C*u
2 楼
今天看到这段BioTechniques的编辑评论，很有感触，转载一下。
SHAPING OPEN SCIENCE FOR THE FUTURE
A paper published in Nature Biotechnology in May 2016 is stirring up a lot
of controversy. The article from researcher Chunyu Han’s team at Hebei
University of Science and Technology describes an alternative genome-editing
technology based on an enzyme from the Argonaute protein family (NgAgo).
The data appear to show that the system can edit genes with a specificity
that even the CRISPR/Cas9 system lacks.
The trouble is, there are growing reports that other researchers are not
able to replicate the Han group’s results. Nature Biotechnology is said to
be investigating, and on the web, discussion threads and blog posts
criticizing the paper and its authors, as well as some supporting them, have
emerged.
The NgAgo paper brings up two interesting aspects of modern life science
research: The first is the emergence of open science, and the second is the
need to avoid quick judgements and bullying during collaborative discussions
. Researchers around the world have been working to share information about
their own NgAgo experiments through Google groups and message boards. The
results have shown that the technique, if it does work, clearly needs to be
better-described for researchers to use it easily in the way Han and
colleagues intended. Some claims of success have been made, but a large
number of researchers have been unable to get the method to work. Still, the
fact that numerous groups have been willing to share results and provide
hypotheses regarding the validity of this methodology is a testament to the
growth of open science.
Unfortunately, a dark side to some of these posts and comments has also
emerged, where defenders of the technique and those unable to get it to work
have been particularly antagonistic toward one another. The point of open
science should not be intimidation through verbal or written attacks,
instead of reaching solid conclusions through shared data and discussion.
Researchers should never engage in online bullying to tear down other’s
ideas—this is counterproductive, and in the end, represents the opposite of
scientific progress.
Whether NgAgo works or turns out to be untrue, like STAP stem-cell
generation before it, there will be more reports of exotic new techniques in
the future where open science discussions could be crucial for validation.
We should learn from these controversies in order to advance scientific
progress in the digital age. Discussions and experiment sharing to arrive at
consensuses on reproducibility is important; bullying and name-calling
should not be tolerated. Please send your comments and thoughts to bioeditor
@biotechniques.com.
from： http://www.biotechniques.com/BiotechniquesJournal/2016/September/From-the-Editor/biotechniques-365051.html。
SHAPING OPEN SCIENCE FOR THE FUTURE
A paper published in Nature Biotechnology in May 2016 is stirring up a lot
of controversy. The article from researcher Chunyu Han’s team at Hebei
University of Science and Technology describes an alternative genome-editing
technology based on an enzyme from the Argonaute protein family (NgAgo).
The data appear to show that the system can edit genes with a specificity
that even the CRISPR/Cas9 system lacks.
The trouble is, there are growing reports that other researchers are not
able to replicate the Han group’s results. Nature Biotechnology is said to
be investigating, and on the web, discussion threads and blog posts
criticizing the paper and its authors, as well as some supporting them, have
emerged.
The NgAgo paper brings up two interesting aspects of modern life science
research: The first is the emergence of open science, and the second is the
need to avoid quick judgements and bullying during collaborative discussions
. Researchers around the world have been working to share information about
their own NgAgo experiments through Google groups and message boards. The
results have shown that the technique, if it does work, clearly needs to be
better-described for researchers to use it easily in the way Han and
colleagues intended. Some claims of success have been made, but a large
number of researchers have been unable to get the method to work. Still, the
fact that numerous groups have been willing to share results and provide
hypotheses regarding the validity of this methodology is a testament to the
growth of open science.
Unfortunately, a dark side to some of these posts and comments has also
emerged, where defenders of the technique and those unable to get it to work
have been particularly antagonistic toward one another. The point of open
science should not be intimidation through verbal or written attacks,
instead of reaching solid conclusions through shared data and discussion.
Researchers should never engage in online bullying to tear down other’s
ideas—this is counterproductive, and in the end, represents the opposite of
scientific progress.
Whether NgAgo works or turns out to be untrue, like STAP stem-cell
generation before it, there will be more reports of exotic new techniques in
the future where open science discussions could be crucial for validation.
We should learn from these controversies in order to advance scientific
progress in the digital age. Discussions and experiment sharing to arrive at
consensuses on reproducibility is important; bullying and name-calling
should not be tolerated. Please send your comments and thoughts to bioeditor
@biotechniques.com.
from： http://www.biotechniques.com/BiotechniquesJournal/2016/September/From-the-Editor/biotechniques-365051.html。
P*R
3 楼
editing
to
【在 C**u 的大作中提到】
: 今天看到这段BioTechniques的编辑评论，很有感触，转载一下。
: SHAPING OPEN SCIENCE FOR THE FUTURE
: A paper published in Nature Biotechnology in May 2016 is stirring up a lot
: of controversy. The article from researcher Chunyu Han’s team at Hebei
: University of Science and Technology describes an alternative genome-editing
: technology based on an enzyme from the Argonaute protein family (NgAgo).
: The data appear to show that the system can edit genes with a specificity
: that even the CRISPR/Cas9 system lacks.
: The trouble is, there are growing reports that other researchers are not
: able to replicate the Han group’s results. Nature Biotechnology is said to
相关阅读
nature communications seems good!invitrogen iblot system + Roche Dig labeling + IRDYE 800 southern blotPostdoc stipend raise proposed本科选专业生物信息、生物技术、生物工程哪个好些？博后面试之后隔多久follow up？被歧视了怎么办？纽约的同学有了解Ivaylo Ivanov的？dana fabar (Boston, MA) 招工 (转载)这才是招聘者的角度看法招博士后啦peer pressure...我在哈佛读书时，都是15X7 per week这样干活的。Caltech 这个 (转载)关于心脏hypertrophy 时候fetal gene marker的问题zz隔壁实验室研究生pBigT cloning绿卡就真的那么重要吗哪位老师给推荐一下作多个DNA序列比对得软件吧！新人求助！美国白人不愿意作Postdoc吗？深深觉得女子无才便是德请问那种nature science 文献的图是用什么软件画的