博文
SCIENCE的10天民主
|||
ScIence和Nature在国人心目中是具有同等的至高无上地位的圣刊，历年年底他们都要评出当年科学上的突破性进展，也就必然引起国人的瞩目，甚至会影响国家有关科学研究基金的导向。今年Science打破历年的惯例，不再闭门造车，而是要广开言路，听取科学家的意见，也算给我们这个被认为缺少民主的国家做做示范。2008年Science曾把诱导性多能干细胞（IPS）的研究推为当年的突破性进展，老朽曾因根据本人在植物中的研究，在本博客发过几篇对此类研究的评论性博文。所以对此问题一直很关心。另外虽对刘实这个科学狂人批评过，但对他的洞察力还是很欣赏很佩服的。而且我在植物中的科研结论与他的一些科研成果又有许多正好互相印证的不谋而合，所以也一直很关注他对IPS的批评。恰好，看到Cell Stem Cell发的证明诱导性多能干细胞在培养条件下发生染色体异常变化的论文及Cell发的相关新闻评论。这就使我想到这进一步证明了刘的有关文章。12月9日看到Science就评选2010年科学突破性进展征求意见后，就写了篇《Reprogramming out of the iPS detour》，希望不要再将此类研究作为突破性进展。谁知此后不断有人写意见推荐刘实的有关发现。12月13日一个署名Adam的以给Science编辑信的形式发表意见，说刘实的研究只是科学的侧流，不应该让侧流干扰主流科学，应把提名刘实的评论统统删掉。我看到后很生气，当即也给编辑写了信（没认真考虑和修改，英文有些蹩脚），亮明我自己的身份，问Adam是谁？指出如果编辑部只想听自己喜欢的意见，不想听取不同的意见，就将我们的意见删除。此后还是不断有提名刘实的意见发表。12月14日编辑部以“Science Staff”的名义声明，欢迎每一个人参加讨论，希望保留每个人的意见。但此后就再也看不到新的意见发表。于是我就又写了篇题目为“The Breakthrough of the Year in Science: Does iPS stand for incorrect programming syndrome?”的评论意见想在今天放上去，但当发布时却显示出，每个评论不能超过300字，于是我就改成了3篇重发。这次虽发出了，但文后却出现了一行字“Message awaits moderator approval”，也就是说要经过管理人员审查后才能发布，这在以前是没有的。但等今天下午我再进去看时，不仅发评论的窗口不见了，连所有意见也不见了。看来是停止听取意见了，为什么不预告呢，这是人家的自由，人家的权利。
看来所有的民主和自由都不是不受限制的，连讨论科学上的突破性进展都如此，还用说其他的吗？美国的民主自由，英国的民主自由都有自己的标准，为什么别的国家非要按他们的标准呢？
附件是Science征求2010年科学突破性进展意见的专栏和我所记录下的所有评论的复印件，最后是我的三个没正式发布的评论。因我记录的最早的评论是2010年12月6日，故将题目定为10天民主。
Reader Opinions
Name the 2010 Breakthrough
by Science Staff | 60 comments
(http://talk.sciencemag.org/nodes/btoy2010.html?s=ghp)
Every December, our editors and News staff face the challenge of reviewing what science has accomplished around the world in the past 12 months, so as to select our "breakthroughs of the year." The task is an invigorating one, providing a powerful reminder of both the enormous scope and the continual advance of science. Ardipithecus ramidus, reprogramming cells, and human genetic variation topped our lists in recent years. Now it's your turn: What would you dub the major scientific breakthrough of 2010? We're eager to hear your thoughts and will be sharing our picks with you soon!
Comments (Commenting Terms and Conditions)
These postings do not necessarily represent the views/opinions of Science.
2010/12/15 15：00成为空白
Keming Cui
I say iPS is incorrect programming syndrome because it is indeed a syndrome of irresponsible research. As a botanist studying developmental biology for a life time and thus know some botanical cloning and reprogramming (if I can use these modern terms to characterizing our traditional studies) I found it is truly amazing that someone would rather call an neoplastic transformation as a regenerative reprogramming and regard cancerous cells as therapeutic cells.
Fortunately, science is about searching for truth and truth will prevail eventually. Many studies revealing the true nature of iPS cells and iPS reprogramming have been published this year. Collectively these studies supported Dr. Liu’s discoveries on iPS cells and iPS reprogramming, even though they generally do not cite Dr. Liu’s PUBLICATIONS. Why? How could they do so? How could the journals allow them to do so?
Finding out answers to the above questions may lead to a more profound breakthrough in science, a breakthrough lead to the establishment of responsible research. However, this breakthrough may not come this year but no one can stop its coming in the future. Period!
I say iPS is incorrect programming syndrome because it is indeed a syndrome of irresponsible research. As a botanist studying developmental biology for a life time and thus know some botanical cloning and reprogramming (if I can use these modern terms to characterizing our traditional studies) I found it is truly amazing that someone would rather call an neoplastic transformation as a regenerative reprogramming and regard cancerous cells as therapeutic cells.
Fortunately, science is about searching for truth and truth will prevail eventually. Many studies revealing the true nature of iPS cells and iPS reprogramming have been published this year. Collectively these studies supported Dr. Liu’s discoveries on iPS cells and iPS reprogramming, even though they generally do not cite Dr. Liu’s PUBLICATIONS. Why? How could they do so? How could the journals allow them to do so?
Finding out answers to the above questions may lead to a more profound breakthrough in science, a breakthrough lead to the establishment of responsible research. However, this breakthrough may not come this year but no one can stop its coming in the future. Period!
Message awaits moderator approval
2010/12/15, 9:02:45
Keming Cui
We owe Shi V. Liu a big deal in breaking through iPS hype
I have suggested that diagnosing iPS as incorrect programming syndrome is a breakthrough in science. Now I wish to say that it is not easy to reach this diagnosis which may still be refused by some iPS “patients”.
However, history will show that diagnosis is absolutely correct and we owe Shi V. Liu a big deal in breaking through the iPS hype.
Comparing what Dr. Liu has stated in his pioneering PUBLICATIONS and what others have “discovered” later, I found that Dr. Liu’s DISCOVERIES are not only very correct but also more insightful than all other studies reported in top journals!
If Science Staff do not believe my assessment please spent a few days to read Dr. Liu’s PUBLICATIONS. I knew his PUBLICATIONS can be obtained free of charge and many people have already known his views on iPS in specific and cell life in general. Thus, if Science Staff still neglect Dr. Liu’s discoveries and even go ahead further promote flawed iPS research, a future breakthrough in science may come against Science when responsible research is demanded at all the levels, which I will continue in my part three of this long essay.
We owe Shi V. Liu a big deal in breaking through iPS hype
I have suggested that diagnosing iPS as incorrect programming syndrome is a breakthrough in science. Now I wish to say that it is not easy to reach this diagnosis which may still be refused by some iPS “patients”.
However, history will show that diagnosis is absolutely correct and we owe Shi V. Liu a big deal in breaking through the iPS hype.
Comparing what Dr. Liu has stated in his pioneering PUBLICATIONS and what others have “discovered” later, I found that Dr. Liu’s DISCOVERIES are not only very correct but also more insightful than all other studies reported in top journals!
If Science Staff do not believe my assessment please spent a few days to read Dr. Liu’s PUBLICATIONS. I knew his PUBLICATIONS can be obtained free of charge and many people have already known his views on iPS in specific and cell life in general. Thus, if Science Staff still neglect Dr. Liu’s discoveries and even go ahead further promote flawed iPS research, a future breakthrough in science may come against Science when responsible research is demanded at all the levels, which I will continue in my part three of this long essay.
Message awaits moderator approval
2010/12/15,9:02:07
Keming Cui
The Breakthrough of the Year in Science: Does iPS stand for incorrect programming syndrome?
Dear Science Staff,
I agree with you 100% on your short but very clear request that contributors should “keep their comments relevant to the topic of this year's breakthrough”.
What is this year’s breakthrough? What can be this year’s breakthrough as compared with or connected with previous breakthroughs?
Let us recall what breakthroughs were made in Science recently. On the left side of this comment collecting window I saw “2008 Breakthrough of the Year: Reprogramming Cells”. Apparently it refers mainly to the so-called discovery of iPS cells or iPS reprogramming.
What are iPS cells and iPS reprogramming?
Shi V. Liu concluded (as evidenced in many PUBLICATIONS collected at http://im1.biz/iPS.htm ) that iPS cells are NOT induced pluripotent stem cells but incorrectly programmed stem cells or man-made cancer stem cells. Thus, iPS reprogramming is essentially an incorrect programming syndrome.
If that diagnosis is correct (which will be further argued in my next comment because of the space limitation here), then the CONFIRMATION of Liu’s discovery by others in this year is really a very relevant breakthrough in science for Science.
The Breakthrough of the Year in Science: Does iPS stand for incorrect programming syndrome?
Dear Science Staff,
I agree with you 100% on your short but very clear request that contributors should “keep their comments relevant to the topic of this year's breakthrough”.
What is this year’s breakthrough? What can be this year’s breakthrough as compared with or connected with previous breakthroughs?
Let us recall what breakthroughs were made in Science recently. On the left side of this comment collecting window I saw “2008 Breakthrough of the Year: Reprogramming Cells”. Apparently it refers mainly to the so-called discovery of iPS cells or iPS reprogramming.
What are iPS cells and iPS reprogramming?
Shi V. Liu concluded (as evidenced in many PUBLICATIONS collected at http://im1.biz/iPS.htm ) that iPS cells are NOT induced pluripotent stem cells but incorrectly programmed stem cells or man-made cancer stem cells. Thus, iPS reprogramming is essentially an incorrect programming syndrome.
If that diagnosis is correct (which will be further argued in my next comment because of the space limitation here), then the CONFIRMATION of Liu’s discovery by others in this year is really a very relevant breakthrough in science for Science.
Message awaits moderator approval
2010/12/15, 9:01:31
– 標記
Science Staff
We thank everyone for their contributions to this discussion, but urge people to please keep their comments relevant to the topic of this year's breakthrough. Thank you.
We thank everyone for their contributions to this discussion, but urge people to please keep their comments relevant to the topic of this year's breakthrough. Thank you.
2010/12/14, 8:04:38
Shapiro
Another Set of Breakthrough Discoveries Arranged by Time
Another Set of Breakthrough Discoveries Arranged by Time
For long time DNA/chromosome segregation has been regarded as a random process. However in early 1990s Dr. Liu has proposed that DNA/chromosome segregation should follow a regular pattern in that the older DNA template strand/chromosome is retained by the true mother cell while the younger DNA template strand/chromosome is distributed into the true daughter cells. He defines the true mother cell as the cell which has reproduced a daughter cell and often remains live to reproduce more daughter cells, base on his continuous tracking of individual bacteria and his pioneering discovery on bacterial cell life.
However, Dr. Liu’s discovery was rejected for publication in many western journals he tried. Nevertheless his succeeded in publishing his discovery on bacterial life and also the above DNA/chromosome segregation hypothesis in 1999 Science in China. He further interpreted his findings in a series articles published in Logical Biology and, more importantly, in a patent application filed at 2000 and granted in 2004 by US Patent and Trademark Office.
In 2005 Dr. Liu submitted to Nature a Hypothesis type article titled as “Linking DNA aging with cell aging and combining genetics with epigenetics”. Using in silico labeling, Dr. Liu depicted in very details the pattern of DNA/chromosome segregation during cell reproduction and also insightfully delineated the respective contribution of genetic and epigenetic factors to the inheritance and adaptation. Liu published this paper in Logical Biology (5:51-55, 2005) after rejection by Nature. Later Dr. Liu also published a paper entitled “A theoretical framework for understanding biotic aging from molecule to organism in multicellular life” (Logical Biology 5:109-116, 2005) which will prove to be one of his most significant publications and a historically landmark paper in biology.
Tracking down later publications in mainstream journals I found that Dr. Liu’s discoveries very solid. These can be proved by comparing some high-profile publications appeared in some top journals including Nature, for examples:
Armakolas, A., and A. J. Klar. 2006. Cell type regulates selective segregation of mouse chromosome 7 DNA strands in mitosis. Science 311:1146-9.
Conboy, M. J., A. O. Karasov, and T. A. Rando. 2007. High incidence of non-random template strand segregation and asymmetric fate determination in dividing stem cells and their progeny. PLoS Biol 5:1120-1126
Falconer, E. et al. 2010. Identification of sister chromatids by DNA template strand sequences. Nature 463: 93-97.
However, my view may be biased. Thus, I encourage people to read these publications and compare them with Liu’s earlier publications and then voice some opinions here.
2010/12/14, 5:42:14
–
dxyue
After reading the references posted in the previous comments, I believe that Dr. Shi Liu should be given priority and be recognized for his pioneering work, which was published as early as 1999 then confirmed by Ackermann et al.
After reading the references posted in the previous comments, I believe that Dr. Shi Liu should be given priority and be recognized for his pioneering work, which was published as early as 1999 then confirmed by Ackermann et al.
2010/12/14, 3:39:09
–
HuaKe
I am a scientific friend of Dr. Liu since 1983 when we were graduate classmates and know many detailed sides of his discoveries and, more importantly, his frustrations in communicating his discoveries to the mainstream. After decade of rejections by western journals of his fundamental discovery in life science - the breaking of the cell division dogma - he followed my advice by seeking review from a different peer group - the Chinese scientists in the mainland of China. His paper, based on ones rejected by Science, Nature, and PNAS, was reviewed in China for over one and half year and then accepted. After the acceptance of his English version, the editor invited him to translate the accepted English version into Chinese. Thus, his landmark paper on bacterial life was published in both English and Chinese in 1999 in Science in China - Life Science. That discovery, in my view, deserves a Nobel Prize.
To further communicate his discovery to wide readership and to promote freedom and constructive debate in scientific communication Dr. Liu launched the world-first (I believe) open-access scientific journal that is also open for unrestricted post-publication peer and public review and comment. He named the journal as Logical Biology because he realized that many biologists have been occupied with tiny details of data but lost big picture of logic and thus often see trees but lose sight of the forest. He published a Correspondence in Nature (I forget the citation for it) to make this revolution in scientific publishing known by outside world. Later I actually saw some other scientists published their often ground-breaking discoveries in Logical Biology.
I think Science has done a great thing by asking opinions on nomination of the Breakthrough of the Year. I just wish that the actual selection process will indeed consider the opinions expressed by the various readers.
Let us hope a real breakthrough will indeed happen in Science!
I am a scientific friend of Dr. Liu since 1983 when we were graduate classmates and know many detailed sides of his discoveries and, more importantly, his frustrations in communicating his discoveries to the mainstream. After decade of rejections by western journals of his fundamental discovery in life science - the breaking of the cell division dogma - he followed my advice by seeking review from a different peer group - the Chinese scientists in the mainland of China. His paper, based on ones rejected by Science, Nature, and PNAS, was reviewed in China for over one and half year and then accepted. After the acceptance of his English version, the editor invited him to translate the accepted English version into Chinese. Thus, his landmark paper on bacterial life was published in both English and Chinese in 1999 in Science in China - Life Science. That discovery, in my view, deserves a Nobel Prize.
To further communicate his discovery to wide readership and to promote freedom and constructive debate in scientific communication Dr. Liu launched the world-first (I believe) open-access scientific journal that is also open for unrestricted post-publication peer and public review and comment. He named the journal as Logical Biology because he realized that many biologists have been occupied with tiny details of data but lost big picture of logic and thus often see trees but lose sight of the forest. He published a Correspondence in Nature (I forget the citation for it) to make this revolution in scientific publishing known by outside world. Later I actually saw some other scientists published their often ground-breaking discoveries in Logical Biology.
I think Science has done a great thing by asking opinions on nomination of the Breakthrough of the Year. I just wish that the actual selection process will indeed consider the opinions expressed by the various readers.
Let us hope a real breakthrough will indeed happen in Science!
2010/12/14, 1:13:01
–
Ray ZHANG
I belive that "tumors grow their own blood vessels" is false !....the vessels may be derived from the residual normal stem cell in the tumors?
I belive that "tumors grow their own blood vessels" is false !....the vessels may be derived from the residual normal stem cell in the tumors?
2010/12/13, 23:16:28
–
UFO
Revolution in scientific publishing yields fruitful results
Recently I read some articles on open review in some traditional journals. However, as far as I know, a double open (open-access and open-review) scientific publishing model has been implemented by Logical Biology a decade ago (http://logibio.com ). Actually, there was a Correspondence by Shi V. Liu in Nature (403: 592, 2000) which specifically call for dramatic change in scientific publishing.
Ten years have passed. I found Logical Biology and other Truthfinding Cyberpress (TFCP) journals (http://im1.biz ) actually published many ground-breaking discoveries that were only being confirmed in some incomplete fashions by publications in some traditional top journals. TFCP journals also published a lot of insightful articles criticizing the scientific mistakes and ethical problems in publications appeared in other journals, often after the rejections of these criticisms by the other journals.
If one pays respect to true discoveries and genuine knowledge one may find that the best science may be found in some sidestream of scientific publishing.
Seeing is believing. Go to some revolutionized publication platforms for scientific communications and to see the true front-line of scientific research.
Revolution in scientific publishing yields fruitful results
Recently I read some articles on open review in some traditional journals. However, as far as I know, a double open (open-access and open-review) scientific publishing model has been implemented by Logical Biology a decade ago (http://logibio.com ). Actually, there was a Correspondence by Shi V. Liu in Nature (403: 592, 2000) which specifically call for dramatic change in scientific publishing.
Ten years have passed. I found Logical Biology and other Truthfinding Cyberpress (TFCP) journals (http://im1.biz ) actually published many ground-breaking discoveries that were only being confirmed in some incomplete fashions by publications in some traditional top journals. TFCP journals also published a lot of insightful articles criticizing the scientific mistakes and ethical problems in publications appeared in other journals, often after the rejections of these criticisms by the other journals.
If one pays respect to true discoveries and genuine knowledge one may find that the best science may be found in some sidestream of scientific publishing.
Seeing is believing. Go to some revolutionized publication platforms for scientific communications and to see the true front-line of scientific research.
2010/12/13, 12:21:52
–
新潮
Revolution in scientific publishing yields fruitful results
Recently I read some articles on open review in some traditional journals. However, as far as I know, a double open (open-access and open-review) scientific publishing model has been implemented by Logical Biology a decade ago (http://logibio.com ). Actually, there was a Correspondence by Shi V. Liu in Nature (403: 592, 2000) which specifically call for dramatic change in scientific publishing.
Ten years have passed. I found Logical Biology and other Truthfinding Cyberpress (TFCP) journals (http://im1.biz ) actually published many ground-breaking discoveries that were only being confirmed in some incomplete fashions by publications in some traditional top journals. TFCP journals also published a lot of insightful articles criticizing the scientific mistakes and ethical problems in publications appeared in other journals, often after the rejections of these criticisms by the other journals.
If one pays respect to true discoveries and genuine knowledge one may find that the best science may be found in some sidestream of scientific publishing.
Seeing is believing. Go to some revolutionized publication platforms for scientific communications and to see the true front-line of scientific research.
Revolution in scientific publishing yields fruitful results
Recently I read some articles on open review in some traditional journals. However, as far as I know, a double open (open-access and open-review) scientific publishing model has been implemented by Logical Biology a decade ago (http://logibio.com ). Actually, there was a Correspondence by Shi V. Liu in Nature (403: 592, 2000) which specifically call for dramatic change in scientific publishing.
Ten years have passed. I found Logical Biology and other Truthfinding Cyberpress (TFCP) journals (http://im1.biz ) actually published many ground-breaking discoveries that were only being confirmed in some incomplete fashions by publications in some traditional top journals. TFCP journals also published a lot of insightful articles criticizing the scientific mistakes and ethical problems in publications appeared in other journals, often after the rejections of these criticisms by the other journals.
If one pays respect to true discoveries and genuine knowledge one may find that the best science may be found in some sidestream of scientific publishing.
Seeing is believing. Go to some revolutionized publication platforms for scientific communications and to see the true front-line of scientific research.
2010/12/13 12:17:04
–
訪客
Revolution in scientific publishing yields fruitful results
Recently I read some articles on open review in some traditional journals. However, as far as I know, a double open (open-access and open-review) scientific publishing model has been implemented by Logical Biology a decade ago (http://logibio.com ). Actually, there was a Correspondence by Shi V. Liu in Nature (403: 592, 2000) which specifically call for dramatic change in scientific publishing.
Ten years have passed. I found Logical Biology and other Truthfinding Cyberpress (TFCP) journals (http://im1.biz ) actually published many ground-breaking discoveries that were only being confirmed in some incomplete fashions by publications in some traditional top journals. TFCP journals also published a lot of insightful articles criticizing the scientific mistakes and ethical problems in publications appeared in other journals, often after the rejections of these criticisms by the other journals.
If one pays respect to true discoveries and genuine knowledge one may find that the best science may be found in some sidestream of scientific publishing.
Seeing is believing. Go to some revolutionized publication platforms for scientific communications and to see the true front-line of scientific research.
Revolution in scientific publishing yields fruitful results
Recently I read some articles on open review in some traditional journals. However, as far as I know, a double open (open-access and open-review) scientific publishing model has been implemented by Logical Biology a decade ago (http://logibio.com ). Actually, there was a Correspondence by Shi V. Liu in Nature (403: 592, 2000) which specifically call for dramatic change in scientific publishing.
Ten years have passed. I found Logical Biology and other Truthfinding Cyberpress (TFCP) journals (http://im1.biz ) actually published many ground-breaking discoveries that were only being confirmed in some incomplete fashions by publications in some traditional top journals. TFCP journals also published a lot of insightful articles criticizing the scientific mistakes and ethical problems in publications appeared in other journals, often after the rejections of these criticisms by the other journals.
If one pays respect to true discoveries and genuine knowledge one may find that the best science may be found in some sidestream of scientific publishing.
Seeing is believing. Go to some revolutionized publication platforms for scientific communications and to see the true front-line of scientific research.
2010/12/13, 12:16:14
–
Dr. Honest
Some people have expressed their support for nominating Dr. Shi Liu’s fundamental discovery in cell biology as the Breakthrough of the Year. I think, at the science level, all of the mentioned biology discoveries made by Liu are outstanding and have far-reaching implications. However, as a clinician, I felt most excited by Dr. Liu’s discovery on cancer, especially his unique view on the multigenesis of multisite cancer. This is because it has profound implications with the treatment options for the patient and may change the outcome of the therapy.
The conventional view of regarding most if not all the multisite cancer as a result of metastasis has mandated aggressive whole body chemotherapy or radiation therapy once a primary (may not be true primary) cancer is found. However, our direct observations and some studies have shown that the outcome of patients accepting such treatment may not be better than those who did not go through this harsh treatment. If the (primary) cancer first detected is not the source of future spreading but an early and easy detection of some multigenerated cancer which may be rooted to some mutations in stem/progenitors cells already scattered in the different body parts over the development, then we really need to think what would be the best way to treat cancer patients.
One thing that we have learned now is that cancer stem cells often resist conventional chemotherapy and can even come back more aggressively once the normal cells/immune system is jeopardized by the non-discriminating killing of all reproducing cells by the concessional chemotherapy.
I would like to nominate an old discovery of Dr. Liu published in 2008 in Biology Direct as the Breakthrough of this Year because, if one read some recent publications in top journals carefully, one should realize Liu’s theory or hypothesis makes more sense and shed more light on some enigmas in cancer research.
For reference of Dr. Liu’s original discovery on this, please read:
Occurrence of cancer at multiple sites: Towards distinguishing multigenesis from metastasis (Biology Direct 3: 14, 2008; http://www.biology-direct.com/content/3/1/14 )
Some people have expressed their support for nominating Dr. Shi Liu’s fundamental discovery in cell biology as the Breakthrough of the Year. I think, at the science level, all of the mentioned biology discoveries made by Liu are outstanding and have far-reaching implications. However, as a clinician, I felt most excited by Dr. Liu’s discovery on cancer, especially his unique view on the multigenesis of multisite cancer. This is because it has profound implications with the treatment options for the patient and may change the outcome of the therapy.
The conventional view of regarding most if not all the multisite cancer as a result of metastasis has mandated aggressive whole body chemotherapy or radiation therapy once a primary (may not be true primary) cancer is found. However, our direct observations and some studies have shown that the outcome of patients accepting such treatment may not be better than those who did not go through this harsh treatment. If the (primary) cancer first detected is not the source of future spreading but an early and easy detection of some multigenerated cancer which may be rooted to some mutations in stem/progenitors cells already scattered in the different body parts over the development, then we really need to think what would be the best way to treat cancer patients.
One thing that we have learned now is that cancer stem cells often resist conventional chemotherapy and can even come back more aggressively once the normal cells/immune system is jeopardized by the non-discriminating killing of all reproducing cells by the concessional chemotherapy.
I would like to nominate an old discovery of Dr. Liu published in 2008 in Biology Direct as the Breakthrough of this Year because, if one read some recent publications in top journals carefully, one should realize Liu’s theory or hypothesis makes more sense and shed more light on some enigmas in cancer research.
For reference of Dr. Liu’s original discovery on this, please read:
Occurrence of cancer at multiple sites: Towards distinguishing multigenesis from metastasis (Biology Direct 3: 14, 2008; http://www.biology-direct.com/content/3/1/14 )
2010/12/13, 11:44:42
Keming Cui
Dear Science Editors,
I am retired professor from Peking University, China. Who is Adam?
Be divided into mainstream science and sidestream science what oneself is absurd. In those early years Mendel and Darwin once were the sidestream scientists in those early years science as well, but the history prove that they are great real scientists.
If you if want to listen to you love to listen to, presses Adam to say of do, chase our opinion deletions.
Dear Science Editors,
I am retired professor from Peking University, China. Who is Adam?
Be divided into mainstream science and sidestream science what oneself is absurd. In those early years Mendel and Darwin once were the sidestream scientists in those early years science as well, but the history prove that they are great real scientists.
If you if want to listen to you love to listen to, presses Adam to say of do, chase our opinion deletions.
2010/12/13, 9:08:43
– 標記 –
Adam
Breakthrough of the Year: Is mainstream science being overflowed by sidestream science?
Dear Science Editors,
It is amazing that several comments appeared in this serious website have might have played an amusing “Liu symphony”. Please check if all these different comments were sent by one man. If that was true, then there might be a “spammer” going around. If that is not true, then this may reflect a situation that the dam protecting mainstream science is being eroded by sidestream science.
What should Science do now? Block this erosion? Or Let the sidestream science overrun the mainstream science?
I think Science is at a very critical and also dangerous moment. If the science running in the sidestream contains more truth than that pushed in the mainstream, blocking the break-in of this sidestream in front of millions of web watchers would be a high-risk action. But let the sidestream flood the mainstream, then a breakthrough in science is really happening before our eyes.
Breakthrough of the Year: Is mainstream science being overflowed by sidestream science?
Dear Science Editors,
It is amazing that several comments appeared in this serious website have might have played an amusing “Liu symphony”. Please check if all these different comments were sent by one man. If that was true, then there might be a “spammer” going around. If that is not true, then this may reflect a situation that the dam protecting mainstream science is being eroded by sidestream science.
What should Science do now? Block this erosion? Or Let the sidestream science overrun the mainstream science?
I think Science is at a very critical and also dangerous moment. If the science running in the sidestream contains more truth than that pushed in the mainstream, blocking the break-in of this sidestream in front of millions of web watchers would be a high-risk action. But let the sidestream flood the mainstream, then a breakthrough in science is really happening before our eyes.
2010/12/13, 5:14:47
–
popo
Dear Science Editors,
I am an undergraduate student in China and got to know Dr. Shi Liu two years ago via his blog articles on iPS reprogramming at a very popular stem cell communication website in China (http://www.stemcell8.cn/forum.php ). I found his criticisms on some flawed research in iPS reprogramming interesting.
By digging into his publications, I found that his capability of seeing through the hype in iPS research is well based on his solid discoveries on cell life including stem cells (http://im1.biz/StemCell.htm ). Also, his idea on cell divisions is quite interesting and insightful. At least it really changed the way I think of cell life and also lead me to reach a balanced view on iPS cells.
We may not agree with all of his ideas, but we will defend to death his right to express his ideas. In the world of science, the solely rule is truth rather than fame and position. Nobody is always right, even Newton and Eistein had mistakes and bad ideas. iPS is a newly emerging field, at present, it is difficult to gauge how it will develop in the future. Thus, criticism from the minority like Dr. Liu shuld be respected.
Li
Dear Science Editors,
I am an undergraduate student in China and got to know Dr. Shi Liu two years ago via his blog articles on iPS reprogramming at a very popular stem cell communication website in China (http://www.stemcell8.cn/forum.php ). I found his criticisms on some flawed research in iPS reprogramming interesting.
By digging into his publications, I found that his capability of seeing through the hype in iPS research is well based on his solid discoveries on cell life including stem cells (http://im1.biz/StemCell.htm ). Also, his idea on cell divisions is quite interesting and insightful. At least it really changed the way I think of cell life and also lead me to reach a balanced view on iPS cells.
We may not agree with all of his ideas, but we will defend to death his right to express his ideas. In the world of science, the solely rule is truth rather than fame and position. Nobody is always right, even Newton and Eistein had mistakes and bad ideas. iPS is a newly emerging field, at present, it is difficult to gauge how it will develop in the future. Thus, criticism from the minority like Dr. Liu shuld be respected.
Li
2010-12-12, 19:19:11
–
Ray ZHANG
direct transdifferentiation in vivo, hoping the future stem cell therapy will not transplant the foreign stem cell...
direct transdifferentiation in vivo, hoping the future stem cell therapy will not transplant the foreign stem cell...
今天, 7:14:21
–
Best Biology
I am a layman to biology. However, by reading many articles in LIU shi (刘实)’s very popular blog in Chinese (http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1 ), I am convinced that his key discovery on cell life – cell cannnot be divided but is reproduced – is the most significant discovery in life science. However, that discovery may not be suitable for the honor of The Breakthrough of the Year becauase is is a breakthrough of centuries. Just think about how far we need to go back to correct the textbooks in biology!
I am a layman to biology. However, by reading many articles in LIU shi (刘实)’s very popular blog in Chinese (http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1 ), I am convinced that his key discovery on cell life – cell cannnot be divided but is reproduced – is the most significant discovery in life science. However, that discovery may not be suitable for the honor of The Breakthrough of the Year becauase is is a breakthrough of centuries. Just think about how far we need to go back to correct the textbooks in biology!
2010-12-11, 2:20:51
–
Science from China
Just found: Science in China leading Science on bacterial aging research
Dear Editors of Science:
Several comments (seem very solid) have introduced Dr. Liu’s discoveries on iPS cells and iPS reprogramming and wished to convince people to accept a claim that it is Dr. Lui’s original discoveries that have changed the course of iPS research. I am not sure other people in the field would be willing to accept this and thus ask Science to be careful in reaching a decision. At a minimum, Science editors should read Dr. Liu’s publications and compare them with other publications to see if the later discoveries were truly some repeated discoveries (with more data) of Dr. Liu’ original discoveries (based on his analysis of previous published but limited data). More importantly, I urge editors to use a correct definition on discovery and respect insightful discoveries made without great cost and even before the availability of the “rich” data. Please think of the discovery of double helix for DNA and the importance of theoretical discoveries in science.
However, on the studying of bacterial aging, I found that Dr. Liu is indeed a true pioneer. This is because I have just found that his much insightful discovery on this topis was published in 1999 in Science in China – a peer-reviewed top journal in China and his publication appeared in both the English and the Chinese editions of the journal. Thus, his discovery in this field is even years earlier than the so-called first discovery published in Science in 2003 and PloS Biology in 2005. I also leant that Dr. filed a patent in 2000 based on his discovery and that patent was granted in 2004 by the US PTO.
How could the whole western world miss such a very important discovery published in China?! I am wondering and outraged.
See references:
Liu, S. V. 1999. Tracking bacterial growth in liquid media and a new bacterial life model. Science in China (Series C: Life Science) (Chinese) 29:571-579.
Liu, S. V. 1999. Tracking bacterial growth in liquid media and a new bacterial life model. Science in China (Series C: Life Science) (English) 42:644-654.
Liu, S. V. 2004. Method and apparatus for producing age-synchronized cells. US patent US6767734B
Ackermann, M., S. C. Stearns, and U. Jenal. 2003. Senescence in a bacterium with asymmetric division. Science 300:1920
Stewart, E. J., R. Madden, G. Paul, and F. Taddei. 2005. Aging and death in an organism that reproduces by morphologically symmetric division. PLoS Biol 3:295-300
Just found: Science in China leading Science on bacterial aging research
Dear Editors of Science:
Several comments (seem very solid) have introduced Dr. Liu’s discoveries on iPS cells and iPS reprogramming and wished to convince people to accept a claim that it is Dr. Lui’s original discoveries that have changed the course of iPS research. I am not sure other people in the field would be willing to accept this and thus ask Science to be careful in reaching a decision. At a minimum, Science editors should read Dr. Liu’s publications and compare them with other publications to see if the later discoveries were truly some repeated discoveries (with more data) of Dr. Liu’ original discoveries (based on his analysis of previous published but limited data). More importantly, I urge editors to use a correct definition on discovery and respect insightful discoveries made without great cost and even before the availability of the “rich” data. Please think of the discovery of double helix for DNA and the importance of theoretical discoveries in science.
However, on the studying of bacterial aging, I found that Dr. Liu is indeed a true pioneer. This is because I have just found that his much insightful discovery on this topis was published in 1999 in Science in China – a peer-reviewed top journal in China and his publication appeared in both the English and the Chinese editions of the journal. Thus, his discovery in this field is even years earlier than the so-called first discovery published in Science in 2003 and PloS Biology in 2005. I also leant that Dr. filed a patent in 2000 based on his discovery and that patent was granted in 2004 by the US PTO.
How could the whole western world miss such a very important discovery published in China?! I am wondering and outraged.
See references:
Liu, S. V. 1999. Tracking bacterial growth in liquid media and a new bacterial life model. Science in China (Series C: Life Science) (Chinese) 29:571-579.
Liu, S. V. 1999. Tracking bacterial growth in liquid media and a new bacterial life model. Science in China (Series C: Life Science) (English) 42:644-654.
Liu, S. V. 2004. Method and apparatus for producing age-synchronized cells. US patent US6767734B
Ackermann, M., S. C. Stearns, and U. Jenal. 2003. Senescence in a bacterium with asymmetric division. Science 300:1920
Stewart, E. J., R. Madden, G. Paul, and F. Taddei. 2005. Aging and death in an organism that reproduces by morphologically symmetric division. PLoS Biol 3:295-300
訪客
The turning point of iPS research
From beginning, iPSCs have been regarded as induced pluripotent stem cells that are indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and thus can be ethically and safely utilized for regenerative medicine. However, an alternative view has been expressed in publications (see titles listed at http://im1.biz/iPS.htm ) that iPSCs are incorrectly programmed stem cells and thus can be distinguished from ESCs. It was further pointed out that iPSCs are man-made cancer stem cells (mm-CSCs) and can cause cancer upon transplantation.
Now distinctions between iPSCs and ESCs are found in many aspects. The cancer risk of iPSCs has also been increasingly recognized. A very recent publication in Cell Stem Cell (7: 521-531, 2010) demonstrated the chromosomal aberrations in human iPSCs that are present in early passages and thus likely originated from the parent cells. Thus, iPS research may finally come to a turning point. Instead of being treated as the fountain of youth for regenerative medicine, iPSCs may serve as models for cancer research.
Let us learn from what Yamanaka did in Science on August 1, 2008. He publically thanked Shi V. Liu (see Science 321:641, 2008; http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5889/641.full ) when he learnt some criticisms (rejected by Science but published in Logical Biol.8: 57-61, 2008). He even went on reporting cancer risk of his own iPS cells (see for examples, Nature Biotechnol. 27: 743-745, 2009 and PNAS 107: 14152-14157, 2010). Let us turn cancerous iPSCs for some really good use.
The turning point of iPS research
From beginning, iPSCs have been regarded as induced pluripotent stem cells that are indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and thus can be ethically and safely utilized for regenerative medicine. However, an alternative view has been expressed in publications (see titles listed at http://im1.biz/iPS.htm ) that iPSCs are incorrectly programmed stem cells and thus can be distinguished from ESCs. It was further pointed out that iPSCs are man-made cancer stem cells (mm-CSCs) and can cause cancer upon transplantation.
Now distinctions between iPSCs and ESCs are found in many aspects. The cancer risk of iPSCs has also been increasingly recognized. A very recent publication in Cell Stem Cell (7: 521-531, 2010) demonstrated the chromosomal aberrations in human iPSCs that are present in early passages and thus likely originated from the parent cells. Thus, iPS research may finally come to a turning point. Instead of being treated as the fountain of youth for regenerative medicine, iPSCs may serve as models for cancer research.
Let us learn from what Yamanaka did in Science on August 1, 2008. He publically thanked Shi V. Liu (see Science 321:641, 2008; http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5889/641.full ) when he learnt some criticisms (rejected by Science but published in Logical Biol.8: 57-61, 2008). He even went on reporting cancer risk of his own iPS cells (see for examples, Nature Biotechnol. 27: 743-745, 2009 and PNAS 107: 14152-14157, 2010). Let us turn cancerous iPSCs for some really good use.
2010-12-10, 15:32:29
–
Keming Cui
Reprogramming out of the iPS detour
I am a botanist, but watching closely the development of iPS and cell reprogramming research I am very happy to see that, after spending four years in a huge detour in the iPS track, cell reprogramming is now back to some straight ways. Looking retrospectively, I think we all should thank one man: Shi V. Liu. This is because he is the only single person who has fight very hard against a huge hype in iPS research and made all the discoveries on the true nature of iPS cells and iPS reprogramming. All the later experimental observations at most serve as some kinds of confirmations of his insightful pioneering discoveries. To verify this, one just needs to click this link http://im1.biz/iPS.htm and reads articles published by Shi V. Liu and then compares his publications from Truthfinding Cyberpress with later publications in the “top” journals. From a botanic point of view, “dedifferentiation, redifferentiation and transdifferentiaon” are some normal ways of plant life. But “reprogramming” a differentiated cell all way back to undifferentiated state and then differentiated to a desired cell is not only a waste of energy but also an opportunity for introducing abnormality. Our past experience in studying plant has taught us how easy it is to induce a normal cell via dedifferentiation into callus which is similar to the cancer cell in animals. Therefore, I fully understand Shi V. Liu 's views and found it is hard to believe that his very correct views have been intentionally neglected by animal cloners and cell “reprogrammers”.
History does repeat sometimes. I remembered the Breakthrough of the Year in 2006 was “The Poincaré Conjecture—Proved” (Science 314: 1848-1849, 2006). But that breakthrough research was published four years earlier in a non-peer-reviewed web archive called arXiv which even has no impact factor.
Reprogramming out of the iPS detour
I am a botanist, but watching closely the development of iPS and cell reprogramming research I am very happy to see that, after spending four years in a huge detour in the iPS track, cell reprogramming is now back to some straight ways. Looking retrospectively, I think we all should thank one man: Shi V. Liu. This is because he is the only single person who has fight very hard against a huge hype in iPS research and made all the discoveries on the true nature of iPS cells and iPS reprogramming. All the later experimental observations at most serve as some kinds of confirmations of his insightful pioneering discoveries. To verify this, one just needs to click this link http://im1.biz/iPS.htm and reads articles published by Shi V. Liu and then compares his publications from Truthfinding Cyberpress with later publications in the “top” journals. From a botanic point of view, “dedifferentiation, redifferentiation and transdifferentiaon” are some normal ways of plant life. But “reprogramming” a differentiated cell all way back to undifferentiated state and then differentiated to a desired cell is not only a waste of energy but also an opportunity for introducing abnormality. Our past experience in studying plant has taught us how easy it is to induce a normal cell via dedifferentiation into callus which is similar to the cancer cell in animals. Therefore, I fully understand Shi V. Liu 's views and found it is hard to believe that his very correct views have been intentionally neglected by animal cloners and cell “reprogrammers”.
History does repeat sometimes. I remembered the Breakthrough of the Year in 2006 was “The Poincaré Conjecture—Proved” (Science 314: 1848-1849, 2006). But that breakthrough research was published four years earlier in a non-peer-reviewed web archive called arXiv which even has no impact factor.
2010-12-10, 11:42:36
– 標記
Responsible Science
The real Breakthrough of the Year is the significantly increased retractions by CNS which stands for Correcting Non-sense in Science.
The real Breakthrough of the Year is the significantly increased retractions by CNS which stands for Correcting Non-sense in Science.
2010-12-10, 10:59:50
–
訪客
Solving the structure of eukariotic ribosome is a pretty major discovery.
Solving the structure of eukariotic ribosome is a pretty major discovery.
2010-12-10, 0:42:22
–
訪客
Tumors grow their own blood vessels.
Tumors grow their own blood vessels.
2010-12-09, 10:00:55
–
訪客
arsenic life
arsenic life
2010-12-09, 5:48:31
–
webber
Dennis Lo: detecting fetal DNA in maternal blood
Dennis Lo: detecting fetal DNA in maternal blood
2010-12-08, 21:19:30
–
Ákos Nyerges
Synthetic genome controlled cell by JCVI
Synthetic genome controlled cell by JCVI
2010-12-08, 19:07:29
–
訪客
The discovery of the enzyme Tet1 for the synthesis of 5 methyl-hydroxy cytosine by Aravind, Anjana Roa and colleagues (published in Science) is likely to open up new possibilities by acting as the sixth base in addition to A, T, G, C and meC. I think this is a fundamental discovery!
Conversion of 5-methylcytosine to 5-hydroxymethylcytosine in mammalian DNA by MLL partner TET1.
Impaired hydroxylation of 5-methylcytosine in myeloid cancers with mutant TET2.
The discovery of the enzyme Tet1 for the synthesis of 5 methyl-hydroxy cytosine by Aravind, Anjana Roa and colleagues (published in Science) is likely to open up new possibilities by acting as the sixth base in addition to A, T, G, C and meC. I think this is a fundamental discovery!
Conversion of 5-methylcytosine to 5-hydroxymethylcytosine in mammalian DNA by MLL partner TET1.
Impaired hydroxylation of 5-methylcytosine in myeloid cancers with mutant TET2.
2010-12-08, 15:02:10
–
訪客
I don't know - something about extrasolar planets ?
I don't know - something about extrasolar planets ?
2010-12-08, 4:42:12
–
訪客
Quantum Physics Breakthrough: Scientists Find an Equation for Materials Innovation
ScienceDaily (Feb. 26, 2010) — Princeton engineers have made a breakthrough in an 80-year-old quandary in quantum physics, paving the way for the development of new materials that could make electronic devices smaller and cars more energy efficient.
Quantum Physics Breakthrough: Scientists Find an Equation for Materials Innovation
ScienceDaily (Feb. 26, 2010) — Princeton engineers have made a breakthrough in an 80-year-old quandary in quantum physics, paving the way for the development of new materials that could make electronic devices smaller and cars more energy efficient.
2010-12-08, 4:40:42
–
訪客
Quantum Entanglement Achieved in Solid-State Circuitry - Jan 12, 2010
Quantum Entanglement Achieved in Solid-State Circuitry - Jan 12, 2010
2010-12-08, 4:39:42
–
Kim Dudzik
Oxygen on Rhea? Totally amazing. My personal pick for breakthrough of 2010.
Oxygen on Rhea? Totally amazing. My personal pick for breakthrough of 2010.
2010-12-07, 12:32:26
–
Rafael Roesler
1) Exposure to an enriched environment reduces cancer growth through a BDNF-dependent mechanism (Cao et al. http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674(10)00565-9)
2) Brain tumor stem cells give rise to endothelium (Wang et al., http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature09624.html)
1) Exposure to an enriched environment reduces cancer growth through a BDNF-dependent mechanism (Cao et al. http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674(10)00565-9)
2) Brain tumor stem cells give rise to endothelium (Wang et al., http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature09624.html)
2010-12-07, 6:37:22
–
訪客
Last week's anouncement of aging reversal in the mouse
Last week's anouncement of aging reversal in the mouse
2010-12-06, 9:30:00
–說讚的人
訪客
Kevin
It has to be the ability to look at a persons genes and figure out if they will live a long life. I can't wait to find out how long I will live!
It has to be the ability to look at a persons genes and figure out if they will live a long life. I can't wait to find out how long I will live!
2010-12-06, 4:50:25
–說讚的人
訪客
Ankur Sharma
No doubt Synthetic life by Craig Venter
No doubt Synthetic life by Craig Venter
2010-12-06
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-84542-393836.html
上一篇：刘实本性难改：“双规”还管“国事”、修“奶车”
下一篇：刘实：纠正世界高端学腐启迪中国科学发展
