2018
DOI: 10.1111/ppl.12680
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Separate product from process: framing the debate that surrounds the potential uptake of new breeding technologies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The commercial exploitation of genome editing products and their public acceptance, however, will depend on proportionate, and hopefully world-wide consistent, regulatory frame as well as correct information (Custers 2017;Parry and Jose 2018;Eriksson et al 2019;Herman et al 2019).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The commercial exploitation of genome editing products and their public acceptance, however, will depend on proportionate, and hopefully world-wide consistent, regulatory frame as well as correct information (Custers 2017;Parry and Jose 2018;Eriksson et al 2019;Herman et al 2019).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The initial proposal was submitted in early 2014 at which time the potential of CRISPR-mediated gene editing had not fully emerged. However through the allocation of funding for unspecified future events, the details of which would be decided by the GARNet advisory committee, it allowed the flexibility to organise events that focused on transformative gene-editing technologies which have reach across the entire plant science community (Parry et al, 2016;Parry and Jose, 2018;Parry and Harrison, 2019). Therefore important advice for any new network is to ensure that during the funding period there is reasonable flexibility to enable it to respond to unexpected technological developments.…”
Section: Stay Ahead Of the Technology Curvementioning
confidence: 99%