|
Top Watch 3(1):19-21, 2008 |
CORESPONDENCE |
|
http://im1.biz |
|
|
© Truthfinding
Cyberpress |
IPS HYPING
AND SPINNING |
The
iPS Spinning in Top Journals
Shi V. Liu
Eagle Institute of
Molecular Medicine
SVL@logibio.com
(Received 2008-02-25; accepted
HIGHLIGHT
No
biological research has captured so much and so intense attention from the
“top” journals. The heavy spinning on
iPS cells has created a global hype on “therapeutic” cloning and regenerative
“medicine”.
ABSTRACT
Science should progress on
solid testing of the hypotheses and independent validation of the claims. However, nowadays many anticipated
“discoveries” are “confirmed” by heavy spinning and massive broadcasting. The “generation” of so-called “induced”
pluripotent stem (iPS) cells actually has never been proven beyond reasonable
doubt. However, “top” journals still
spun heavily on this unproven claim while totally suppressing objective
criticisms (http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm). Some of the “experts’ Commentaries are
outright misrepresentations.
Unfortunately, these untruthful abstractions made into headlines of mass
media that led to the hypes of “turning clock back” and “turning lead into
gold”. However, history will quickly
show that the so-called “first biological airplane” will never fly over the
therapeutic cloning “sky” and a Nobel-Prize-“winning” discovery is a great
detour in stem cell research.
KEY WORDS
Stem cell, ES, iPS, Cloning,
Induction, Reprogramming, Regeneration, Hype, Spinning, Misrepresentation
Since the publication of the first iPS research
paper in 2006 [2], at least 18 research
papers on iPS cells have been published so far (by February 25, 2008) (see http://im1.biz/FastTrack.htm for a list
of updated information). Meanwhile, many
commentaries were also published. To
give a quick view on how heavy the spinning on the iPS cells is a list of
Commentaries published in some “top” journals was complied here (table 1).
I
should say that this list is in no way a complete one. But it at least demonstrates how some shaky
claims made in the various iPS reports were “firmed” up over the publication
and media spinning process.
History will show us that, once a mistake is
equipped with some media-spinning wins, it can really fly high enough to gain
‘respect” from everyone who cannot see the details or even does not wish to see
the details.
But once the wins are broken the destruction to the
“airplane” will be catastrophic as it’s falling down will not avoid the
acceleration speed.
Then, what those “experts” will say again? How could those “top” journals justify their
defiance against earlier criticisms and their heavy spinning on those flawed
and even fraud papers?
Table
1. A chronological list of Commentaries published on iPS publications in “top”
journals
|
Seq. No. |
Ref. |
Publication |
Comment on |
Major points and views |
|
1 |
Rodolfa et al 2006 [1] |
Cell 126: 652, 2006 |
Takahashi 2006 [2] |
Overexpression
of embryonic transcription factors restores pluripotency to adult somatic
cells. |
|
2 |
Anonymous 2007 [3] |
Nature 447: 618, 2007 |
Okita et al 2007 [4] Wernig et al 2007 [5] Maherali et al 2007 [6] |
Simple
switch turns cells embryonic: |
|
3 |
Rossant 2007 [7] |
Nature 448: 260, 2007 |
Okita et al 2007 [4] Wernig et al 2007 [5] Maherali et al 2007 [6] |
Researchers
have engineered embryonic stem-like cells from normal mouse skin cells …
without the use of donated eggs or embryos. |
|
4 |
Holden 2007 [8] |
Science 316:1404, 2007 |
Okita et al 2007 [4] Wernig et al 2007 [5] Maherali et al 2007 [6] |
Teams
reprogram differentiated cells – without eggs |
|
5 |
Yamanaka 2007 [9] |
Cell Stem Cell |
Takahashi 2006 [2] |
Strategies
and new developments in the generation of patient-specific pluripotent stem
cells. How do the four factors induce
pluripotent stem cells? C-Myc and KLF4 are required for the transformation
but alone would generate tumor cells.
Oct-3/4 and Sox 2 direct the cell fate away from tumor cells towards
ES-like cells. |
|
6 |
Rodolfa et al 2007 [10] |
Differentiation 75: 572, 2007 |
Takahashi 2006 [2] |