Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35414696›Full record

ReviewHeredity2022

Demystifying the mythical Mendel: a biographical review.

Daniel J Fairbanks

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heredity, 2022. 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. Genotyping ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  2. From Mendel to multi-omics: shifting paradigms.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024
    Article
  3. Mendel: From genes to genome.Plant physiology · 2022
    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.

Daniel J FairbanksDepartment of Biology, Utah Valley University, Orem, UT, 84058, USA. daniel.fairbanks@uvu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7422-0549

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gregor Mendel is widely recognised as the founder of genetics. His experiments led him to devise an enduring theory, often distilled into what are now known as the principles of segregation and independent assortment. Although he clearly articulated these principles, his theory is considerably richer, encompassing the nature of fertilisation, the role of hybridisation in evolution, and aspects often considered as exceptions or extensions, such as pleiotropy, incomplete dominance, and epistasis. In an admirable attempt to formulate a more expansive theory, he researched hybridisation in at least twenty plant genera, intentionally choosing some species whose inheritance he knew would deviate from the patterns he observed in the garden pea (Pisum sativum). Regrettably, he published the results of only a few of these additional experiments; evidence of them is largely confined to letters he wrote to Carl von Nägeli. Because most original documentation is lost or destroyed, scholars have attempted to reconstruct his history and achievements from fragmentary evidence, a situation that has led to unfortunate omissions, errors, and speculations. These range from historical uncertainties, such as what motivated his experiments, to unfounded suppositions regarding his discoveries, including assertions that he never articulated the principles ascribed to him, staunchly opposed Darwinism, fictitiously recounted experiments, and falsified data to better accord with his theory. In this review, I have integrated historical and scientific evidence within a biographical framework to dispel misconceptions and provide a clearer and more complete view of who Mendel was and what he accomplished.

Indexed as

HeredityHistory, 19th CenturyHybridization, GeneticInheritance PatternsPlantsSelection, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID35414696
PMCPMC9273628

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.