SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A disputed paper that raised questions about the safety of CRISPR has been retracted:
A scientific paper that purported to lay bare serious flaws in the gene-editing tool known as CRISPR and briefly tanked shares of genome-editing companies has been retracted by its publisher.
The paper [DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.4293] [DX], published last year in Nature Methods, claimed that CRISPR wreaked havoc on the genome, causing hundreds of unintended mutations in mice — and that the algorithms typically used to detect these changes were routinely missing them.
[...] Two months after publication of the paper, Nature Methods published an "an expression of concern" about the paper in July. The retraction notice, appended Friday, goes further, saying the authors did not use mice that had been bred in their own laboratory — so they could not know if any genetic mutations were the result of their intervention with CRISPR editing, or if it stemmed from variations in the mice's own genomes.
Nature Methods editorial discussing the retraction: CRISPR off-targets: a reassessment (open, DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.4664) (DX)
Previously: CRISPR Safer than Thought; Misleading Study Found Shared Mutations in Closely Related Mice
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday April 05 2018, @12:05PM (1 child)
Papers aren't supposed to get retracted for disagreeing with established science, but when it turns out they shouldn't have been published, such as for issues with methodology or integrity, or as purported in this case, unfounded assumptions.
Papers aren't supposed to get published in the first place when they have issues with methodology or integrity or unfounded assumptions, that is what the peer and editorial review system is for.
The system is composed of imperfect human beings, and that is why retractions are a thing. When the authors care enough to perform the work, write the paper, submit it for review and publication, and the editors and peer reviewers either don't care enough to find the flaws prior to publication, or have their minds changed later by popular opinion - that's when I think the world deserves some independent validation of the assertion. The next question becomes: is the independent validation really independent, or just industry (or other parties who stand to profit) sponsored astroturfing?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 05 2018, @02:51PM
Theres not even a reason to retract this paper. The say the data is ok but just maybe got interpreted wrong, so just add a correction acknowledging the alternatives. Im really laughing at this when the same thing is the case for nearly 100% of bio papers. Its so fake.