Han chun rainIt is no doubt one of the most popular chinese researchers in 2016. From the sound of a paper published in nature-biotech to being questionedAcademic fraudHe's been through itPublic opinionIt's like a roller coaster。
In recent days, nature-biotech has published an updated statement on the paper “data-led genome editors using ngago”. The statement stated that the journal had acquired new data related to the replicability of the ngago system, which needed to be studied before any further action could be taken。
Questioning whether science can be advanced? Public opinion rekindles, but the voices are no longer the same。
Excuse me? I'm not sure
@desertfox: this is just another delay in the spring rain, when domestic and foreign actors are starting to study quickly, and after weeks of being unable to repeat large-scale questions, coupled with the veiled nature of the rain, and the extent to which the interviews were conducted and the amateurs in the photographs were shocked。
@julurabbit: a fake paper, mixed with a title, received a $230 billion grant to set up a genetic center, everyone was happy, and finally found a decent excuse to get off the stage。
Science has to withstand the challenge, but not the pressure. People
@the year was young and famous: an academic paper that shocked the world is bound to attract attention and re-emergence from all laboratories around the world who do the same. When significant human and material resources cannot be recovered, it is implausible to ask the original author to provide experimental data as evidence. The han spring rain was unable to give clear evidence, at least that the methods he proposed were not always successful. The fact that data on repetitivity are now available, at best, is proof that the spring rain is not fake, does not explain that the original challenge was wrong。
@i am also rude: science has to deal with the challenge, but it's a mistake to think that it's not a matter of underestimation, let alone of pride。
@professor chen: science needs to question the spirit, but excessive paranoia and public opinion do not contribute to the development of research in frontier science. For an unknown frontScientific researchFields should not be used as a basis for judgement in research。
@jan9: science itself is evolving in a twist, and it helps academic research if it is based on a normal attitude of scientific research to question what it really is。
Strength: korean spring rain does not create a false motive
@nil628: i think that han spring rain's paper is a summary of his own scientific research, at least he doesn't deliberately fake it because there is no false motive. The numerous non-repeatable test results may be due to neglect of details。
@speepup: first of all, i'm sure han spring rain won't fake science because he knows the consequences of forgery, and he doesn't need to bet his life on his already existing position and income. Moreover, as a scientist, he already had a minimum of legal and moral awareness。
Be patient, let time tell the truth
@georgetown university, professor wu, department of neural sciences: scientific events often take years to come to a final conclusion, because many scientific findings are complex and take time to discern authenticity。
@5602248: science is a process of exploration, and there is no complete truth in what was previously thought to be true as a result of technological advances, just as the limits of the newton law are。
@ring: in public opinion, a little time and space for research into the korean spring rains is not a science indiscretion。
What is “repeated data”? It's scary to figure out
@message3: read the originals carefully, nature does not say that repeatable data is available, but rather that its subordinate magazine commented on the matter。
@lihui winga: it is not important to obtain duplicate data, it is important to be able to repeat and rationalize the experimental process, and if the data are not uniform and not reasonably explained, how can a stable process model be established
@i'm 6651834: this is itself a neutral incident, no conclusion. For some purpose or pressure, the korean spring rain gives nature magazine some data related to the repetitive nature of the experiment, but the extent to which it can be proved and the type of data is unknown. Specialized magazines must have the correct language, so it is certain that these data do not prove that the experiment can be repeated。
@null1303034393: access to repeatability data and repetitivity is completely different, and even if repeated, it will not be helpful for the future position of the korean spring rains in the international scientific community unless he is able to make further progress, as is seen from the general pattern of scientific research. The reasons for this are as follows: first, if he has done it and repeats it repeatedly according to the methods and materials described in the article, then it is unlikely that only he can repeat it himself. Second, if he had done it, but had only done it once to publish his paper, it would not have been possible to systematically demonstrate the reliability of his results. Third, if he makes it, but conceals some of the key data, it is typical academic misconduct. If economic considerations were taken into account, the patent should be applied directly, rather than in writing. This post is based on a clear message to readers. Fourth, if he had done so because of cell contamination, it would have meant that his experiment was not rigorous, but it had to be found in the results of this repeated experiment how the contamination led to the original article, which, if not found, might have been accidental, would have been meaningless and had to be removed, perhaps false. Fifthly, he has not reached a conclusion and is a complete fraud. From these five points, no matter what the end result is, the scientific community will give him little credit。
@phonephotoman: if the data are finally confirmed to be duplicated, i will look forward to a response from the negative public figures ahead. If there is a problem with repetition, i hope that han spring rain will explain the reasons for the problem, and if there is a problem, i hope that this mistake is not made in bad faith, and that is my greatest expectation. I have some tension, and do not turn my original goodwill into a final disappointment。
(booked from today's scientific, legal and other media reports)
