Scientists withdraw claim about making stem cells
Source: AP-Excite
NEW YORK (AP) Scientists who reported that they'd found a startlingly simple way to make stem cells withdrew that claim Wednesday, admitting to "extensive" errors in the research.
In two papers published in January in the journal Nature, the researchers said that they'd been able to transform ordinary mouse cells into versatile stem cells by exposing them to a mildly acidic environment. Scientists hope to harness stem cells to grow replacement tissue for treating a variety of diseases.
While scientists have long been able to perform such transformations with a different method, the newly reported technique was far simpler, and the paper gained wide notice and some skepticism in the research community. It was also widely reported in the media, including by The Associated Press.
But before long, the government-funded Riken Center for Developmental Biology in Japan accused one of its scientists, Haruko Obokata, of falsifying data in the research. She was key author of the papers.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140702/us-sci--stem_cell_retraction-df7307293e.html
Online:
Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature
valerief
(53,235 posts)were persuaded by Big Pharma to state they'd made errors.
Warpy
(111,267 posts)And believe it, they can't make universal stem cells out of anything but undifferentiated embryonic cells.
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)pluripotent or totipotent?
Igel
(35,317 posts)Peer review is supposed to happen some time between submission of the article and publication.
Some peer reviewers engaged in a bit of motivated thinking, it would seem. "I really want this to be true--wouldn't it be cool? This may be a problem ... but then it's not valid research, so I won't dig here. And there ... No, let's leave that alone. Plus I have to go home for dinner and there's this grad student who needs advising and a grant to be written and early admissions review committee and the conference abstract I need to send off and proofsheets to review and ..."
Much better to catch a mistake early based on methodology than have somebody outside of the review process catch it or, even worse, waste resources failing to replicate the results.
Warpy
(111,267 posts)before they accept it for publication. They so wanted to use something besides little snowflake babies in a petri dish that they forgot that step.
It's not the first time, it's how Wakefield slipped through, too. People were so desperate for a simple answer to what caused autism that they rushed him into publication. Look how that one turned out.
eggplant
(3,911 posts)Um, that scientists *can*, but these scientists can't.
SansACause
(520 posts)When I read those papers initially, it seemed impossibly simple. But it would have helped with work in my lab. I'm glad this retraction came out before I tried to repeat their results.
shireen
(8,333 posts)Whatever happened to peer review of scientific papers?
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... corporate scientists.
HuskyOffset
(889 posts). . . that since this scientist faked her data we know that scientists fake their data, and since the people telling us that global warming is real and man-caused are scientists, we are led to the inescapable conclusion that global warming is fake. How soon before someone actually tries to claim that?
Javaman
(62,530 posts)"um, we forgot to, um...carry the one".
question everything
(47,485 posts)to contribute to all the "bad science" bashing.
Science has advanced our life in the past 100 years and it does not deserve to be trashed by bad apples, or by clueless members of Congress with their "fleece" awards and hauling a Nobel laureate to explain how he conducts research.