↓ Skip to main content

The Integration of Science and Policy in Regulatory Decision-Making: Observations on Scientific Expert Panels Deliberating GM Crops in Centers of Diversity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Integration of Science and Policy in Regulatory Decision-Making: Observations on Scientific Expert Panels Deliberating GM Crops in Centers of Diversity
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2018.01157
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen E. Hokanson, Norman Ellstrand, Alan Raybould

Abstract

Panels of experts with specialized knowledge and experience are often convened to identify and analyze information relevant for risk assessments of GM crops. A perspective on the use of such scientific expert panels is shared here based on panels convened to inform the regulatory strategy for three separate projects developing GM crops for cultivation in Africa: a nutritionally enhanced sorghum, an insect resistant cowpea, and a virus resistant cassava. The panels were convened specifically to consider the risks associated with gene flow from a genetically modified (GM) crop to naturally occurring 'wild' relatives of that crop. In these cases, the experts used problem formulation to identify effects that regulatory authorities may consider to be harmful ("harms") and formulate plausible scenarios that might lead to them, and the availability of information that could determine the likelihood of the steps in the pathway. These panels and the use of problem formulation worked well to gather the existing information and consider the likelihood of harm from gene flow in centers of diversity. However, one important observation from all of these cases is that it is outside the remit of such scientific expert panels to make decisions dependent on policy, such as which harms should be considered and what information should be considered essential in order for a regulatory authority to make a decision about the acceptable level of risk. These experiences of expert panels to inform GM crop risk assessment demonstrate the challenge of integrating science and policy for effective regulatory decision-making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 17%
Researcher 4 14%
Lecturer 3 10%
Professor 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Other 8 28%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 48%
Engineering 2 7%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 7 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 November 2019.
All research outputs
#2,139,382
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#896
of 20,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,150
of 331,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#32
of 485 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,728 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,157 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 485 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.