h*s
2 楼
【 以下文字转载自 ChinaNews 讨论区 】
发信人: jirentixiang (青天白日满地红), 信区: ChinaNews
标 题: 这份五毛名单
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Apr 17 23:14:35 2011, 美东)
知道为什么五毛对这份五毛名单反映过激吗？mitbbs是美国华人最大的网站，中国是美国最大
的战略敌国，很大一部分人就是留学生，就是外国人，你想想，假如中国有个几十万在
华美国人都上的网站，中国的国安能不重点监视吗？911后很难想象美国政府不监视这
里的言论，记得大便鼠被fbi请去约谈吗？我估计是他在这个网站上的挺共言论让fbi给
盯上了。这份名单一下就把亲共反美的中国人集中暴露出来了，这些人多数都没绿卡，
到时候移民局卡死他们一点儿脾气都没有，哈哈
发信人: jirentixiang (青天白日满地红), 信区: ChinaNews
标 题: 这份五毛名单
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Apr 17 23:14:35 2011, 美东)
知道为什么五毛对这份五毛名单反映过激吗？mitbbs是美国华人最大的网站，中国是美国最大
的战略敌国，很大一部分人就是留学生，就是外国人，你想想，假如中国有个几十万在
华美国人都上的网站，中国的国安能不重点监视吗？911后很难想象美国政府不监视这
里的言论，记得大便鼠被fbi请去约谈吗？我估计是他在这个网站上的挺共言论让fbi给
盯上了。这份名单一下就把亲共反美的中国人集中暴露出来了，这些人多数都没绿卡，
到时候移民局卡死他们一点儿脾气都没有，哈哈
a*a
3 楼
http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2014/09/exclusive-nature
EXCLUSIVE: Nature reviewers not persuaded by initial STAP stem cell papers
As two discredited, and now retracted, stem cell papers have produced an
almost unimaginable fallout—a national hero accused of scientific fraud,
the revamping of one of Japan’s major research institutes, and the suicide
of a respected cell biologist—researchers have privately and publicly asked
how Nature could have published work that, in retrospect, seems so
obviously flawed.
Another piece of the puzzle has come to light. The Science news team
received a copy of email correspondence between a Nature editor and Haruko
Obokata, the lead author of the papers, that indicates the work initially
received as rocky a reception there as at two other journals, Cell and
Science, that had rejected the work previously. The email, dated 4 April
2013, includes detailed separate criticisms of the two papers and
suggestions for new data to support the authors’ claims of a simple and
novel way to make stem cells that could form the myriad cell types within a
body. The Nature editor rejected the papers, but left open a window, writing
, “Should further experimental data allow you to address these criticisms,
we would be happy to look at a revised manuscript …” The two papers were
published 10 months later.
A spokesperson for Nature declined to comment on the email correspondence,
or how Obokata and her coauthors revised their manuscripts. But the
critiques are similar to those Science reviewers reportedly leveled when
considering an earlier report on the work. Yesterday the website
Retraction Watch published what it says are the cover letter and reviews for
a manuscript on stem cells submitted to Science by Obokata. (Science’s
editorial department would not confirm that the reported reviews were
genuine, but the news staff has received the identical document from an
independent source.)
The Nature reviewers call the manuscripts and the results they describe “
very interesting,” “potentially groundbreaking,” “highly provocative,”
and “truly remarkable.” In the papers, Obokata, who works at the RIKEN
Center for Developmental Biology (CDB) in Kobe, and her coauthors claimed
that bathing blood cells from newborn mice in a mildly acidic solution could
prompt them to become powerful stem cells. They dubbed the phenomenon “
stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency,” or STAP.
All three Nature reviewers concluded that the data presented in the
submitted manuscripts were not enough to support such radical claims. “I
would recommend the authors to be extremely cautious in their claims …. The
authors should look into the actual effect that the treatment elicits in
the genome and they should assess genomic instability,” one writes. “There
are several issues that I consider should be clarified beyond doubt because
of the potential revolutionary nature of the observations,” writes another.
Foreshadowing the difficulty the study authors have had in providing a clear
protocol for others to replicate their work, one Nature reviewer writes, “
Of paramount importance for the legitimacy of this paper is that the authors
provide a full step by step account of their method such that the community
can rapidly validate the reproducibility of the findings. The present
method description is minimal and key elements are not properly defined.”
The reviewer notes that the methods mention the use of B27 medium, “but B27
is a medium supplement, not a medium itself.” Nor does the manuscript
mention whether any measures were taken to control the final pH, the
reviewer writes.
Since the papers were published, labs around the world have tried but failed
to produce STAP cells. The papers’ authors have posted several different
protocols online, including one as recently as 3 September.
The reviewers all point out significant inconsistencies and holes in the
data. One notes that although a chimera was supposedly made with STAP cells
from a strain of black mice, the offspring are not black. “Please explain,
” the reviewer writes.
One reviewer summed up, “As it stands, and whereas this reviewer does not
doubt the data presented, the process can be summarized as a “magical”
approach and none of the conclusions related to the “next-generation” or
amplifications in regenerative medicine is supported experimentally.”
On 1 April 2014, almost a year after the rejection notice, a RIKEN
investigating committee concluded the papers were marred by falsification
and fabrication and judged Obokata guilty of research misconduct. Other
authors were spared the misconduct charge, but the committee said that
senior authors who failed to verify the accuracy of the data “bear heavy
responsibility for the research misconduct that resulted from this failure
on their part.” RIKEN leaders have recently announced the radical
restructuring of the RIKEN CDB, cutting the staff by half.
It is still not clear what happened between 4 April 2013 when Nature
initially rejected the papers and 20 December 2013 when they were accepted.
Teruhiko Wakayama, a co-author formerly at CDB now at the University of
Yamanashi in Kofu, says that Obokata shared the reviewers’ comments with
him and he made suggestions for revisions pertaining only to the chimeric
mice experiments, which were his responsibility. He says he has no idea if
the revised papers were again sent to reviewers.
Wakayama says it might be a good idea for journals to send reviewer comments
to all co-authors as another safeguard against problematic papers. “
However, most co-authors just contribute to one or a few parts of the
experiments,” he says. This means that even if all co-authors receive the
reviewer comments they might not be in a position to address identified
problems.
EXCLUSIVE: Nature reviewers not persuaded by initial STAP stem cell papers
As two discredited, and now retracted, stem cell papers have produced an
almost unimaginable fallout—a national hero accused of scientific fraud,
the revamping of one of Japan’s major research institutes, and the suicide
of a respected cell biologist—researchers have privately and publicly asked
how Nature could have published work that, in retrospect, seems so
obviously flawed.
Another piece of the puzzle has come to light. The Science news team
received a copy of email correspondence between a Nature editor and Haruko
Obokata, the lead author of the papers, that indicates the work initially
received as rocky a reception there as at two other journals, Cell and
Science, that had rejected the work previously. The email, dated 4 April
2013, includes detailed separate criticisms of the two papers and
suggestions for new data to support the authors’ claims of a simple and
novel way to make stem cells that could form the myriad cell types within a
body. The Nature editor rejected the papers, but left open a window, writing
, “Should further experimental data allow you to address these criticisms,
we would be happy to look at a revised manuscript …” The two papers were
published 10 months later.
A spokesperson for Nature declined to comment on the email correspondence,
or how Obokata and her coauthors revised their manuscripts. But the
critiques are similar to those Science reviewers reportedly leveled when
considering an earlier report on the work. Yesterday the website
Retraction Watch published what it says are the cover letter and reviews for
a manuscript on stem cells submitted to Science by Obokata. (Science’s
editorial department would not confirm that the reported reviews were
genuine, but the news staff has received the identical document from an
independent source.)
The Nature reviewers call the manuscripts and the results they describe “
very interesting,” “potentially groundbreaking,” “highly provocative,”
and “truly remarkable.” In the papers, Obokata, who works at the RIKEN
Center for Developmental Biology (CDB) in Kobe, and her coauthors claimed
that bathing blood cells from newborn mice in a mildly acidic solution could
prompt them to become powerful stem cells. They dubbed the phenomenon “
stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency,” or STAP.
All three Nature reviewers concluded that the data presented in the
submitted manuscripts were not enough to support such radical claims. “I
would recommend the authors to be extremely cautious in their claims …. The
authors should look into the actual effect that the treatment elicits in
the genome and they should assess genomic instability,” one writes. “There
are several issues that I consider should be clarified beyond doubt because
of the potential revolutionary nature of the observations,” writes another.
Foreshadowing the difficulty the study authors have had in providing a clear
protocol for others to replicate their work, one Nature reviewer writes, “
Of paramount importance for the legitimacy of this paper is that the authors
provide a full step by step account of their method such that the community
can rapidly validate the reproducibility of the findings. The present
method description is minimal and key elements are not properly defined.”
The reviewer notes that the methods mention the use of B27 medium, “but B27
is a medium supplement, not a medium itself.” Nor does the manuscript
mention whether any measures were taken to control the final pH, the
reviewer writes.
Since the papers were published, labs around the world have tried but failed
to produce STAP cells. The papers’ authors have posted several different
protocols online, including one as recently as 3 September.
The reviewers all point out significant inconsistencies and holes in the
data. One notes that although a chimera was supposedly made with STAP cells
from a strain of black mice, the offspring are not black. “Please explain,
” the reviewer writes.
One reviewer summed up, “As it stands, and whereas this reviewer does not
doubt the data presented, the process can be summarized as a “magical”
approach and none of the conclusions related to the “next-generation” or
amplifications in regenerative medicine is supported experimentally.”
On 1 April 2014, almost a year after the rejection notice, a RIKEN
investigating committee concluded the papers were marred by falsification
and fabrication and judged Obokata guilty of research misconduct. Other
authors were spared the misconduct charge, but the committee said that
senior authors who failed to verify the accuracy of the data “bear heavy
responsibility for the research misconduct that resulted from this failure
on their part.” RIKEN leaders have recently announced the radical
restructuring of the RIKEN CDB, cutting the staff by half.
It is still not clear what happened between 4 April 2013 when Nature
initially rejected the papers and 20 December 2013 when they were accepted.
Teruhiko Wakayama, a co-author formerly at CDB now at the University of
Yamanashi in Kofu, says that Obokata shared the reviewers’ comments with
him and he made suggestions for revisions pertaining only to the chimeric
mice experiments, which were his responsibility. He says he has no idea if
the revised papers were again sent to reviewers.
Wakayama says it might be a good idea for journals to send reviewer comments
to all co-authors as another safeguard against problematic papers. “
However, most co-authors just contribute to one or a few parts of the
experiments,” he says. This means that even if all co-authors receive the
reviewer comments they might not be in a position to address identified
problems.
h*s
5 楼
这个关于老将的扑西民主价值, 和"背靠"FBI/CIA的口气, 很深刻!
美国最大
【在 h***s 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 ChinaNews 讨论区 】
: 发信人: jirentixiang (青天白日满地红), 信区: ChinaNews
: 标 题: 这份五毛名单
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Apr 17 23:14:35 2011, 美东)
: 知道为什么五毛对这份五毛名单反映过激吗？mitbbs是美国华人最大的网站，中国是美国最大
: 的战略敌国，很大一部分人就是留学生，就是外国人，你想想，假如中国有个几十万在
: 华美国人都上的网站，中国的国安能不重点监视吗？911后很难想象美国政府不监视这
: 里的言论，记得大便鼠被fbi请去约谈吗？我估计是他在这个网站上的挺共言论让fbi给
: 盯上了。这份名单一下就把亲共反美的中国人集中暴露出来了，这些人多数都没绿卡，
: 到时候移民局卡死他们一点儿脾气都没有，哈哈
美国最大
【在 h***s 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 ChinaNews 讨论区 】
: 发信人: jirentixiang (青天白日满地红), 信区: ChinaNews
: 标 题: 这份五毛名单
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Apr 17 23:14:35 2011, 美东)
: 知道为什么五毛对这份五毛名单反映过激吗？mitbbs是美国华人最大的网站，中国是美国最大
: 的战略敌国，很大一部分人就是留学生，就是外国人，你想想，假如中国有个几十万在
: 华美国人都上的网站，中国的国安能不重点监视吗？911后很难想象美国政府不监视这
: 里的言论，记得大便鼠被fbi请去约谈吗？我估计是他在这个网站上的挺共言论让fbi给
: 盯上了。这份名单一下就把亲共反美的中国人集中暴露出来了，这些人多数都没绿卡，
: 到时候移民局卡死他们一点儿脾气都没有，哈哈
s*j
6 楼
是好事情.
suicide
asked
【在 a*******a 的大作中提到】
: http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2014/09/exclusive-nature
: EXCLUSIVE: Nature reviewers not persuaded by initial STAP stem cell papers
: As two discredited, and now retracted, stem cell papers have produced an
: almost unimaginable fallout—a national hero accused of scientific fraud,
: the revamping of one of Japan’s major research institutes, and the suicide
: of a respected cell biologist—researchers have privately and publicly asked
: how Nature could have published work that, in retrospect, seems so
: obviously flawed.
: Another piece of the puzzle has come to light. The Science news team
: received a copy of email correspondence between a Nature editor and Haruko
suicide
asked
【在 a*******a 的大作中提到】
: http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2014/09/exclusive-nature
: EXCLUSIVE: Nature reviewers not persuaded by initial STAP stem cell papers
: As two discredited, and now retracted, stem cell papers have produced an
: almost unimaginable fallout—a national hero accused of scientific fraud,
: the revamping of one of Japan’s major research institutes, and the suicide
: of a respected cell biologist—researchers have privately and publicly asked
: how Nature could have published work that, in retrospect, seems so
: obviously flawed.
: Another piece of the puzzle has come to light. The Science news team
: received a copy of email correspondence between a Nature editor and Haruko
d*s
7 楼
你的是什么抽油烟机，要求曝光
F*Q
8 楼
Science还不一样一直在发一些垃圾。
j*i
9 楼
谢了。买一个回来试试看。
【在 Y****n 的大作中提到】
: http://www.amazon.com/Old-English-Furniture-Polish-Lemon/dp/B00
【在 Y****n 的大作中提到】
: http://www.amazon.com/Old-English-Furniture-Polish-Lemon/dp/B00
s*9
10 楼
Science编辑部压力山大，影响影子再追不上去，都只能收到Nature的拒稿了。
b*s
11 楼
Nature是该被舆论监督一下了。
作为一个高端杂志，这么疯狂追求影响因子，片面讲究热点，甚至为了引用有意向有带
大数据的文章倾斜，实在是很掉价。
Nature现在就像科学杂志里的腾讯，在哪里伸一抓都会把别人饭碗挤掉。
让他们这样一个商业集团垄断市场，对科学长远的发展是不利的。
suicide
asked
【在 a*******a 的大作中提到】
: http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2014/09/exclusive-nature
: EXCLUSIVE: Nature reviewers not persuaded by initial STAP stem cell papers
: As two discredited, and now retracted, stem cell papers have produced an
: almost unimaginable fallout—a national hero accused of scientific fraud,
: the revamping of one of Japan’s major research institutes, and the suicide
: of a respected cell biologist—researchers have privately and publicly asked
: how Nature could have published work that, in retrospect, seems so
: obviously flawed.
: Another piece of the puzzle has come to light. The Science news team
: received a copy of email correspondence between a Nature editor and Haruko
作为一个高端杂志，这么疯狂追求影响因子，片面讲究热点，甚至为了引用有意向有带
大数据的文章倾斜，实在是很掉价。
Nature现在就像科学杂志里的腾讯，在哪里伸一抓都会把别人饭碗挤掉。
让他们这样一个商业集团垄断市场，对科学长远的发展是不利的。
suicide
asked
【在 a*******a 的大作中提到】
: http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2014/09/exclusive-nature
: EXCLUSIVE: Nature reviewers not persuaded by initial STAP stem cell papers
: As two discredited, and now retracted, stem cell papers have produced an
: almost unimaginable fallout—a national hero accused of scientific fraud,
: the revamping of one of Japan’s major research institutes, and the suicide
: of a respected cell biologist—researchers have privately and publicly asked
: how Nature could have published work that, in retrospect, seems so
: obviously flawed.
: Another piece of the puzzle has come to light. The Science news team
: received a copy of email correspondence between a Nature editor and Haruko
相关阅读
范衡宇：治理学术腐败须打好“组合拳”工业界postdoc没好文章的话，以后怎么发展不敢杀老鼠onsite 面试，大家遇到过哪些challenging问题？包子求paperpaper help please, fabaozi thanks!千老们 努力工作啊， 社会就靠你们了转篇审稿，肝病方面的paper help! (转载)Drug Delivery R&D Position Available in CA取老鼠血做flow cytometry鲁白: 有关“磁遗传学课题争议”的简要说明如何在pubmed上批量搜索人大肠细胞基因组里Beta Actin有几个Copy？吐槽一下搞生物的人：看看人家搞物理的，引力波这样艰苦卓绝，是dual PI 好， 还是co-investigator好？paper thankspaper help!我最恨的一种做presentation的方式除了Bleach还有什么试剂可以用来洗摇菌的flask？