| Search results - "iPSCs," |
How Could This Happen?
A prominent figure in iPSC research has not disclosed his key conflict of interest in many of his high-profile publications. However, PNAS would not even publish a Letter criticizing this.
Abstract
|
|
iPS Mice: Passing Acid Test Or Breaking Basic Ethics?A letter questioning the scientific and ethic value of iPS mice was rejected by Science and is published here as an open letter.
Abstract
|
|
The Method of the Year 2009 and Its Intrinsic ProblemsWhile iPSCs are being treated as unnecessary for regenerative medicine and a thing of the past, Nature Methods claimed generating iPSCs as a Method of the Year. Is this not amazing?
Abstract
|
|
Why Do We Need "Fully Pluripotent" iPS Cells?
A Correspondence questioning the scientific and ethic value of obtaining “fully pluripotent” iPSCs (induced pluripotent stem cells) using an embryo-sacrificing reproductive cloning has been totally ignored by Nature and is published here as an open letter.
Abstract
|
|
From Reprogrammable Mice to Man: Why Misrepresentation Cannot Lead to Real Application
After repeated failures in enhancing the real reprogramming efficiency to a useful level by various “primary systems”, some “secondary systems” were invented. Some amazingly high iPSC reprogramming efficiency rates were reported for these systems. Reprogrammable mice were also created and have been hyped as proof-in-principle for “fast” and “efficient” generation of patient-specific iPSCs. But all of these new “developments” in iPS research were reflections of some desperate efforts in maintaining the deceptions that could not longer be covered by any of the “primary systems”. How far the iPS cheating should go?
Abstract
|
|
|
|
