Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40778767›Full record

ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2025

Teaching biology using memoirs of scientists, public health officials, doctors, and patients.

Abby Cheng, Megan E Rokop

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 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.

Abby ChengUniversity of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0009-0005-4582-9597
Megan E RokopUniversity of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0995-9993

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, we designed a novel undergraduate biology course centered entirely around reading memoirs of scientists, doctors, patients, and public health officials. Students in the course engaged in active learning and critical thinking-based activities and assessments, including writing analytical papers, delivering scientific presentations, writing personal reflections, performing data analysis, and engaging in group work and class discussions in every class period. The main learning goals of the course were for students to visualize the processes of science and medicine, to understand the interface of science and society, to gain awareness of a variety of career paths, to appreciate the humanity of scientists, and to build skills in critical thinking and scientific communication. We measured the high level of effectiveness of the course in meeting its learning goals through an analysis of the student assignments completed throughout the semester, post-course survey results, and post-course student outcomes. We found that the course model developed in this study-namely, a science course with a central focus on reading memoirs-is unique within the academic literature. Furthermore, this new model can be directly applied to courses in any scientific discipline through the instructor's ability to select a customized set of biographies of researchers working in any scientific field. We have therefore developed a course that can promote critical thinking skills and career awareness in any scientific field-along with a nuanced understanding of the process of research and the interplay between science, ethics, and society-in students very early on in their scientific training.

Indexed as

authentic science practicesbioethics and current eventsreading memoirsscience and societyscience career awarenessundergraduate biology education

Identifiers

PMID40778767
PMCPMC12687631

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.