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
除了k99,还有啥可以申请的transition grant?请推荐代谢组学的扫盲读物不用搜索引擎你能知道这是什么学校吗？孤单的情人节，35了，还孤身一人的苦苦熬毕业,比生物更惨的...(zt)关于miRNA screen哈医大的王志国后继有人了!!!请问点突变对內切酶的影响有多大？求老文一篇michael snyder怎么能拿那么多科研经费大家讨论一下真科学和伪科学吧园艺方向论文投稿求助CMV IE-promoter光合作用研究的怎么样了？如何让自己的博厚老板同意自己将来可以独立研究SAS job opportunity波士顿大学的James J. Collins 怎么样？女儿考上了biotech，读还是不读？求review opportunity千老们要好好干了有做糖尿病的没？