Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40099909›Full record

ArticleSocial studies of science2025

Making modafinil: Classification and serendipity in drug development.

Stephen J Scholte, Ohid Yaqub

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Social studies of science, 2025. 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
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

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

2 authors.

Stephen J ScholteScience Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex, Brighton, East Sussex, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4976-4215
Ohid YaqubScience Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex, Brighton, East Sussex, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9913-417X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How does a compound become a drug, and how do we decide for whom the drug is intended? Building a history of modafinil, this article examines how classification and serendipity affect drug development. We explore how mental health categories interact with drug development by tracing: how compound CRL40,476 was inadvertently created while exploring other compounds, and then became a focal point for development efforts; and how it secured Schedule IV status (low potential for abuse), orphan drug status (for niche markets), and then blockbuster drug status (>$1bn in annual sales). Classification of modafinil and its uses were negotiated under conditions of uncertainty, requiring substantial efforts to align interests across a wide array of institutions. We highlight these contingencies to show the considerable efforts that go into finding, and creating, markets for drug development. Taking these efforts for granted may confuse invention with innovation and is likely to lead to understatement of the costs and choices involved in drug development, particularly where mental health categories are concerned.

Indexed as

Drug DevelopmentModafinilHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansOrphan Drug ProductionModafinilbounded serendipitydrug classificationdrug developmentmodafinilpharmaceutical innovation

Identifiers

PMID40099909
PMCPMC12675832

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.