Discredited geneediting researcher vows to clear his name

first_img Han’s team continues to stand by their findings, stating that “when key requirements are met, the NgAgo-gDNA system can effectively edits genes.” They did not reveal what the “key requirements” are. And they are pressing for another attempt to independently verify that the NgAgo system works. “Our next step, in response to social concerns, is to do the relevant work in accordance with the school arrangements, to select a third party laboratory, accompanied by peer experts to carry out experiments to verify the efficiency of NgAgo-gDNA gene-editing technology and publish the results,” they stated. Han could not be reached for comment.“They feel like the NgAgo technology is still possible. But I think the possibility is minimal,” says Bo Tang, a molecular biologist at China Agricultural University in Beijing who uses CRISPR/Cas9 technology in his research. “Now [Han] is on thin ice,” he says. A Chinese biologist whose team on Wednesday retracted a high-profile paper on a gene-editing technology has vowed to press ahead with experiments that he hopes will vindicate the potential rival to the CRISPR/Cas9 system.In May 2016, Chunyu Han of Hebei University of Science and Technology in Shijiazhuang, China, and colleagues published a paper in Nature Biotechnology describing a gene-editing system using an enzyme, Argonaute nuclease, from the organism Natronobacterium gregoryi (NgAgo). The technology was hailed on social media as Nobel Prize–worthy work and Han, the paper’s lead author, rose to fame in China. He was elected vice president of Hebei Association for Science and Technology and conferred the title of “most beautiful teacher in Hebei.” That August, Hebei government officials approved a plan to establish a $32 million gene-editing research center at the university. The fate of the center is unclear; Chinese journalists who visited Hebei University of Science and Technology reportedly could not locate the center, and staff said they were unaware of it.Han’s star began to fall late last year, when independent labs in China, South Korea, Germany, and the United States began reporting their failures to replicate the paper’s key result. In a 3 August statement, Han’s team acknowledged that “so far there is no second paper showing NgAgo-gDNA can be used for gene-editing.” Last January, a patent on the NgAgo technology that Han and a colleague applied for in 2015 was effectively withdrawn after the duo failed to respond inquiries from China’s State Intellectual Property Office, the office’s online database shows. Discredited gene-editing researcher vows to clear his name Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwecenter_img Hebei University of Science and Technology is grappling with the fallout from the retraction of a prominent paper on gene editing. Public Domain Email By Yongming HuangAug. 4, 2017 , 1:45 PMlast_img

Leave a Comment