Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39560739›Full record

ArticleProtoplasma2025

Matthew 7:3-a response to Kingsland and Taiz (2024).

Peter V Minorsky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Protoplasma, 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. Article
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.

Peter V MinorskyMercy University, Dobbs Ferry, NY, 10522, USA. pminorsky@mercy.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4909-1498

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

I present here a rebuttal to an article in this volume wherein Kingsland and Taiz (2024) cast aspersions about an article I have written concerning Sir Jagadis Chandra Bose (Minorsky PV, in Plant Signal Behav 16:1818030, 2021) a brilliant Bengali scientist who was a pioneer not only in physics (microwaves and semi-conductors), but also in elucidating the electrophysiological responses of plants to environmental stimuli. The charge of racism that I have levelled at Bose's most powerful and well-connected botanical adversary in the 1920s, Daniel T. MacDougal, is irrefutable: MacDougal was a racist, his racism extended to South Asians, and he used racist epithets in referring to Bose. MacDougal offered no cogent arguments against Bose's electrophysiological measurements but attacked Bose with the racist trope that South Asians were "mystics." MacDougal wielded his political and editorial clout to publicize faulty research in opposition to Bose while ignoring a sizable body of contemporaneous evidence in support of Bose's ideas. Unfortunately, given MacDougal's stature as the General Secretary of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the racist tenor of the time, many Western scientists were too ready to accept uncritically MacDougal's proclamations that Bose was a fraud, an incompetent, and a "Hindoo" mystic. Bose was one of the greatest minds to ever contemplate plant function. It is high time that we, in the West, redress this historical wrong, and acknowledge Bose's enormous and revolutionary contributions to plant physiology.

Indexed as

Daniel T. MacDougalJagadis Chandra BosePlant electrophysiologyRacism

Identifiers

PMID39560739
PMCPMC11839804

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.