ArticleNature communications2026
A digital archive reveals how a funding agency cooperated with academics to support the nascent field of genomics.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
State-supported research funding agencies are critical to the scientific enterprise. However, it remains unclear how funding agencies cooperate with academic communities to realize common scientific goals. Here, we present a fully digital archive assembled by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), focusing on the nascent stages of "genomics" as a scientific field and the everyday workings of the Human Genome Project and subsequent major genomics projects. We identify early events behind the conception of genome-wide association studies, clarify hitherto obscured factors around funding decisions, and how NHGRI and academics outside NHGRI ensured continuity in technical expertise across projects. The computational models we developed correctly recapitulate how academic experts and NHGRI increased adoption of genomics by jointly deciding which organisms' genomes to sequence. Taken together, these findings reveal how a funding agency contributed to scientific innovation in a nascent field of science by repeatedly cooperating with the broader scientific community.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.