

Authors:  Emily Waltz
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 54.908

4.  Lessons from the 'Humanitarian Golden Rice' project: regulation prevents development of public good genetically engineered crop products.

Authors:  Ingo Potrykus
Journal:  N Biotechnol       Date:  2010-07-27       Impact factor: 5.079

Review 5.  The Regulatory Status of Genome-edited Crops.

Authors:  Jeffrey D Wolt; Kan Wang; Bing Yang
Journal:  Plant Biotechnol J       Date:  2015-08-07       Impact factor: 9.803

  5 in total
  13 in total

1.  A future scenario of the global regulatory landscape regarding genome-edited crops.

Authors:  Tetsuya Ishii; Motoko Araki
Journal:  GM Crops Food       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 3.074

2.  A cooperative governance network for crop genome editing: The success of governance networks in other areas could help to find common ground for applying genome editing in agriculture.

Authors:  Nicholas R Jordan; Kevin M Dorn; Timothy M Smith; Katie E Wolf; Patrick M Ewing; Adria L Fernandez; Bryan C Runck; Alwyn Williams; You Lu; Jennifer Kuzma
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2017-09-19       Impact factor: 8.807

3.  Ethical principles for the use of human cellular biotechnologies.

Authors:  Paul Root Wolpe; Karen S Rommelfanger
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 54.908

4.  A Universally Acceptable View on the Adoption of Improved Plant Breeding Techniques.

Authors:  Dennis Eriksson; Klaus H Ammann
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2017-01-05       Impact factor: 5.753

5.  Is biotechnology (more) acceptable when it enables a reduction in phytosanitary treatments? A European comparison of the acceptability of transgenesis and cisgenesis.

Authors:  Damien Rousselière; Samira Rousselière
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-06       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Product, not process! Explaining a basic concept in agricultural biotechnologies and food safety.

Authors:  Giovanni Tagliabue
Journal:  Life Sci Soc Policy       Date:  2017-03-03

Review 7.  Impacts of the EU GMO regulatory framework for plant genome editing.

Authors:  Penny A C Hundleby; Wendy A Harwood
Journal:  Food Energy Secur       Date:  2018-12-10       Impact factor: 4.109

8.  Regulatory hurdles for genome editing: process- vs. product-based approaches in different regulatory contexts.

Authors:  Thorben Sprink; Dennis Eriksson; Joachim Schiemann; Frank Hartung
Journal:  Plant Cell Rep       Date:  2016-05-03       Impact factor: 4.570

Review 9.  Profile of genetically modified plants authorized in Mexico.

Authors:  Mayra Teresa Garcia Ruiz; Aaron N Knapp; Hernan Garcia-Ruiz
Journal:  GM Crops Food       Date:  2018       Impact factor: 3.074

10.  Plants Developed by New Genetic Modification Techniques-Comparison of Existing Regulatory Frameworks in the EU and Non-EU Countries.

Authors:  Michael F Eckerstorfer; Margret Engelhard; Andreas Heissenberger; Samson Simon; Hanka Teichmann
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2019-02-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.