Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 239

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison between Crop Domestication, Classical Plant Breeding, and Genetic Engineering

Gepts, P.·2002·Crop Science

Abstract

Several claims have been made about genetic engineering (GE) in comparison with crop domestication and classical plant breeding, including the similarity of genetic changes between those taking place during domestication and by GE, the increased speed and accuracy of GE over classical plant breeding, and the higher level of knowledge about the actual genes being transferred by GE compared with classical breeding. In reviewing evidence pertaining to these claims, I suggest that (i) it is unlikely that changes introduced by GE will make crops weedier, although exceptions have been noted, (ii) changes brought about by GE currently often involve gain‐of‐function mutations, whereas changes selected during domestication generally involve loss‐of‐function mutations, (iii) adoption of GE cultivars has been much faster than any previous introduction and spread of agriculture that occurred earlier but has occurred at about the same rate as the spread of cultivars obtained by plant breeding, (iv) introduction of agriculture reduced the health of agriculturists compared with that of hunter–gatherers, suggesting that introduction of innovations do not automatically improve well being, (v) although GE is not a substitute for plant breeding, it can significantly contribute to plant breeding by generating additional genetic diversity, (vi) uncertainties associated with the site of insertion of transgenes in the genome and the expression of transgenes following insertion, makes GE less rapid and precise than originally claimed, and (vii) a potential advantage of GE over classical breeding is the knowledge of the actual gene(s) being inserted, although few cases of unwanted gene introductions through classical plant breeding have been documented. Further advances in GE will increase the precision of the technique, its relevance to consumers, and its environmental friendliness. What is most needed are even‐handed, case‐by‐case assessments of the benefits and potential pitfalls of GE in comparison with other crop improvement techniques. Classical plant breeding may, in the end, also be regulated in the same way as GE.

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 · 10.2135/cropsci2002.1780

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 239

Metadata

Authors
Gepts, P.
Venue
Crop Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-11
Volume
42
Issue
6
Pages
1780-1790
ISSN
  • 0011-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0653
OpenAlex
W2068761831
Cited by
239
References
3
FWCI
10.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: A Comparison between Crop Domestication, Classical Plant Breeding, and Genetic Engineering. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2135/cropsci2002.1780
The paper
Gepts, P. (2002). A Comparison between Crop Domestication, Classical Plant Breeding, and Genetic Engineering. Crop Science. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2002.1780

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.