Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27134568›Full record

ArticleNew genetics and society2016

Exploring the post-genomic world: differing explanatory and manipulatory functions of post-genomic sciences.

Christina Holmes, Siobhan M Carlson, Fiona McDonald, Mavis Jones, Janice Graham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in New genetics and society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Precision medicine journey through omics approach.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Christina HolmesTechnoscience and Regulation Research Unit, Department of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University , Halifax , NS , Canada.
Siobhan M CarlsonInterdisciplinary Studies, University of New Brunswick , Fredericton , NB , Canada.
Fiona McDonaldAustralian Centre for Health Law Research, Queensland University of Technology , Brisbane , Queensland , Australia.
Mavis JonesTechnoscience and Regulation Research Unit, Department of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University , Halifax , NS , Canada.
Janice GrahamTechnoscience and Regulation Research Unit, Department of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University , Halifax , NS , Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Richard Lewontin proposed that the ability of a scientific field to create a narrative for public understanding garners it social relevance. This article applies Lewontin's conceptual framework of the functions of science (manipulatory and explanatory) to compare and explain the current differences in perceived societal relevance of genetics/genomics and proteomics. We provide three examples to illustrate the social relevance and strong cultural narrative of genetics/genomics for which no counterpart exists for proteomics. We argue that the major difference between genetics/genomics and proteomics is that genomics has a strong explanatory function, due to the strong cultural narrative of heredity. Based on qualitative interviews and observations of proteomics conferences, we suggest that the nature of proteins, lack of public understanding, and theoretical complexity exacerbates this difference for proteomics. Lewontin's framework suggests that social scientists may find that omics sciences affect social relations in different ways than past analyses of genetics.

Indexed as

genomicsproteomicspublic understanding of science

Identifiers

PMID27134568
PMCPMC4841027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.