In a blink of an eye, the debate over NgAgo gene-cutting technology has been going on for more than five months. In the scientific community, if a research result is to be recognized, it must be peer-reviewed and repeatedly verified. This is the baptism of scientific researchers. It is this baptism that guarantees the correct and effective scientific research results and guarantees the progress and development of mankind. Today, 13 Chinese scientists published their real name in a rigorous and realistic manner. They can't repeat the Han Chunyu NgAgo experiment. This is the maintenance of the reputation of the scientific community, and it is the maintenance of the reputation of the Chinese academic community. It reflects the responsibility of Chinese scientists. We call on scientific research institutions to take this opportunity to launch professional and standardized procedures, conduct investigations on academic questions, and promote the standardization and professionalization of academic ethics investigations in China.
"Now there are scientists who have failed to tell us that they are willing to make a real name." "Let them make a real name. If they are willing to come out, we will let the people who have repeated experiments succeed." This is yesterday (October 10, 2016) Japan) A report in the "Science and Technology Daily" that has received much attention.
On the same day, the heads of 13 research groups from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Peking University, Zhejiang University, Shanghai Jiaotong University, East China Normal University, Harbin Institute of Technology, Wenzhou Medical University and other research institutes publicly stated that they could not repeat Han Chunyu this year. On the 2nd of the month, the experiment on NgAgo was published in Nature-Biotechnology. These scientists said that this statement is to remind Han Chunyu and Hebei University of Science and Technology: As a peer, everyone is repeating experiments and verification techniques very seriously, for fear that the negative judgments given by misunderstandings involve the development of new technologies. However, Han Chunyu, who is also a member of the scientific community, should also seriously respond to the current scientific questions as soon as possible and complete the responsibilities and obligations as the author of the paper.
Han Chunyu, Associate Professor, Hebei University of Science and Technology
13 research groups issued a statement at the same time
The 13 scholars who are willing to stand up and make public statements are: Wei Wensheng, a professor at the School of Life Sciences at Peking University, Sun Yujie, a researcher at the School of Life Sciences at Peking University, Xiong Jingwei, a professor at the Institute of Molecular Medicine, Peking University, and Wang Yiyi, a researcher at the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Wang Xiaoqun, Research Fellow, Institute of Biophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Li Jinsong, Research Fellow, Institute of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yang Hui, Research Fellow, Institute of Neuroscience, Shanghai Institute of Bioscience, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Professor Wang Liming, Professor, Institute of Life Sciences, Zhejiang University, Wu Qiang, Professor, Shanghai Jiaotong University, East China Li Dali, a researcher at the School of Life Sciences of the Normal University, Huang Zhiwei, a professor at Harbin Institute of Technology, and Gu Feng, a professor at Wenzhou Medical University.
"Can't drag any more, we must make a sound, let the international scientific community see the attitude of Chinese scientists in this field (ie genetic editing)." This is the common attitude of 13 scholars.
Wei Wensheng said that in the past few months, four or five students in his laboratory have made many and different attempts according to the experimental methods mentioned in Han Chunyu's paper, but none of the experimental results found the genome sequence. Change, that is, "the experimental method can not be repeated verification."
The experiment of Wang Yiyi, a researcher at the Institute of Zoology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, also obtained similar results. In response to Han Chunyu's article "Three GDNAs with High Efficiency", two of his students independently edited the endogenous genes, but they were unable to detect mutations in the target genes. Wang Yiyi said: "We also tried to transfect gDNA twice, prolong the culture time, etc., but there was no positive result."
This can be said to be the most common experience for everyone. Wu Qiang said that they used PCR to detect the DNA fragment DELETION, which should be detected after the DNA fragment was edited, even if the efficiency is low, but even this is not the case. Li Jinsong said that some of his peers even analyzed the structure of NgAgo and wanted to find its functional sites. The results were not as expected.
Wang Liming said that although everyone has experienced various failures, it is still only an academic controversy. Whether it is in China, the United States or Japan, there should be standard academic rules to deal with.
Shower Gel,Shower Cream,Shower Foam,Body Shower Gel
Wuxi Keni Daily Cosmetics Co.,Ltd , https://www.kenidailycosmetics.com