Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28744655›Full record

ArticleJournal of the history of biology2018

Whose Turn? Chromosome Research and the Study of the Human Genome.

Soraya de Chadarevian

Erratum issuedAbstract readHistorical Article
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the history of biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Soraya de ChadarevianDepartment of History and Institute for Society and Genetics, University of California Los Angeles, 6265 Bunche Hall, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1473, USA. chadarevian@history.ucla.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4360-7203

Funding

National Science Foundation (US) 1534814
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A common account sees the human genome sequencing project of the 1990s as a "natural outgrowth" of the deciphering of the double helical structure of DNA in the 1950s. The essay aims to complicate this neat narrative by putting the spotlight on the field of human chromosome research that flourished at the same time as molecular biology. It suggests that we need to consider both endeavors - the human cytogeneticists who collected samples and looked down the microscope and the molecular biologists who probed the molecular mechanisms of gene function - to understand the rise of the human genome sequencing project and the current genomic practices. In particular, it proposes that what has often been described as the "molecularization" of cytogenetics could equally well be viewed as the turn of molecular biologists to human and medical genetics - a field long occupied by cytogeneticists. These considerations also have implications for the archives that are constructed for future historians and policy makers.

Indexed as

Genome, HumanChromosomes, HumanGenomicsHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHuman Genome ProjectHumansMolecular BiologyCytogeneticsGene mappingHuman geneticsHuman genome projectMolecular biologyMolecularizationPopulation studies

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.