USEUROPEAFRICAASIA 中文雙語Fran?ais
    China
    Home / China / View

    Study on gene-editing tool sparks debate

    China Daily | Updated: 2016-08-03 07:43

    Editor's Note: Han Chunyu, an associate professor of biology at Hebei University of Science & Technology, impressed researchers across the globe this May with his paper on NgAgo, a new-generation gene-editing tool. Yet several overseas scientists say they have not been able to repeat the experiment and have asked him to publish the original data. Following are the views of two scholars on the issue:

    Too early to jump to any conclusion

    When a scientist observes a phenomenon or successfully completes an experiment, his/her conclusion will not be accepted until other researchers can also observe it or repeat the experiment under similar conditions.

    That's the problem Han faces: No other researcher has been able to repeat his experiment yet. So his conclusion that NgAgo is a better gene-editing tool is still not considered reliable. Worse, many laboratories cannot detect the endonuclease enzyme activity of NgAgo, which is a prerequisite for Han's experiment.

    There could be several reasons for that. For example, some labs may have repeated his experiment but are yet to publish the fact. Or, Han might have not revealed a detail (or details) that is key to the experiment in order to protect his intellectual property rights.

    Actually, those asking him to publish the original data are not challenging his achievement. Gaetan Burgio, a senior researcher from Australian National University, recently wrote a blog on his Twitter account: "I think rather than to chase high impact publications and be secretive, we should be more open and share our results to avoid everyone wasting their time on results that are irreproducible and pointless. In my opinion this is the way science should work."

    There are several examples of serious flaws with researchers' important data. Haruko Obokata, a researcher from Japan, claimed to have found Stimulus-Triggered Acquisition of Pluripotency cells that are similar to stem cells in January 2014, yet her "discovery" could not be repeated and was declared false three months later. She lost her position and her research supervisor committed suicide.

    Han initially responded by giving some details about his experiment and said he is confident others will be able to repeat it in the future. Now, we need to wait - time will prove whether Han kept something secret or whether he conducted the experiment under special conditions that others do not know. It is too early to jump to any conclusion.

    Zhang Tiankan is deputy editor-in-chief of Encyclopedia magazine and a former researcher in medical science.

    Scientist obliged to clear doubts

    It is not rare for scholars to challenge a fellow researcher who has made a new discovery. The more they challenge, the more details need to be tested and technology improved. And in case a researcher has falsified the data, he/she stands discredited. Either way, science progresses.

    That's why researchers' demand for Han to publish his original data is normal. Initially, Han responded by submitting plasmid information to Addgene, a global non-profit organization that helps share such information, and giving plasmid samples as gifts during a lecture.

    Even before that, Han had written an article in response to the challenges, advising those trying to replicate his experiment. That's a positive, open attitude that helps clarify a lot of things.

    But his university's attitude is rather different; reports say it has not responded at all and has even asked Han to stop responding. Challenges are very important for researchers who wish to improve their work, and if their universities adopt an ostrich policy, they will only arouse more doubts.

    Han's university lapped up all praise lavished upon it when he published the paper, but now it has adopted silence. It is time the university abandoned the ostrich policy and Han opened up about his research. If they publish all the original data and NgAgo proves a better tool than the existing ones, they will be lauded further.

    Xiong Bingqi is vice-president of Shanghai-based 21st Century Education Research Institute.

    Study on gene-editing tool sparks debate

    Editor's picks
    Copyright 1995 - . All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to China Daily Information Co (CDIC). Without written authorization from CDIC, such content shall not be republished or used in any form. Note: Browsers with 1024*768 or higher resolution are suggested for this site.
    License for publishing multimedia online 0108263

    Registration Number: 130349
    FOLLOW US
    好硬~好爽~别进去~动态图, 69式真人无码视频免 | 日韩精品中文字幕无码一区| 中文字幕无码免费久久| 无码日韩人妻AV一区二区三区| 久久无码专区国产精品发布| 中文字幕无码av激情不卡久久| 日韩精品无码AV成人观看| 中文字幕久久亚洲一区| 天天爽亚洲中文字幕| 刺激无码在线观看精品视频| 亚洲国产成人片在线观看无码| 久久久久中文字幕| 亚洲 另类 无码 在线| 精品无码人妻一区二区三区品| 国精品无码一区二区三区在线蜜臀| 久久久久久久人妻无码中文字幕爆| 国产自无码视频在线观看| 无码国产精品一区二区免费vr | 婷婷中文娱乐网开心| 无码专区一va亚洲v专区在线| 人妻无码αv中文字幕久久琪琪布| 无码夫の前で人妻を犯す中字| 最近更新中文字幕第一页| 日韩欧群交P片内射中文| 影音先锋中文无码一区| 精品人体无码一区二区三区| AV无码久久久久不卡网站下载| 无码人妻精品一区二区三| 亚洲色无码一区二区三区| 免费无码作爱视频| 精品无码一区二区三区电影| 中文字幕永久一区二区三区在线观看 | 人妻无码αv中文字幕久久琪琪布 人妻无码中文久久久久专区 | 中文午夜乱理片无码| 中文亚洲AV片不卡在线观看| 亚洲午夜无码久久久久小说| 在线精品自拍无码| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久中文字幕 | 中文字幕视频在线免费观看| 天堂中文字幕在线| 中文字幕日本精品一区二区三区 |