Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 334

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 101 of the 101 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS AND THE ENVIRONMENT: CURRENT STATUS AND RECOMMENDATIONS1

Open access
Snow, A. A., Andow, D. A., Gepts, P., Hallerman, E. M., Power, A., Tiedje, J. M., Wolfenbarger, L. L.·2005·Ecological Applications

Abstract

The Ecological Society of America has evaluated the ecological effects of current and potential uses of field‐released genetically engineered organisms (GEOs), as described in this Position Paper. Some GEOs could play a positive role in sustainable agriculture, forestry, aquaculture, bioremediation, and environmental management, both in developed and developing countries. However, deliberate or inadvertent releases of GEOs into the environment could have negative ecological effects under certain circumstances. Possible risks of GEOs could include: (1) creating new or more vigorous pests and pathogens; (2) exacerbating the effects of existing pests through hybridization with related transgenic organisms; (3) harm to nontarget species, such as soil organisms, non‐pest insects, birds, and other animals; (4) disruption of biotic communities, including agroecosystems; and (5) irreparable loss or changes in species diversity or genetic diversity within species. Many potential applications of genetic engineering extend beyond traditional breeding, encompassing viruses, bacteria, algae, fungi, grasses, trees, insects, fish, and shellfish. GEOs that present novel traits will need special scrutiny with regard to their environmental effects. The Ecological Society of America supports the following recommendations. (1) GEOs should be designed to reduce environmental risks. (2) More extensive studies of the environmental benefits and risks associated with GEOs are needed. (3) These effects should be evaluated relative to appropriate baseline scenarios. (4) Environmental release of GEOs should be prevented if scientific knowledge about possible risks is clearly inadequate. (5) In some cases, post‐release monitoring will be needed to identify, manage, and mitigate environmental risks. (6) Science‐based regulation should subject all transgenic organisms to a similar risk assessment framework and should incorporate a cautious approach, recognizing that many environmental effects are GEO‐ and site‐specific. (7) Ecologists, agricultural scientists, molecular biologists, and others need broader training and wider collaboration to address these recommendations. In summary, GEOs should be evaluated and used within the context of a scientifically based regulatory policy that encourages innovation without compromising sound environmental management. The Ecological Society of America is committed to providing scientific expertise for evaluating and predicting the ecological effects of field‐released transgenic organisms.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/04-0539

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 101 references

Cited by

See all 334

Metadata

Authors
Snow, A. A., Andow, D. A., Gepts, P., Hallerman, E. M., Power, A., Tiedje, J. M., & Wolfenbarger, L. L.
Venue
Ecological Applications
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-04
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
377-404
ISSN
  • 1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-5582
OpenAlex
W2098262403
Cited by
334
References
101
FWCI
28.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS AND THE ENVIRONMENT: CURRENT STATUS AND RECOMMENDATIONS1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/04-0539
The paper
Snow, A. A., Andow, D. A., Gepts, P., Hallerman, E. M., Power, A., Tiedje, J. M., & Wolfenbarger, L. L. (2005). GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS AND THE ENVIRONMENT: CURRENT STATUS AND RECOMMENDATIONS1. Ecological Applications. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0539

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.