ArticleFungal biology and biotechnology2019
Merging science and art through fungi.
Article in Fungal biology and biotechnology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fungal pectinases: an insight into production, innovations and applications.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2023Review
- Electrical response of fungi to changing moisture content.Fungal biology and biotechnology · 2023Article
- The colors of life: an interdisciplinary artist-in-residence project to research fungal pigments as a gateway to empathy and understanding of microbial life.Fungal biology and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Development of Novel Forms of Fungal Art UsingJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Ten simple rules for hosting artists in a scientific lab.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Growing a circular economy with fungal biotechnology: a white paper.Fungal biology and biotechnology · 2020Review
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
Science and art have long been studied interchangeably, with notable polymaths emerging in the Renaissance such as Leonardo da Vinci (artist, inventor, engineer and anatomist) and Alexander von Humboldt (explorer, geographer and naturalist) with his fellow investigators Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (scientist and writer) and Friedrich Schiller (philosopher, physician and historian). However, this polymathic attitude and the co-operation between scientists and artists seemed to go into hibernation in the second half of the eighteenth century due to an overload of information, especially for the scientists. I illustrate here that the two seemingly diverse fields can feed and sustain each other not only from the attitude of how to think about an object, but also how to show this object in a way that may not have been seen before. Ideas and viewpoints gained from looking at an organism artistically can enable a scientist to think "outside the box", providing insights to reassess earlier scientifically hidebound attitudes.
Identifiers
What 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.