ArticleNTM2017
[aDNA Research From a Historical Perspective].
Article in NTM, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The Technological Condition of Human Evolution: Lithic Studies as Basic Science.Journal of paleolithic archaeology · 2021Article
- [A Botanist in the History of Paper: Open and Closed Cooperations in the Sciences Around 1900].NTM · 2020Article
- A Biohistorical Perspective of Typhoid and Antimicrobial Resistance.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2019Article
- 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
aDNA studies are a cooperative field of research with a broad range of applications including evolutionary biology, genetics, anthropology and archaeology. Scientists are using ancient molecules as source material for historical questions. Colleagues from the humanities are observing this with both interest and concern because aDNA research is affecting academic identities and both concepts of history and historiography. aDNA research developed in a way that can be described as a Hype Cycle (Chackie Fenn). Technological triggers such as Sanger Sequencing and the Polymerase Chain Reaction kicked off a multitude of experiments with ancient DNA during the 1980s and 1990s. Geneticists, microbiologists, anthropologists and many more euphorically joined a "molecule hunt". aDNA was promoted as a time machine. Media attention was enormous. As experiments and implementations began to fail and contamination was discovered to be a tremendous problem, media interest waned and many labs lost their interest. Some turned their disillusionment into systematic research into methodology and painstakingly established lab routines. The authenticity problem was first addressed by control oriented measures but later approached from a more cognitive theoretical perspective as the pitfalls and limits of aDNA became clearer. By the end of the 2000s the field reached its current plateau of productivity. Cross-disciplinary debates, conflicts and collaborations are increasing critical reflection among all participants. Historians should consider joining the field in a kind of critical friendship to both make the most of its possibilities and give an input from a constructivist perspective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28389681What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.