Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40131408›Full record

ArticleNTM2025

[A Controversy On Tape: Oral History, Witnesses, and Mythmaking in the American Debate About Genetic Engineering, 1975-1980].

Christoffer Leber

Abstract readHistorical ArticleEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in NTM, 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

1 author.

Christoffer LeberDFG-Forschungsgruppe: Kooperation und Konkurrenz in den Wissenschaften, Lehrstuhl für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Historisches Seminar, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Deutschland. Christoffer.Leber@lrz.uni-muenchen.de.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the 1970s, historians discovered oral history as a new approach to the history of modern science. One example of this trend is the Recombinant DNA History Collection, which was created by Charles Weiner (1932-2012) at MIT in 1975. Following the approach of "history in the making", the collection aimed to document events that were considered turning points in the history of science. The collection included oral history interviews, audio and video recordings, press clippings, and further material around recombinant DNA (rDNA). In addition to the 1975 Asilomar Conference, the collection focused on the controversy about rDNA research in Cambridge (MA) in 1976/77. When Mayor Alfred Vellucci heard from Harvard's plan to build a laboratory for rDNA experiments on a P3 containment level, he convened two public hearings at the City Council in the summer of 1976. After a critical assessment of potential hazards of rDNA research by a citizen board, Cambridge passed the first local ordinance for the regulation rDNA research in the United States. In the following, I argue that the Recombinant DNA History Collection challenged the myth of neutral, objective, and disinterested science. Yet at the same time, it created new myths.

Indexed as

DNA, RecombinantGenetic EngineeringHistory, 20th CenturyHumansUnited StatesDNA, RecombinantAsilomar conferenceCambridge controversyGenetic engineeringMythmakingOral historyRecombinant DNA

Identifiers

PMID40131408
PMCPMC11958452

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.