Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39075321›Full record

ArticleJournal of the history of biology2024

Species Choice and Model Use: Reviving Research on Human Development.

Nick Hopwood

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the history of biology, 2024. 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. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
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.

Nick HopwoodDepartment of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge, CB2 3RH, UK. ndh12@cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7069-7497

Funding

LABORATORY OF DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGYR24HD000836 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Ian Amos Glass · 1995 to 2026
$16.9M
Human embryo sections on DVDs for educationR01HD037811 · NICHD · LSU HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER · PI GASSER, RAYMOND FRANK · 2000 to 2010
$3.2M
Leverhulme Trust MRF-2020-037NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD037811NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD000836Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While model organisms have had many historians, this article places studies of humans, and particularly our development, in the politics of species choice. Human embryos, investigated directly rather than via animal surrogates, have gone through cycles of attention and neglect. In the past 60 years they moved from the sidelines to center stage. Research was resuscitated in anatomy, launched in reproductive biomedicine, molecular genetics, and stem-cell science, and made attractive in developmental biology. I explain this surge of interest in terms of rivalry with models and reliance on them. The greater involvement of medicine in human reproduction, especially through in vitro fertilization, gave access to fresh sources of material that fed critiques of extrapolation from mice and met demands for clinical relevance or "translation." Yet much of the revival depended on models. Supply infrastructures and digital standards, including biobanks and virtual atlases, emulated community resources for model organisms. Novel culture, imaging, molecular, and postgenomic methods were perfected on less precious samples. Toing and froing from the mouse affirmed the necessity of the exemplary mammal and its insufficiency justified inquiries into humans. Another kind of model-organoids and embryo-like structures derived from stem cells-enabled experiments that encouraged the organization of a new field, human developmental biology. Research on humans has competed with and counted on models.

Indexed as

Developmental BiologyAnimalsEmbryo ResearchHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHuman DevelopmentHumansMiceModels, AnimalBiobanksDigital anatomyHuman developmental biologyModel organismsPostgenomic scienceStem-cell-based embryo models

Identifiers

PMID39075321
PMCPMC11341657

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.