前些天，我在 GOOGLE GROUPS上看到几个质疑韩春雨的生物学人士看了我在《自然》网站的专业评论后怀疑我岳某就是韩春雨。这些质疑者的思维判断能力令人惊奇。如果我不说几句，质疑者们估计还会热烈庆祝自己的天才发现 -- 又发现了韩春雨的马甲。
这些以为我就是韩春雨的还在抱怨韩的实验程序太麻烦。我于是发了个贴：【When you can't do something someone else claimed to have done, there is one distinct possibility that you ought to consider: yourself is the problem. If you don't consider this possibility, then you are beyond help. Han established a set of procedures in his paper, however complicated, he said it so. If you find a working shortcut, you refuted Han and made a breakthrough. But if you didn't follow Han and failed, you only verified his finding. Is this logic so hard for you to grasp?】
结果这帮韩质疑者更为恼羞成怒、开始骂街。我于是写道：【I am trying to help, so you may think about the alternative explanations of your failure. Blaming everyone else is not the way to do science. Anyone here who failed to replicate Han should share his information like Dr. Burgio, so the problems can be identified. In Burgio's case, his failure is expected, and was a partial validation of Han. If you don't want to share your details for whatever reason, keep working or give it up. Science is hard. Not everyone is cut for science. 】
这几个韩质疑者继续谩骂，我又写道：【when you suspected that I was Han, I thought I should say something to help you get out of your delusion. Yet you kept calling me a "troll". Why? And why did you make the wrong speculation that I was Han? Shouldn't that indicate to you that your logical circuits might not be functioning properly? You believe that multiple transfections should be unnecessary in your case. But Han suggested otherwise in his paper. Isn't your failure appear to be consistent with Han's paper?】
我拨冗教他们逻辑思维，这帮人却继续谩骂。但我很耐心：【 I have no interest in engaging with you or anyone here in personal attacks. But judging from your behavior and lack of logic, I seriously doubt your mental capacity in conducting original scientific research. It is just frustrating for the public to sense so much resentment and unwarranted emotions from the bio-science circle. Note, I am not saying Han must be right. I am only saying that you people should do science in a professional manner, instead of quickly launching personal attacks against others simply because you failed to replicate his result by choosing NOT to follow his published procedures. When you fail, put your data online like Dr. Burgio and others may help you. In fact, one researcher (unrelated to Han) in China wanted to lend Burgio a helping hand. He claimed to have helped two labs in China in partially replicating Han's result. It would seem all that you needed was the modesty to admit that you don't know everything and the willingness to seek help. Success or failure, just wait and see. Science research is competitive. Those who fail will have consequences. Either way, it's not my business. This is my last post here. Good luck to you all.】
但是也显然，戴维是否相信、或者是否资格表示相信、有资格确认这三家的说法是另外一个问题。戴维只是相当于一个记者。对于韩春雨质疑者的说法，戴维的回应是他只是报道新闻、不管编辑的事情。戴维说: "我没有独立做实验，当然无法对结果给出一手的信息。" (【I have not read the original article in Chinese so I cannot comment on that quotation from Dr. Han. There might have been some kind of miscommunication. What I can say is that my news article should not be taken as evidence that Dr Han' experiments are reproducible. I did not carry out any independent replication experiments, and thus cannot add any first-hand knowledge regarding the findings. My article does reflect that there are differences of opinion about the reproducibility of Dr Han's experiments, and as far as I know, that controversy has not yet been resolved. My work as part of the Nature news team and the Nature Biotechnology editorial team are distinct, so I cannot comment on that journals investigation into the matter. By the way, have you tried to confirm with Dr Han that he actually said that?】)
The following is a summary of some very heated debate in China on the Han NgAgo paper.
1. Fang's rash accusation of fraud was a mere result of his misunderstandings of the Han paper and molecular biology in general. Even one of Fang's ardent supporters pointed out to him that he misinterpreted the electrophoresis bands presented in the paper. Fang further mistook distances between target sites for DNA segment size deltas.
2. Another named person, who was Fang's main source, has been discredited in a direct online debate, for failing to consider NgAgo's effect of removing 1 to 20 nts at the target site.
3. As stated in Han's paper, the guide can be loaded only when the NgAgo protein is in the process of expression. Dr. Burgio admitted that he did not follow a starred procedure in Han's published protocol.
Thus far, the accusations of fraud have been shown to be unfounded. A single successful replication is sufficient to qualitatively vindicate Han's result. Hopefully, the suspicion and ridicule will trigger more curiosity and research to bring about more definitive answers, instead of misguided abandonment of a potentially potent tool for gene editing.
The failure of the Burgio experiment is actually a partial validation of Han's paper. Han theorized that the guides can be loaded only when NgAgo is in expression, and he taught the procedure of multiple transfection of gDNA post NgAgo. Logically, according to Han, if one loads both the same time, he or she is very likely to fail. Dr. Burgio co-injected the NgAgo and gDNA once simultaneously into mouse zygotes, and was disappointed when a new breed failed to emerge. But this is exactly what one would expect from reading Han's paper.
So far, only two named people spoke up against Han in China, one is Shimin Fang, the other I mentioned but withheld the name. Both have been thoroughly discredited, as I explained in the previous comment. As discussed above, the only fully reported experiment, that of Dr. Burgio, served to prove one of Han's findings.
The orchestrated attacks on Han in Chinese cyberspace by a small anonymous gang is disruptive of scientific and societal norms. A rational person can easily identify the logical breakdown in their deductions. The incredible stories told by these anonymous IDs are quickly dismissed as pure fabrication and defamation in China. Yet as they spread the products of their illogical minds across the internet, the gullible may regard their crude fiction as insider information. Beware.
The following is my response to some in Google groups who suspected that I am Han. No. I am not Han.
When you can't do something someone else claimed to have done, there is one distinct possibility that you ought to consider: yourself is the problem.
If you don't consider this possibility, then you are beyond help.
Han established a set of procedures in his paper, however complicated, he said it so. If you found a working shortcut, you refuted Han and you made a breakthrough. But if you didn't follow Han and failed, you only verified his finding.
