↓ Skip to main content

Product, not process! Explaining a basic concept in agricultural biotechnologies and food safety

Overview of attention for article published in Life Sciences, Society and Policy, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 115)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
19 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Product, not process! Explaining a basic concept in agricultural biotechnologies and food safety
Published in
Life Sciences, Society and Policy, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40504-017-0048-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giovanni Tagliabue

Abstract

Most life scientists have relentlessly recommended any evaluative approach of agri-food products to be based on examination of the phenotype, i.e. the actual characteristics of the food, feed and fiber varieties: the effects of any new cultivar (or micro-organism, animal) on our health are not dependent on the process(es), the techniques used to obtain it.The so-called "genetically modified organisms" ("GMOs"), on the other hand, are commonly framed as a group with special properties - most frequently seen as dubious, or even harmful.Some social scientists still believe that considering the process is a correct background for science-based understanding and regulation. To show that such an approach is utterly wrong, and to invite scientists, teachers and science communicators to explain this mistake to students, policy-makers and the public at large, we imagined a dialogue between a social scientist, who has a positive opinion about a certain weight that a process-based orientation should have in the risk assessment, and a few experts who offer plenty of arguments against that view. The discussion focuses on new food safety.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 18 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 19 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 87. 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 13 April 2023.
All research outputs
#485,320
of 25,392,205 outputs
Outputs from Life Sciences, Society and Policy
#6
of 115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,826
of 303,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Life Sciences, Society and Policy
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,392,205 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 303,379 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them