Are scientists a workforce? - Or, how Dr. Frankenstein made biomedical research sick: A proposed plan to rescue US biomedical research from its current 'malaise' will not be effective as it misdiagnoses the root cause of the disease.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

1. The end of the genetic paradigm of cancer.PLoS biology · 2025
   Review
2. The shift from quantitative to qualitative thinking-problems and prospects as viewed from Husserl's and Hegel's philosophy.Frontiers in psychology · 2023
   Article
3. Viruses · 2019
   Review
4. A new paradigm for the scientific enterprise: nurturing the ecosystem.F1000Research · 2018
   Article
5. Science in the UK - whereto now?Biomolecular detection and quantification · 2016
   Article
6. Editorial: Centennial Celebration - An Interview With Dr Ana Soto on 25 Years of Research on Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals.Molecular endocrinology (Baltimore, Md.) · 2016
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as