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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Analysis of the genome sequence of the flowering plant Arabidopsis thaliana
Initiative, T. A. G. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35048692 · Cited by 9,301
Drake, J. W., Charlesworth, B., Charlesworth, D., & Crow, J. F. (1998) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/148.4.1667 · Cited by 1,932
Principles for the Buffering of Genetic Variation
Hartman IV, J. L. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.291.5506.1001 · Cited by 808
Cited by
Can improvement in photosynthesis increase crop yields?
LONG, S. P., ZHU, X., NAIDU, S. L., & ORT, D. R. (2006) · Plant, Cell & Environment · doi:10.1111/j.1365-3040.2005.01493.x · Cited by 1,586
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS AND THE ENVIRONMENT: CURRENT STATUS AND RECOMMENDATIONS1
Snow, A. A., Andow, D. A., Gepts, P., Hallerman, E. M., Power, A., Tiedje, J. M., & Wolfenbarger, L. L. (2005) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/04-0539 · Cited by 334
Self-citationNew Insights Into Tissue Culture Plant-Regeneration Mechanisms
Long, Y., Yang, Y., Pan, G., & Shen, Y. (2022) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2022.926752 · Cited by 270
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.