Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29371856›Full record

ArticleJournal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience2017

Three Scientific Controversies to Engage Students in Reading Primary Literature.

D J Brasier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Teaching Principles of Place Cells.Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Using Blogs as Practice Writing About Original Neuroscience Papers Enhances Students' Confidence in Their Critical Analysis of Research.Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience · 2018
    Article
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

1 author.

D J BrasierDepartment of Biological Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this review, three sets of papers are presented. Each of the sets presents a historical or active controversy in neuroscience ranging from cell biology and cell signaling, to developmental neuroscience, to cognitive neuroscience. The first set captures a historical controversy about whether the beta/gamma subunit of G-proteins can be active in opening ion channels. The second set represents a modern instantiation of the oldest debate in neuroscience: are our minds and brains the product of innate factors or environmental influences. This debate plays out in a series of papers on the development of the visual system. The third set contrasts the view that the hippocampus and surrounding structures primarily function to represent our location in space (a position for which the 2014 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to three investigators) with the perspective that the hippocampus is a general-purpose structure for declarative memories, spatial or non-spatial. The first and third controversies feature publications of virtually identical experiments that show opposing results. All three controversies are discussed in regards to the individual scientists who did the experiments and debated directly with each other. The first (beta/gamma subunits) emphasizes the value of reproducibility in scientific research, the second (visual cortex development) emphasizes the value of new techniques and updating scientific models, and the third (hippocampus) exposes students to an ongoing, albeit under discussed, debate.

Indexed as

controversydebateGPCRinterpretation of datanaturenurturepedagogyplace cellsscience processsynapses

Identifiers

PMID29371856
PMCPMC5777852

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.