Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37782804›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2023

Science, evidence, law, and justice.

Thomas D Albright, David Baltimore, Anne-Marie Mazza, Jennifer L Mnookin, David S Tatel

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas D AlbrightThe Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, CA 92037.ORCID 0000-0003-0691-5992
David BaltimoreCalifornia Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125.
Anne-Marie MazzaThe National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, DC 20001.
Jennifer L MnookinUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706.
David S TatelUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Washington, DC 20001.
California Institute of Technology · USNational Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine · USSalk Institute for Biological Studies · USUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For nearly 25 y, the Committee on Science, Technology, and Law (CSTL), of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, has brought together distinguished members of the science and law communities to stimulate discussions that would lead to a better understanding of the role of science in legal decisions and government policies and to a better understanding of the legal and regulatory frameworks that govern the conduct of science. Under the leadership of recent CSTL co-chairs David Baltimore and David Tatel, and CSTL director Anne-Marie Mazza, the committee has overseen many interdisciplinary discussions and workshops, such as the international summits on human genome editing and the science of implicit bias, and has delivered advisory consensus reports focusing on topics of broad societal importance, such as dual use research in the life sciences, voting systems, and advances in neural science research using organoids and chimeras. One of the most influential CSTL activities concerns the use of forensic evidence by law enforcement and the courts, with emphasis on the scientific validity of forensic methods and the role of forensic testimony in bringing about justice. As coeditors of this Special Feature, CSTL alumni Tom Albright and Jennifer Mnookin have recruited articles at the intersection of science and law that reveal an emerging scientific revolution of forensic practice, which we hope will engage a broad community of scientists, legal scholars, and members of the public with interest in science-based legal policy and justice reform.

Indexed as

Biological Science DisciplinesForensic MedicineForensic SciencesHumansLaw EnforcementPolicySocial JusticeCommittee on Science, Technology, and Lawforensic reformpattern comparisonrules of evidence

Identifiers

PMID37782804
PMCPMC10576109
OpenAlexW4387245032

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.