On debates about stem cells: the carbon nanotube connection
An article in Nature by David Cyranoski & Monya Baker [Stem-cell claim gets cold reception; Carbon nanotubes used to reprogramme adult human cells? Nature 452, 132 (2008) ] produced the following on-line commentary:
We need a correct understanding of what a stem cell in order to evaluate the magic claims on 'stem cells'!!! ------- On February 2, 2007 Rudolf Jaenisch wrote to me that "these people seem not quite understand the key issues of interpreting NT [nuclear transfer] experiments" when he read my criticism on a 'milestone' publication in Nature Biotechnology (NBT). My criticism was not accepted for publication by NBT because it still contained a major criticism that the editor wish to delete but I insisted on, even after two revisions. However, that NBT-rejected criticism was PUBLISHED in Logical Biology (6: 110-112, 2006). See full-length at http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2006V6N4A17_Cloning.htm Or http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2006V6N4A17_Cloning.pdf ----------------- An invitation for rebuttal was formally sent from the Logical Biology to the NBT authors but that invitation was never answered. See details at http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N1A6_YangCheng.htm Or http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N1A6_YangCheng.pdf ---------- Interestingly, NBT later published a criticism from Jaenisch which contained a very same criticism that was already shown in my earlier submitted criticism and was required for deletion by the BNT editor. ---------- My criticism published in Logical Biology was sent to Jaenisch after I leant his criticism published in NTB. Here is that Jaenisch wrote to me: “I fully agree with you assessmentâ€. ---------- So apparently, there is a lack of agreed understanding of what a stem cell is and how to view successful cloning. ---------- Incidentally, I was told very recently by another editor of a mainstream stem cell journal that racket scientists actually provided a better answer on what stem cell is than the stem cell researchers who were having their meeting in the same convention place with the racket scientists. ------- Thus, it is not a surprise that many 'magic' claims on stem cells can now be increasingly found even in the scientific literature.When stem cells are treated as immortal cells and thus the fountain of youth, even stem cell claim can become a quick sell. However, as I already pointed out earlier and as confirmed by recent experimental evidence, stem cells are not immortal at all. Stem cells also age and die!!! Shi V. Liu
The Kanzius cancer treatment also involved claims about carbon nanoparticles, although part of the work was done with more traditional colloidal gold.
The biggest "quick sell" of all was California's Proposition 71, which brought us CIRM.
We need a correct understanding of what a stem cell in order to evaluate the magic claims on 'stem cells'!!! ------- On February 2, 2007 Rudolf Jaenisch wrote to me that "these people seem not quite understand the key issues of interpreting NT [nuclear transfer] experiments" when he read my criticism on a 'milestone' publication in Nature Biotechnology (NBT). My criticism was not accepted for publication by NBT because it still contained a major criticism that the editor wish to delete but I insisted on, even after two revisions. However, that NBT-rejected criticism was PUBLISHED in Logical Biology (6: 110-112, 2006). See full-length at http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2006V6N4A17_Cloning.htm Or http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2006V6N4A17_Cloning.pdf ----------------- An invitation for rebuttal was formally sent from the Logical Biology to the NBT authors but that invitation was never answered. See details at http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N1A6_YangCheng.htm Or http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N1A6_YangCheng.pdf ---------- Interestingly, NBT later published a criticism from Jaenisch which contained a very same criticism that was already shown in my earlier submitted criticism and was required for deletion by the BNT editor. ---------- My criticism published in Logical Biology was sent to Jaenisch after I leant his criticism published in NTB. Here is that Jaenisch wrote to me: “I fully agree with you assessmentâ€. ---------- So apparently, there is a lack of agreed understanding of what a stem cell is and how to view successful cloning. ---------- Incidentally, I was told very recently by another editor of a mainstream stem cell journal that racket scientists actually provided a better answer on what stem cell is than the stem cell researchers who were having their meeting in the same convention place with the racket scientists. ------- Thus, it is not a surprise that many 'magic' claims on stem cells can now be increasingly found even in the scientific literature.When stem cells are treated as immortal cells and thus the fountain of youth, even stem cell claim can become a quick sell. However, as I already pointed out earlier and as confirmed by recent experimental evidence, stem cells are not immortal at all. Stem cells also age and die!!! Shi V. Liu
The Kanzius cancer treatment also involved claims about carbon nanoparticles, although part of the work was done with more traditional colloidal gold.
The biggest "quick sell" of all was California's Proposition 71, which brought us CIRM.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 8:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home