Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 26 March 2008 | Nature 452, 406-408 (2008) | doi:10.1038/452406a
News Feature
Stem cells: 5 things to know before jumping on the iPS bandwagon
Induced pluripotent stem cells look just like embryonic stem cells, but are easier to create and free of the heavy ethics baggage. David Cyranoski separates fact from fiction in a burgeoning field.
Excited by their potential for biomedical research and therapy and lured by the ease with which they can be created, many researchers are looking into induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. Created from adult cells by a simple genetic trick, iPS cells seem to have regained an embryonic 'stemness' that might allow them to become any type of cell in the body.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Why not tell the WHOLE story????--- Who was the first in PUBLICLY criticizing the mistakes in iPS cell publications? Which journals have rejected those criticisms?? Why the PUBLISHED criticisms (http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm) were unanswered by the iPS cell researchers??? Why did the Nature Editorial and this News Feature still TOTALLY ignore Shi V. Liu's scientific criticisms on the iPS cell misunderstandings and misrepresentations????--- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com
A balanced view on the iPS cells!!!!! --- A mini-review rejected by Cell Research and then Nature is now published in Logical Biology (8: 32-38, 2008). This publication is FREE for full-length reading and OPEN for full-scale criticisms. --- http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N1A10_BalancedView.htm --- OR --- http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N1A10_BalancedView.pdf --- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com
Can Nature give details to its readers????? --- Nature's editorial rushed into a conclusion of the falling of iPS cell research even before it understood all the facts./// Can Nature provide us some details of the "small" mistakes made by Yamanaka? How did Yamanaka give "plausible" explanations for the mistakes and where the explanations can be found?? If Yamanaka's central conclusion is not affected, why would Nature worry about the "danger" of the falling??? How did Nature reach a conclusion that the "accusation" is "unsubstantiated"???? /// --- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com
What is wrong with pointing out mistakes and demand clarifications? --- I am deeply worried with the message sent by the Editorial of Nature. Its harsh criticism on "Reprogrammer Yamanaka" chilled the bones of many truth-seeking and justice-protecting scientists./// Although I have always been brave in using my real name to make all of my scientific criticisms including my questions on the iPS cell publications (http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm) I fully understand why some scientists have to use pseudo-names to seek truth and voice justice. The attitude shown by Nature just proved the worry of many scientists whose carrier advancement depends on a "good" relationship with those in trends and/or in power. --- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com
Regarding the accuracy of the illustration------ I enjoy the irony of this cartoon. However, the cartoon is scientifically very inaccurate and even misleading. How could one (iPS) cell pull a big bandwagon occupied by so many people forward? Unless this (iPS) cell really has a magic force, then the cartoon implies a total impossibility of ...---- Scientific truth should be debated with facts and reasoning. Thus, I feel it is inappropriate to use untruthful artistic means to ridicule still "valid" discovery. For this reason, I demand a deletion of this very offensive cartoon and an offering of deep apology to the (iPS) cell researchers seating on the bandwagon. --- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com
Just a curiosity before the wished deletion of the cartoon----- What is inside that block box on the center of the bandwagon? Does it contain the secret of "induction" or the codes for "reprogramming"? Or does it contain a much anticipated Nobel Prize? ----- This inaccurate cartoon does trigger my imaginations... ---- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com
Can Nature open the black box for a public inspection????????? ---- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com
Shi Liu, the arguments you bring forth in your article "Towards a Balanced View on iPS Cells" are as shaky as you attempt to make the research you're criticizing seem. Nature was right to have rejected it. The "black box" is the unknown in the reprogramming process- you're welcome to open it for public inspection once you or anyone else solves that acknowledged unknown. And you are just plain neurotic with your criticism of the cartoon in this article- perhaps a careful re-reading of the article title will clarify the meaning for you since it couldn't be any more clearer.
I also read Liu's article "Towards a Balanced View on iPS Cells". Compared with the really SHAKY iPS research publications (I really agree with "E E" on this point), Liu's review on iPS publications is very solid. If you compare some of the opinions now expressed by the experts you will find those opinions were already clearly stated in this review which was based on more detailed re-analyses of the relevant iPS research publications and more logical reasoning. Thus, I believe that Nature has made a great mistake in rejecting it. The fact that Nature just "now" realized some mistakes in Yamanaka's publication but did not give any credit for Liu's insightful vision and correct scientific criticism is amazing! I mean really amazing!!! I encourage every iPS cell researcher and stem cell researcher to read Liu's articles (seems he actually published a lot and analyzed every iPS cell publication) before blaming him for 'disturbing' a 'normal' scientific research and calling for a premature end of 'new era' for stem cells.
True Scientist, I think you missed my point completely. Liu's article is riddled with hasty generalizations and most of his points have clear logical flaws (i.e. Daley lab independent of Jaenisch also replicated findings contrary to supposed Jaenisch lab conspiracy Liu tries to portray, those who cloned Dolly are uncertain themselves about whether the cell they reprogrammed was a somatic stem cell- irregardless the feat of the direct reprogramming whether it required a terminally differentiated cell or a somatic stem cell is still a breakthrough in and of itself, Liu in a clear logical flaw attempts to compare conclusions of earlier reprogramming results from the first Yamanaka publication with the acknowledged less efficient means of selection via Fbx10 with later improved published means of selection for iPS- with this alone Liu makes countless numbers of following conclusions and cries of "wolf" such as the number of required factors needed that has since varied, and the harm of using retroviruses have always been mentioned as an obstacle that must be overcome- even when citing the papers in the general media, not just in the original scientific publications themselves. He brings up maybe just a handful of valid points, but those points were already widely acknowledged to begin with, with the exception of his criticisms of Yamanaka's newly published publication which oddly returns to Fbx10 selection.
I am not a biologist or even a "scientist" under today's definition. I am a professor of logic. Since SL and EE were claiming of making "logical" arguments I wish to offer them my two cents logics. ----- EE said that SL's criticisms on iPS publications are "shaky" which I cannot make any scientific judgment. However, EE made a logical mistake in his argument by saying that all the points that SL made in his criticisms against iPS publicaitons were already made by others before except for one (on something called an "oddly retunes to Fbx10 selection. What the hell is that?). ----- I have taught me students many times that you cannot win a logical argument by saying that what your opponent says was already said by you or the others in the right sense. If you have to opt for that selection. Just go home to study hard on LOGICS! ----- By the way, I also took a look of the cartoon with my logical sense. I think the cartoonist made a logical mistake by placing a fragile cell in front a bandwagon full of people. Unless his/her intention is to let the wagon crashed the cell - no matter how pluritent it is. Otherwise it is much better and indeed safer to place that magic into the black box where it should be.
These iPS cells are too complicated for me and I am too simple to understand logics, either./////What I am wish to know right now are the following simple questions: 1. Are the iPS cells truly induced from terminally differentiated cells as stated in the headlines? 2. Are the iPS cells really some kind of cancer cells as alleged by this non-stem cell researcher Liu? 3. The small mistakes made by Yamanaka are contained in the Science paper. Why dosen't Science say something about them? 4. How could Nature know the plusible explanations that Yamanaka given for his mistakes in the Science paper? 5. Why the mistakes were revealed just now, considering what criticisms made by Liu have already expressed by others before? 6. What kind "personal attack" that "Reprogrammer Yamanaka" has made and made against whom? 7. Why didn't Yamanaka himself answer the public attacks that Liu has even posted in the Nature News (in many places)? I am confused, very confused!
5 things to remember:////// To those engaged in the above arguments, I wish to share with you the following quotations that I have collected over the years: 1. "...self-deception, wishful thinking, and selective use and negligence of data can lead scientists astray." -- F. E. Bloom (Science 287:230, 2000) 2. "The critical attitude always has been central to the scientific process, but it also can lead to the premature rejection of good ideas." -- F. E. Bloom (Science 287:230, 2000) 3. "There will always be established and influential scientists who resent the incursions of new thinkers on their turf or, even with the best will in the world, are resistant to looking beyond their long-held scientific assumptions." -- Who said this? 4. "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." -- Arthur C. Clarke's First Law 5. "critical scrutiny is part of the bedrock of science." -- Who said this?
On the deep throat------ I guess what "EE" was really trying to convey is this: S/he already saw the "wolf" walking around long time ago but s/he did not do anything to disturb the "wolf" who is eating the "lambs" that s/he had wished to get rid off. Now a child like Liu prematurely ended his/her dream by crying loud that "wolf is coming! Wolf is coming!!". However, the real credit for discovering the wolf really should goes to "EE". Is s/he actually the "Reprogrammer Yamanaka"?
Statement from Shi V. Liu------ I am not a "plain neurotic" man as called by "EE". Nor am I a "child" as viewed by the "stem cell exert". I am not a professional stem cell researcher. But I may know more correctly what a stem cell is and cloning means than most leading stem cell researchers and professional cloners. If you have doubt on this, please compare my publications on stem cells and cloning (listed at http://im1.biz/StemCell.htm and http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm, respectively) with others' publications. Besides I know a true principle for cell life and aging (see many publications at http://im1.biz/Aging.htm) while others are still living under a mistaken dogma of "one mother divides into two daughters" and fruitlessly search for the "immortality" "fountain of youth" (see examples at http://im1.biz/Named.htm). /// I do not believe that "EE" even knew iPS cells are the "wolves". However, in case he or she really wishes to get the credit for killing a "wolf", I challenge him/her to show his/her accomplishment. If nature or other "top" journals are space-limited for publishing his/her work, I will offer him/her unlimited publishing space (in the Truthfinding Cyberpress at http://im1.biz) to present his earlier "cry".// But, for those stem cell experts whose goal is only to identify the deep throat and to know expose "Reprogrammer Yamanaka", I suggest them go to Washington Post or New York Time, whichever is closer to them. ---------------- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com
Logical Professor- here is what I meant since it was lost in your translation: What meager valid points Liu has brought up against the current direct reprogramming results were already acknowledged and mentioned in the very same science publications Liu has criticized as some conspiracy cover-up that the authors are attempting to hide (How can it be a cover-up when the authors not just acknowledge it in their published articles but also advertise it in public newspaper interviews?) No Stem cell "expert". The common cliches and childhood story references by me and this article are obviously either too complicated, novel, or foreign for some people to grasp.
Shi Liu, reading just one of your article gave me sufficient background about your lack of knowledge that you claim surpasses most experts in the field by throwing plug ins for your own online magazine. There is a reason why reputable journals reject your arguments. Criticisms are very important in the scientific community, but these criticisms (like the work they intend to argue) must have merit behind them. A few, with strong emphasis on few, of your points are valid, but nothing that comes close to supporting your outcries of fraud and conspiracy that make you look like a madman. Continue publishing in your own website and keep living that illusion. Your inexperience in the field that you yourself point out is glaringly obvious and only becomes more so with each post you make. Until you begin to draw more serious, legitimate criticisms, you can expect your opinion pieces to continually be rejected from reputable journals.
E E – Your further clarifications just prove the absolute correctness of my conclusion on your logical mistake made in your public humiliation on Liu. You were trying to say that Liu's criticisms are "shaky" and "childhood" but you also said these criticisms were already published in the same "top" journals./// Now here are my other logical questions to you: if all stem cell experts and "top" journals knew these criticisms were valid and the iPS discovery were "shaky", why did they still publish the iPS discoveries so firmly as "milestones"? How could this discovery be considered by some experts as a possibility for winning a Nobel prize? Were the editors of Nature, Science, and Time unintelligent in selecting some flawed iPS publications as the greatest discoveries? Were all the name-brand Newspapers stupid in accepting the hyping on the iPS cells and further spinning on the wrong general conclusions of the shaky iPS reports? Were general public really have no common sense when these shaky points were already clearly emphasized even by those iPS authors?/// What a funny drama you are trying to present to the public: Yamanaka's shaky "discovery" would even win him a Nobel prize if not being "ruined" by this "madman" but Liu's valid ("repeated"?)criticisms actually earned him a title of "plain neurotic" "madman"?/////By the way, since you have severely criticized Liu's online magazines I also took a look on them. I am truly amazed how much truth was already communicated in these magazines. The magazine "Logical Biology" will provide some very good materials for my future Logical courses (If Liu would give me the permission to use them). Of course, I would ask you to give me such permisison to use your illogical reasonings as some comparision. How could I contact you?
Common sense tells me that the person knowing his guilty will never speak out./// Common sense also tells me that, no matter how mad it may be, an outcry often carries certain truth./// Why didn't Yamanaka speak out and confront against Liu directly?/// Why would Nature keep the "small mistakes" of Yamanaka secret and even unwilling to share with public his "plausible explanations" for these mistakes?/// Can any iPS expert answer the common sense questions posted here instead of arguing on who made those criticisms first?
I guess the next thing that Nature and other "top" journals may do is this: Publishing corrections by the various original authors of the iPS reports. In these corrections the following phrases may be stated: XXX have already clearly pointed out the possibility of YYY. The conclusion ZZZ is only partially invalid but XXX deserve all the credit for self-correcting these minor mistakes. No one was earlier than these authors in pointing out the potential mistakes or alternative explanations because these points were all present in the original publications.
Two more publications related with iPS cells or "airplanes" can be found here: 1. One Factor Dropped from the 'Inducing' Soup, One Piece of Evidence Added against the 'Induction' Claim (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N1A11_iPS3_nbt.htm OR http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N1A11_iPS3_nbt.pdf);/// 2. 5 Reasons to Get off the iPS "Airplane" (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N1A12_GetOffAirplane.htm OR http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N1A12_GetOffAirplane.pdf) ----- Welcome iPS defenders to submit their scientific rebuttals for publication. ----- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com
Statement from Shi V. Liu-------- I am wondering why so far no one else has joined the "E E" in publicly denouncing my childish behaviors. Is this because everyone else already knew that the iPS "emperor" has no cloth on????? ------ Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com ------ P.S. "Logical Professor": I give you full permission to use my publications in Logical Biology for education purpose.
A logical diagnosis on some abnormal individuals here---- First of all I must declare that my diagnosis has no medical validity. It just serves a role for triggering some deep thinking on the phenomenon exposed here./// This "madman" Shi Liu is indeed too naive in single-handedly fighting against so many powerful iPS "airplanes". However, his outcries indeed contained many truth as agreed even by "E E"./// If Shi Liu has some "plain neurotic" problems it is not a big deal to the society because he can be easily located (he used his real name and a working email address so far as I tested)./// However, my major concern is now with the disorders shown by this "E E"./// First of all, this name is not even like any human name that I have heard so far in my past 58 years or so. What does it stand for? Secondly, without a capability of making a single logical argument, this "E E" had relied on some low-level name-callings. How could Nature allow these outright personal attacks? Thirdly, this evil "E E" is hard to find and thus present a great harm to the society when a treatment is even inapplicable to him/her. /// Thus, I wish that Nature can help us find this "E E" so that much needed "regenerative medicine" can be given to him/her to get his/her life renewed to a normal status.------- By the way, please do not remove any of "E E"'s comments. Doing so will only increase the difficulty of treating that abnormal individual and may even constitute an obstruction for some legal action.
We are repeating our previously posted request for some simple YES or NO answers to the basic questions on the iPS cells./// We have no interest in hearing more dispute on who fired the first shot at the iPS "airplanes". We are only concerned with whether these "airplanes" are safe to ride or whether they are true "airplanes" at all./// If these "airplanes" have some uncontrollable bombs on board, please do not use them to take us into the "therapeutic cloning" sky space. If these "airplanes" are not airplanes at all, please do not charge us for high cost of transportation./// By the way, please do not tell us these "airplanes" can be made safer in the future. We do not trust any "pie" in the sky.
I just finished reading Liu's article <5 Reasons to Get off the iPS "Airplane" >(http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N1A12_GetOffAirplane.htm OR http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N1A12_GetOffAirplane.pdf)/// I will just make one comment on it: Boy, this child is really intelligent and logical.
What would the next Nature Editorial say???---- Most likely, when the iPS "airplanes" are completed burned, Nature may say that (please do not quote on this): We are deeply sorry for not being able to EMPHASIZE the other views on the observations reported in the iPS publications. However, we feel happy that our strict peer review had identified those alternative possibilities and the authors of the publications had addressed those concerns by giving them full discussion in the same publications./// Two lessons that readers and public should learn from this iPS discovery are: (1) Reading the entire publication carefully including the online supplement because the devils are often in the details not in the title or abstract; (2) relying on our primary scientific publications for full understanding so that mass media spin will not drive you into some unrealistic believes.///That is it.
I am absolutely convinced that this "manman" Shi Liu is very normal because only he has expressed some normal view for bactreial/cell life as far as I know./// Please read his article "In Division We Lose" (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/P2007V2N2A3_DivisionLoss.htm OR http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/P2007V2N2A3_DivisionLoss.pdf) and you will understand why I said so./// As a matter of fact, he even published an article "Cell Division Deception and Stem Cell Confusion" (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/P2007V2N1A3_Cell.htm OR http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/P2007V2N1A3_Cell.pdf) which will help stem cell researchers better./// Finally, his article "Embryonic Stem Cells versus Adult Stem Cells: Similarities and Differences" provides the much needed insight in understanding the deceptive nature of the turning clock back claim associated with the iPS cell discovery./// Good logical stuff!
Liu's view that "one mother cell reproduces one or more daughter cells and any two cells formed from one cell are not daughters of the same generation but a parent (mother) and a child (daughter) of the two successive generations" makes perfect sense to us. Why this common sense view is so difficult to get across those "specilized" expert who treat the dogma of "one mother cell divides into two daughter cells" as something even unchallengeable. Come on our cell biology "experts", that cell division "emperor" has no cloth on!
Ok Shi Liu, I entertained you by referring to your different log-in names in my last post, but this is just getting ridiculous. Here is what you said in one of your earlier posts: "Although I have always been brave in using my real name to make all of my scientific criticisms including my questions on the iPS cell publications." And yet you hide behind 2 other log-in names as well to fake some sort of support for yourself. For your information, your shallow grasp of knowledge, poor rationalization, and poor grasps/interpretations of cliches permeate throughout whatever fake identity you try to put up. Your posts and acts are a farce and just an advertisement for your own self-created website. What a shame Nature is for allowing your jokes to persist.
This comment has been removed by the moderator
It is ironic this "E E" even complainted about Nature for posting Liu's frank opinions on iPS cells and some correct (as we felt) knowledge on cell life. If this double E disagrees with Liu on almost everything Liu stated, we suggest this double E write out in details so that we can read and learn instead of just relying on Liu's one-sided view. How about finishing this assignment of writing an article "5 reasons to stay on the iPS airplane" to directly confronting Liu's urge for getting off the "airplane". ///But hurry double E, the iPS "airplane" riders all getting off the unsafe iPS "airplane" much quicker than they jumped on. Did you see any iPS riders publicly confronting Liu, in their real names???
It is NOT Ok E E. You have made repeated personal attacks on me by calling me "plain neurotic" and a "madman". I certainly will NOT take these evil exposures of my good personality as any "entertainment". More seriously, now you even publicly accused me of faking identity and making anonymous scientific criticisms. Your remarks greatly damaged my personal integrity and scientific reputation. So you should be prepared to take the severe consequence. Since there is no NORMAL way to contact you I have to trust Nature will convey this message to you: if you are any noble and knowledgeable human being, please come to court with me. Then looking behind to see who will have a larger crowd of real support. Are you brave enough to do this?/// Nature: please do not hide or remove this message. Doing so will consitute a interference of a NORMAL procedure of seeking JUSTICE which I think will not be handled in Nature since it is just a scientific journal.
"Logical Professor" made a logical mistake or intentional irony: how could "E E" be "Reprogrammer Yamanaka"?/// Thus, to avoid further confusion and to prevent even me from being given the undeserved credit of sending massive emails to various journal editors, newspaper reporters and scientists, I strongly urge Nature to publish the message you received from the "Reprogrammer Yamanaka". Publishing this document does not violate any law since it is already in the public domain and no copyright was claimed./// Besides I am curious what new mistakes that this "Reprogrammer Yamanaka" have found and whether s/he actually just re-iterated many points that I have published. If so, it is truly an irony that it took some UNUSUAL way to get truth being noticed./// The publication will also satisfy the public curiosity of what personal attacks were made by "Reprogrammer Yamanaka" and against whom./// --- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com
This comment has been removed by the moderator
This comment has been removed by the moderator
This comment has been removed by the moderator
This comment has been removed by the moderator
This comment has been removed by the moderator
This comment has been removed by the moderator
This comment has been removed by the moderator
This comment has been removed by the moderator
This comment has been removed by the moderator
This comment has been removed by the moderator
This comment has been removed by the moderator
This comment has been removed by the moderator
This comment has been removed by the moderator
This thread has been reduced to name-calling and is no longer very illuminating with regards to the central topic: stem cells. Those users who have already had their say on this piece will not be allowed to post further comments.
What is the best experiment we can do to decide whether iPS cells are truly "induced" pluripotent stem cells or mere "isolated" preexisting stem cells as the heated logistician suspects? Tet-on and off for each inducer to examine if the pluripotency is reversible? Or try siRNA specific to the introduced genes but not to endogenous ones to see if the pluoripotency can be reversed? Then the counterargument for negative results for those experiments would be that once cells become pluripotent, they are epigenetically irreversible. Let me know what you suggest as a good experiment to do.
This comment has been removed by the moderator
Dear Editorial, I put my comment there, but could you please make it anonymous or Ted.
This comment has been removed by the moderator
Name-calling, who was doing that????? After I posted some comments on this News a person or group called "E E" posted some comments which directly described me as "just plain neurotic" and "look like a madman". These derogatory remarks have arisen some public angers even though I have kept myself from engaging in such low-level personal attacks./// However, the moderator of Nature not only removed many of my scientific comments but also posted the following notice:/// "This thread has been reduced to name-calling and is no longer very illuminating with regards to the central topic: stem cells. Those users who have already had their say on this piece will not be allowed to post further comments."/// This manipulation effectively portrayed me as an evil person who had engaged in name-calling and disruption of normal science. As a matter of fact, since this negative image on me has been established here my life has been changed greatly. Many people have viewed me as "mad" and "abnormal". I not only lost my credibility in science but also was repeatedly asked what name-calling that I had done and thus being removed by Nature./// Today I even received a formal email from Nature which directly condemned me for doing this (personal offensive comments). Thus, I felt it is necessary to formally denounce this evil derogation on my reputation./// I have replied Nature editors with my protest. Now I wish to post this note here to express my protest in public against Nature's handling of my comments here and its allowance for "E E" to make personal attack on me. Since Nature has viewed the remarks of "E E" as normal and acceptable, I will challenge Nature to show the public which of my comments removed by Nature is a name-calling/personal attack. If Nature does not have a courage to do this, than it should be modest to make a public apology to me for misleading public into believing me as an evil person.///.(SVL@logibio.com; http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1)
This comment has been removed by the moderator
Lesson still not leant!!! In today's Science (August 1, 2008; Vol. 321, page 641) Yamanaka et al. publicly thank me for "clarifications" on "some errors". This "acknowledgment" was an arrangement made by Science when it rejected my detailed Technical Comment on a report by Yamanaka et al. which was first published in ScienceExpress on Feb. 14, 2008. While I agreed with being named in the acknowledgement but I also reserved my right to further comment once I read the "corrected" print version./// Now I have read the "corrected" version (Vol. 321, page 699-702). These corrections are far from my desire of reaching a truth on what the iPS cells are. The correction on the procedure for crossing over transgenic mice is fine but that easy-to-find mistake should never happen if one of the eight authors, two or three reviewers, one or more editors did their job. But the "greater explanation" provided for "ND" on results of chimerism is simply unacceptable./// In this "greater explanation", Yamanaka et al. stated that "The degree of chimerism was not determined in several mice (indicated as ND in table S2) because they died before evaluation or because iPS cells and host blastocysts resulted in the same coat color". But does this "greater explanation" answer my criticism that how could a chimera be assigned if no examination of the degree of chimerism was made? Thus, even though the editors of Science had intentionally deflected my other major criticisms on Yamanaka et al' Science paper and arranged me to be acknowledged for the "clarifications" of some minor errors. The corrections made by Yamanaka are still unsatisfactory./// With the revelation of more mistakes in their original report and even the need to do some NEW experiments (not just a simple repeat of the original experiments because different uncontaminated DNA had to be used for reaching some correct results) to "correct" the mistakes in many original figures, I felt that Science should retract this publication. This retraction is necessary also because one of the major conclusions made in this paper "retroviral integration into specific site is not required" still need "a more extensive analysis" to confirm (and will be confirmed as false as I already pointed out in my Technical Comment) and the "safe" nature of the iPS cells (which has been my persistent criticism for months) are now clearly challenged by the admission of obvious tumors developed after the publication as shown in the "Note added in proof". All of these major flaws of the original Yamanaka Science paper were clearly pointed out in my Technical Comment to Science. Thus, it was indeed a great mistake made by Science in rejecting my valid Technical Comment. In doing that, Science not only delayed the revelation of truth but also mislead others into a wrong research path. For that reason, Science owes me and public a deep apology. Fortunately, the era of a few "top" journals controlling the trends of scientific research is over. There are now some other better scientific journals (see http://im1.biz for examples) which not only publishing ground-breaking and pioneering scientific research but also objective assessments on major scientific "discoveries". My Technical Comment rejected by Science was published in May 30, 2008 by Logical Biology (8: 57-61, 2008: http://im1.biz/displayimage.php?album=76&pos=4 ). I wish everyone interested in understanding what iPS cells really are should read this publication, which is entitled "The final blow-up of the induction and reprogramming claim for iPS cells."/// Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com; http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1)
How many people are still sitting on the iPS bandwagon? I saw some already abandoned the "lead-tuned-gold" of pluripotent and thus more oncogenic iPS cells and began to grab on the "copper-turned-gold" of specialized b-cells directly converted from non-stem cells. Does this mean an effective ending of the new iPS era of stem cell research? Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com; http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1)
Shi Liu, please stop polluting this forum with your claims of 'published' work. There is a reason for peer reviewed journals to be PEER REVIEWED, namely so that people cannot simply publish anything they want to regardless of it's accuracy or the reliability of the information. It seems that you spend your entire days online pouring over forums to plug your own website which has collections of nothing but your own work. You call these 'published papers' and even cite them in your comments and other papers (You cite no-one but yourself ?). Your journals are a farce and a collection of a disgruntled man's scattered thoughts. Your self- published "journals" are a hilarity and if you cannot put together a publish-able paper then you should stop entertaining yourself and your little fan club with this mockery of the scientific process. You bring up interesting questions in some cases, and indeed some of them must be looked into as part of due scientific process but you have turned yourself into a nuisance and your credibility is non-existent. Do yourself and all of us a favor and keep yourself enclosed on your dreamy website. We certainly know where to find your outlandish claims when we need a good chuckle.
This comment has been removed by the moderator
This comment has been removed by the moderator
This comment has been removed by the moderator
This comment has been removed by the moderator
This comment has been removed by the moderator