"Non-scholars" Han Chunyu won the "Nobel-level" result, Fang issued a challenge-Fang-IT information
On July 2, recently, Fang zhouzi, Hebei University of science and technology issued publicly questioned Han Chunyu "Nobel Prize-level" results "do not repeat the copy operation" problem, implying that Korean spring scientific authenticity.
Ark child in paper in the said, Han Chunyu in public occasions of speech and he in papers in of description exists many contradictions, Han Chunyu had in North of speech in the proposed he of experiment NgAgo is primary version, and need superb of experiment skills, and Ark child think Han Chunyu description of just a does not complex of turned dye experiment, is ready-made of technology, does not need superb of experiment skills, according to its provides of steps should is not difficult was repeat out of only on, and not should appeared "can't repeat the experiment" of situation.
Fang in the text, "said Han Chunyu was informed that it was not repeated after its results abuse these people" approach incorrect, cast doubt on the authenticity of the results.
Following are the Fang, Hebei University of science and technology of the Han Chunyu "Nobel Prize-level" experimental repeatability issues questions full text:
A new scientific discovery, technology, need to repeat was not generally accepted by others. Others repeat do not come out, doubt is normal. Spreaders should do is to remove the doubt, rather than attack, verbal abuse, or the more questionable.
Not long ago, Hebei University of science and technology Han Chunyu report published in nature biotechnology, a new method of gene editing NgAgo, hit in the country. The intellectuals as Dr sink schools can do world class research typical of other media followed publicity, even called "Nobel Prize-level" research.
These days I have received several letters from laboratory researchers reflect repeat no Han Chunyu key figure 4 result in the paper (cutting the genome, sequencing and T7E1), calls my attention to this matter.
Some people have biological professional online forums discussing the matter in public, reported they were unable to repeat the experiment, asking who repeatedly came out. Currently there is no one reflects the repeated Figure 4 results. Figure 3 results in the repeated thesis (FACS and Western Blot), but that may be a false positive.
According to listen to people say, Han Chunyu both in the North and genetic report stressed that his current NgAgo is the primary version, requires advanced experimental techniques, he launched version 2.0 and Smart. These statements described in the papers with him is contradictory. He described is a complex of the transfection experiments, T7E1 and sequencing are readily available technology does not need superb experimental skills, follow the provided steps should not be hard to duplicate.
Han Chunyu was informed that it was not repeated after its results, not questions, but abuse of these people is "the clown", is engaged in other gene-editing technologies (CRISPR) were discredited, threat to human flesh search them.
I, of course, is not afraid of being meat, is not afraid of being scolded, so I asked a few questions:
First, did anyone repeat the Han spring Figure 4 result in the paper? Some told me about it.
Secondly, the alleged Han Chunyu genetic report says, repeat and cannot be repeated is 1:3, can repeat out of 20. Exactly which laboratory to repeat them? (Refer to figure 4 result) this unnecessary secrecy.
Third, said Han Chunyu did this experiment "requires advanced experimental techniques", then what is a superb experimental skills in which steps needed?
Why a new experimental results of others reflect repeat do not come out, for many reasons, for example may be repeated out of silent, not repeated experimental skill, concealed in a paper critical of "experimental techniques" (immoral), or paper reports results simply knitting (immoral). A new scientific discovery, technology, need to repeat was not generally accepted by others. Others repeat do not come out, doubt is normal. Spreaders should do is to remove the doubt, rather than attack, verbal abuse, or the more questionable.
“非知名学者”韩春雨获“诺奖级”成果，方舟子发文质疑 - 方舟子 - IT资讯
7月2日消息，近日，方舟子公开发文质疑河北科技大学韩春雨“诺贝尔奖级”实验成果存在“不可重复复制操作”的问题，暗指韩春雨科研成果的真实性。
方舟子在文中表示，韩春雨在公开场合的言论与他在论文里的描述存在诸多矛盾，韩春雨曾在北大的演讲中提出他的实验NgAgo是初级版、需要高超的实验技巧，而方舟子认为韩春雨描述的只是个并不复杂的转染实验，是现成的技术，并不需要高超的实验技巧，按照其提供的步骤应该是不难被重复出来的才对，而不应该出现“没法重复该实验”的情况。
方舟子在文中称，“韩春雨获悉有人重复不出其实验结果后谩骂这些人”的做法不正确，让人怀疑其科研成果的真实性。
以下为方舟子《河北科技大学韩春雨“诺贝尔奖级”实验的重复性问题》质疑全文：
一个新的科学发现、技术，需要经过别人的重复才得到公认。别人重复不出来，有疑问，是很正常的。作为首创者应该做的是去消除疑问，而不是攻击、谩骂，否则那更让人怀疑。
不久前河北科技大学韩春雨在《自然·生物技术》发表论文报告了一种基因编辑新方法NgAgo，在国内轰动一时。被《知识分子》作为末流学校土博士也能做世界一流科研的典型，国内其他媒体随后跟进宣传，甚至称之为“诺贝尔奖级”的研究成果。
这几天我陆续收到几家实验室的研究人员的来信，反映重复不出韩春雨论文中最关键的图4结果（切割基因组，T7E1和测序），呼吁我关注一下这事。
有些人已在网上生物专业论坛公开讨论此事，报告他们没法重复该实验，询问有谁重复出来了。目前还未见有人反映重复出了图4结果。有的能够重复论文中的图3结果（FACS和Western Blot），但那有可能是假阳性。
据听报告的人说，韩春雨在北大和遗传所的报告上都强调，他目前的NgAgo是初级版、需要高超的实验技巧、等他推出2.0版和Smart版。这些说法跟他在论文里的描述是矛盾的。因为他描述的只是个并不复杂的转染实验，T7E1和测序也都是现成的技术，并不需要高超的实验技巧，按照其提供的步骤应该是不难被重复出来的。
韩春雨获悉有人重复不出其实验结果后，不是解答疑惑，而是谩骂这些人是“跳梁小丑”、是搞别的基因编辑技术（CRISPR）的人的抹黑，威胁要对他们进行人肉搜索。
我当然不怕被人肉，也不怕挨骂，所以在此问几个问题：
第一，有没有人重复出了韩春雨论文中的图4结果？有的话跟我说一下。
第二，据称韩春雨在遗传所的报告上说，重复出来和不能重复的比例是1:3，能重复出来的有20家。那么究竟有哪家实验室重复出来了？（指图4结果）这事没必要保密吧。
第三，韩春雨说做这个实验“需要高超的实验技巧”，那么究竟在哪个步骤需要什么样的高超实验技巧？
为什么一个新实验的结果别人都反映重复不出来，原因很多，比如可能是重复出来的都不吭声，重复不出来的实验技术不行，论文中隐瞒了关键的“实验技巧”（这不道德），或者论文报告的结果干脆就是编的（这更不道德）。一个新的科学发现、技术，需要经过别人的重复才得到公认。别人重复不出来，有疑问，是很正常的。作为首创者应该做的是去消除疑问，而不是攻击、谩骂，否则那更让人怀疑。