小保方同意撤回一篇STAP细胞论文（转自科学网）

zm19900508

经过对学术不端指控的抗挣和官方裁定，两篇存在争议的干细胞论文作者小保方终于同意撤回其中一篇关于STAP细胞可分化成各种组织细胞的论文，但并没有同意撤回STAP细胞制作过程的论文。今天，日本媒体已经公开报道了此事。4 ?0 P- f$ }3 s) U+ D5 b# o) I1 F

4 l  @; z5 w! V- w4 X. R2 H/ Q5 T小保方在1月29日在《自然》报道了她和美国科学家合作研究的一种新的诱导成熟细胞重新编程为胚胎干细胞的新技术STAP。这种技术极其简单，只要将成熟细胞放在酸性溶液中短时间处理或者机械压迫，就可以将成熟细胞诱导成为胚胎干细胞。论文发表后迅速引起国际上的极大关注，也迅速被一些学者质疑存在图片伪造的嫌疑，随后众多学者公布无法重复实验的问题，这立刻引起其研究机构日本理化研究所的调查，4月份调查委员会认定其研究存在明确的学术不端问题，但并没有要求撤回论文。小保方的律师今天突然告诉日本记者他们将撤回其中一篇关于STAP细胞分化为其他组织细胞的论文，但并不同意撤回关于STAP制作方法的另一篇论文。小保方坚持认为STAP细胞的技术真实可行，承认存在错误但不承认研究结论存在问题。
6 E; q- e! v3 P* z6 R1 `4 T; ]- {# Q* \2 d
根据日本时报报道，该论文其他10名合作者至少2名来信同意撤回，两名作者包括山梨大学的Teruhiko Wakayama。Wakayama一贯对这一论文的真实性存在怀疑，告诉日本记者他已经完全不相信这个论文。但是美国作者Charles Vacanti则一直坚持该论文没有问题。0 @. n* `7 f$ h. L# j

+ n  [' t9 I7 z* C6 K加洲大学干细胞学家Paul Knoepfler说，撤回一篇论文保留另一篇论文显然暗示这些作者没有达成一致看法。本周他在博客中提出，《自然》杂志编辑应该单方面决定撤回两篇论文。如果只撤回其中一篇关于分化为其他细胞的论文，而保留关于STAP制作方法的论文，这是十分幼稚的行为。他认为这两篇论文最终都将被撤回。4 }+ x5 N; ]5 W3 y2 H. z
* F9 n* W$ ]' P! F& r! L0 x9 b
2 G* y1 [: k: U

7 B0 F; Q: R3 H' i) f% e. ?
' d+ c2 d* |) J: m. O5 O  ZAfter steadfastly defending her work against accusations of falsified data and an official misconduct ruling, the lead author on two controversial stem cell papers published this year in Nature has reportedly agreed to retract one of them. Earlier today, Japanese media began reporting that stem cell researcher Haruko Obokata of the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology in Kobe, Japan, is willing to retract a paper concluding that so-called STAP stem cells can form a wide variety of tissues, but does not intend to retract the paper describing how to make those stem cells.
. d% Y7 O( I! n5 L2 {0 p1 t' m
6 L0 p4 Q( d& d* q" HAlong with colleagues in the United States and Japan, Obokata described online on 29 January in Nature a new method for reprogramming mature cells into stem cells. The technique, called stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP), appeared amazingly simple—exposing mature cells to an acid bath or physical pressure could seemingly switch them into stem cells. But it drew almost immediate accusations of image manipulation and plagiarism. In April, an investigating committee at RIKEN ruled that the issues with the papers constituted research misconduct, but did not call for their retraction. Obokata’s lawyer now tells the Japanese press that she will retract a secondary paper describing what STAP cells can develop into, but not the methods article, in which the committee had identified image manipulation and data apparently reused from Obokata’s graduate thesis.5 c& B' u) V( j5 ^6 T8 b& _3 f6 i

* P1 H" q& a" X' y# Z* R: oObokata has argued that the problems with the papers were the result of inexperience, not deliberate wrongdoing, and that STAP cells really do exist. After the ruling, she issued a statement saying that she intended to appeal the judgment." z# _1 G- G: }
* @# w8 l6 n* J/ I
The Japan Times reports that at least two of Obokata’s 10 co-authors on the letter have also agreed to the rejection, including Teruhiko Wakayama of the University of Yamanashi, the paper’s last author. Wakayama has been consistently critical of the work, telling the Japanese press he had “lost faith” in the paper, and calling for its retraction. However, Charles Vacanti of Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston, last author on the main article and Obokata’s former adviser, has continued to defend the research. A BWH spokesperson told ScienceInsider that Vacanti had no comment on Obokata’s announcement.7 h# f  t$ d; K) X- S/ `

( w3 Y6 s5 J& |4 FWillingness to retract one paper but not the other is a sign of the lingering disagreement among the co-authors, says stem cell researcher Paul Knoepfler of the University of California, Davis. He argued in a blog post earlier this week that Nature should editorially retract both. “It would be naive to think that only the letter [the second paper] can be retracted and that the [methods] article will remain with the STAP cell narrative overall having any legitimacy,” he told ScienceInsider in an e-mail. “I believe the ultimate fates [of the two papers] are tightly tied together.”