ArticleEcology and evolution2024
Early research on anther-smut disease: A fuller view of science?
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Early research on anther-smut disease: A fuller view of science?Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The anther-smut host-pathogen system has provided extensive insights into the evolutionary ecology of disease resistance, transmission modes, host shifts, pathogen specialization, and disease evolution in metapopulations. It also has led to unexpected insights into sex ratio distorters, sex chromosome evolution, and transposable elements in fungi. In addition, anther-smut disease played a major role in Linnaeus' germ theory and the correspondence on parasitic castration between Darwin and Becker, one of the first female botanists. Here, we explicitly highlight some of the realities in the process of science, using an unusual autobiographical approach to describe how we came to collaborate on this system in the 1980s. Using perspectives from our different career stages, we present a surprising narrative that could not be deduced from merely reading the published papers. While our work was grounded in previous ecological and evolutionary theory, it was the product as much of empirical failures and intellectual roadblocks, as the result of a progressive scientific method. Our experiences illustrate not only the "human dimension of science" but more importantly show that linear sequences of hypothesis testing do not necessarily lead to new study systems and new ideas. We suggest there is a need to re-evaluate the scientific method in ecology and evolution, especially where the challenge is to engage in a productive dialog between natural history and theory.
Indexed as
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.