Revisiting the Research That Captivated the World in 2017
Imagine a world where we can edit human embryos to eliminate genetic diseases, where gravitational waves reveal cosmic collisions that create gold, and where what we thought we knew about healthy eating is turned upside down. This wasn't science fiction—this was 2017, a remarkable year when scientific breakthroughs dominated public conversation like never before.
For the first time, we had tools to measure which scientific papers genuinely captured global attention, thanks to a London-based company called Altmetric that analyzed online activity around scholarly research 1 . By tracking social media mentions, news coverage, Wikipedia citations, and other online conversations, Altmetric identified the 100 most popular scientific papers of the year 6 . The results revealed surprising insights about what science stories resonated with people and why.
This article revisits those groundbreaking discoveries through the lens of public interest, exploring not just the science itself but why it mattered to millions. From diet myths shattered to mental health crises in academia revealed, we'll explore how 2017's science continues to shape our world today.
Traditionally, scientific impact has been measured primarily through citations in other academic journals. While this system reveals what research influences other scientists, it completely misses how the public engages with science. In 2017, Altmetric (short for "alternative metrics") changed this by creating a more comprehensive picture of a paper's reach 1 .
A comprehensive measure of a paper's online footprint and public engagement 6
Tracking mentions across social media, news, Wikipedia, and other online platforms 1
Their method analyzed a wide range of measures including mainstream news media references, Wikipedia citations, social media mentions, and performance in scholarly spaces such as post-publication peer-review forums and patient advocacy groups 1 . Each paper received an "Altmetric Attention Score" reflecting its online footprint 6 .
This approach revealed something revolutionary: we could now see which research topics genuinely captured public imagination. Of the top 100 papers Altmetric identified, 53 were in medical science, with biological science (17), earth and environmental science (nine), and studies in human society (eight) following behind 1 . This distribution shows our natural preoccupation with health and medicine, but also our growing interest in how science intersects with daily life.
The most popular research of 2017 revealed a public hungry for science that challenged conventional wisdom, addressed mental health, and explored revolutionary medical treatments. The year's top studies weren't always the most technically complex, but they answered questions people were actually asking about their health, society, and the world.
| Research Category | Representative Study | Key Finding | Why It Resonated |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diet & Nutrition | PURE Study on fats and carbs 6 | Low-fat diets linked to higher heart disease risk | Challenged decades of dietary advice |
| Medical Practice | Patient outcomes by physician gender 1 6 | Lower mortality with female doctors | Insight into healthcare quality |
| Mental Health | PhD student mental health 1 6 | 32% of PhD students at risk of psychiatric disorders | Revealed academic culture problem |
| Genetic Engineering | Human embryo gene correction 6 | Successful editing of disease-causing mutation | Ethical implications for future |
| Space Science | Neutron star collision 5 | Observed creation of heavy elements | Confirmed cosmic origins of gold |
What united these diverse studies was their direct relevance to human experience. The diet study challenged food choices we make daily. The physician gender research touched on healthcare experiences most people have. The mental health paper gave voice to a silent crisis in academia. These weren't abstract concerns but science speaking to lived reality.
Among 2017's most consequential and controversial experiments was the first successful correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos conducted in the United States 6 . This research represented a milestone in genetic engineering, bringing us closer than ever to potentially eliminating inherited diseases—while raising profound ethical questions about modifying human DNA.
The research team, working with human embryos, targeted the MYBPC3 gene responsible for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a hereditary heart condition that can cause sudden cardiac death 6 . Their approach was remarkably precise:
Researchers utilized the revolutionary CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing tool, which acts like molecular scissors that can cut DNA at specific locations 4 . The system was programmed to target precisely the mutated section of the MYBPC3 gene.
The editing was performed during the earliest stages of embryonic development when consisting of just a few cells. This timing was crucial to ensure the correction would be present in all subsequent cells.
After creating a controlled break in the DNA strand at the precise location of the mutation, the scientists relied on the embryo's own natural DNA repair mechanisms. Surprisingly, they found that embryos effectively used the healthy template from the other parent to repair the broken DNA, rather than the synthetic DNA template provided by researchers.
The edited embryos underwent comprehensive genetic testing to confirm both the effectiveness of the correction and the absence of "off-target" edits—unintended modifications to other parts of the genome that represent a significant safety concern in gene editing.
The experiment yielded several groundbreaking outcomes that surprised even the research team. The correction success rate was significantly higher than previous attempts, with embryos showing a remarkable capacity to repair their DNA accurately. Perhaps most unexpectedly, the embryos predominantly used the healthy genetic material from the other parent as their repair template rather than relying on synthetic templates provided by scientists 6 .
| Editing Aspect | Result | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Target Accuracy | High precision targeting | Minimal off-target effects observed |
| Correction Rate | Significantly higher than previous attempts | Demonstrated technical improvement |
| Embryo Development | Normal progression post-editing | Suggested procedure safety |
| Inheritance Pattern | Followed predictable genetic patterns | Increased predictability of outcomes |
The research demonstrated that gene editing in human embryos was not only possible but could be accomplished with high precision and efficiency. Importantly, the study reported minimal "off-target effects"—unintended edits to other parts of the genome that had been a major concern with CRISPR technology.
The implications were immediately recognized as transformative. This technology offered potential pathways to eliminate not just hypertrophic cardiomyopathy but potentially thousands of inherited genetic disorders. As one report noted, the results "sparked renewed discussions over how best to regulate this technology, since sometimes the products of gene editing have potential to be passed down for generations" 6 .
The groundbreaking CRISPR research of 2017 relied on a sophisticated toolkit of reagents and technologies that enabled precise genetic modifications. Understanding these components helps illuminate both the methodology and the scientific importance of this revolutionary work.
| Reagent/Tool | Function in Experiment | Scientific Importance |
|---|---|---|
| CRISPR-Cas9 System | Programmable DNA-cutting enzyme | Allows precise targeting of specific gene sequences |
| Guide RNA | Molecular GPS directing Cas9 | Ensures editing occurs only at intended location |
| Human Embryos | Subject of gene editing | Demonstrates technique's potential for preventing inherited diseases |
| DNA Repair Templates | Provide correct genetic sequence | Enable cell to repair cut DNA with healthy version |
| Genetic Sequencing Tools | Verify editing accuracy | Confirms successful correction without off-target effects |
The CRISPR-Cas9 system works like molecular scissors that can be programmed to cut DNA at specific locations. The Cas9 enzyme is directed by a guide RNA molecule that matches the target DNA sequence.
The most popular research of 2017 shared a common thread—they addressed fundamental human concerns about our health, society, and future. The dietary fats study resonated because it challenged decades of nutritional guidance and offered liberation from what some researchers called misguided low-fat dogma 1 . The paper on physician gender touched on universal healthcare experiences, revealing that "elderly hospital patients who were treated by female doctors died less often than those treated by male physicians" 6 .
Studies that challenged established medical and nutritional guidelines
Research highlighting psychological challenges in academic environments
Breakthroughs with profound implications for medicine and society
Meanwhile, the mental health crisis in PhD students highlighted how "32 percent of them were at risk of having or developing a psychiatric disorder—especially depression" 6 , giving voice to a problem many had suspected but lacked data to address. Each successful popular science article, as one guide noted, follows a structure that emphasizes "implications, findings, results and methodology (IFRM)" rather than the traditional "IMRD" structure of academic papers 2 . This approach puts human interest first.
The public's engagement with these studies demonstrated that when science addresses real human questions and concerns, it can capture global attention in unprecedented ways.
As one analysis noted, "While the top 100 is intended for a broader audience, the data behind it has a serious purpose—to make viewing and analysing the online conversation surrounding research outputs easy for researchers, institutions, publishers and funders alike" 1 .
Looking back at 2017's scientific landscape reveals a pivotal shift in how research enters public consciousness. The most impactful science that year wasn't necessarily the most technically complex, but rather the studies that spoke to human experience—our health, our society, our future. From challenging dietary dogma to revealing systemic problems in academia and opening new frontiers in genetic medicine, these stories captured attention because they mattered to people's lives.
Developing frameworks for responsible use of CRISPR technology
Expanding how we measure and value science communication
Blending scientific discovery with social and ethical considerations
The significance of 2017 extends beyond individual discoveries to how we measure scientific impact. The altmetrics approach acknowledged that public engagement matters—that Wikipedia citations, social media discussion, and media coverage represent important dimensions of a study's reach and relevance 1 . This broader definition of impact acknowledges science's role in public discourse.
Gene editing has advanced considerably while continuing to prompt ethical debates. Research on gender disparities in science has expanded our understanding of representation. And the methodological shift toward measuring public engagement with science has only accelerated. The stories that captivated us in 2017 weren't just fleeting headlines—they were glimpses of our scientific future, moments when laboratory research became conversations that would shape years to come.