Martin Evans 强烈批评Nature 对stem cell paper的处理方式# Biology - 生物学
s*y
1 楼
http://theconversation.com/nobel-laureate-weve-just-scraped-the
在最近一个访谈中，２００７诺奖获得者Martin Evans（由早期对胚胎干细胞以及转基
因老鼠的工作而获奖）对最近的两篇被retract的 Nature 上的干细胞文章（一篇是关
于物理压力，另外一篇是关于酸液）直言不谓的对Nature的editoral process表示不满
。并呼吁年轻科学工作者们不要全部相信文章上的所有说法而是要仔细看其中的数据并
做自己的独立判断。
Q: Reprogramming has also been in news notoriously recently. Two Nature
papers that showed that differentiated cells can be reprogrammed by physical
pressure or acid treatment were retracted this week. What’s your take on
that?
A: I was surprised why Nature accepted those papers. The data in that paper
did not seem to indicate what it was meant to. It looked weird. We’re not
very sure whether it was deliberate fraud or over-enthusiastic
misinterpretation; but clearly the editorial process was very questionable
– the peer-review was not good enough.
Q: What is your advice to scientists and, in particular, young ones?
A: You should not believe in all that you read. Learn to interpret
independently. This advice becomes much more necessary in today’s world of
social media and internet, which is overloaded with information, some of
which can be very misleading. Everyone got excited about the stem cells
generated by acid treatment, how many of you actually interpreted their data
? So, be careful!
I rate science as a better understanding of the fundamental principles of
life and nature. I can understand why scientists often tend to work towards
application-oriented science, but I believe we have many basic science
questions to understand even today.
在最近一个访谈中，２００７诺奖获得者Martin Evans（由早期对胚胎干细胞以及转基
因老鼠的工作而获奖）对最近的两篇被retract的 Nature 上的干细胞文章（一篇是关
于物理压力，另外一篇是关于酸液）直言不谓的对Nature的editoral process表示不满
。并呼吁年轻科学工作者们不要全部相信文章上的所有说法而是要仔细看其中的数据并
做自己的独立判断。
Q: Reprogramming has also been in news notoriously recently. Two Nature
papers that showed that differentiated cells can be reprogrammed by physical
pressure or acid treatment were retracted this week. What’s your take on
that?
A: I was surprised why Nature accepted those papers. The data in that paper
did not seem to indicate what it was meant to. It looked weird. We’re not
very sure whether it was deliberate fraud or over-enthusiastic
misinterpretation; but clearly the editorial process was very questionable
– the peer-review was not good enough.
Q: What is your advice to scientists and, in particular, young ones?
A: You should not believe in all that you read. Learn to interpret
independently. This advice becomes much more necessary in today’s world of
social media and internet, which is overloaded with information, some of
which can be very misleading. Everyone got excited about the stem cells
generated by acid treatment, how many of you actually interpreted their data
? So, be careful!
I rate science as a better understanding of the fundamental principles of
life and nature. I can understand why scientists often tend to work towards
application-oriented science, but I believe we have many basic science
questions to understand even today.
