Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41247663›Full record

ArticleJournal of the history of biology2025

Shifting Values and Shifting Risks: Debates on the New Biology in Germany and the United States Before and After Asilomar (1960-1980).

Christina Brandt

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the history of biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Christina BrandtFriedrich Schiller University Jena, Ernst-Haeckel-Haus, Jena, Germany. christina.brandt@uni-jena.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article argues that while the 1975 Asilomar Conference on Recombinant Molecules gave rise to new developments in science policy, the subsequent debates about genetic engineering should not be viewed in isolation, but rather in the larger historical context of discussions on a new biology that began as early as the 1960s. The new field of molecular biology was at that time already hotly debated by holistic biologists, sociologists, and philosophers in West Germany. In part, these debates were a reaction against the utopian views of some leading US scientists whose imaginaries about cloning and genetically modified man came under serious critique after the CIBA Foundation symposium Man and his Future (1962). As a result, some German philosophers, scientists and sociologists framed the new biology against the historical background of Nazi eugenics. In the 1970s and 1980s, when the new social movements (peace movement, anti-nuclear power movement, ecology movement, feminist movement) started to debate genetic engineering, the public and political controversies about recombinant DNA technologies remained closely intertwined with issues of cloning, embryo research and in-vitro fertilization (IVF). This discursive assemblage was often framed by dystopian fears about human genetic engineering. The article traces these multi-layered discourses and analyzes the continuities and changes in the debates from the 1960s to the 1980s in West Germany while comparing them with developments in the United States. It demonstrates how different understandings of gene technologies and their future impact on society collided and how different concepts of risk developed among both scientists and the public after Asilomar.

Indexed as

EugenicsGenetic EngineeringMolecular BiologyGermanyHistory, 20th CenturyHumansNational SocialismUnited States

Identifiers

PMID41247663
PMCPMC12657547

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.