Han Chunyu event timeline team announced today that it withdrew its ngago paper

On August 3, Beijing time, Han Chunyu's team asked Nature Biotechnology to withdraw the paper on the new gene editing technology ngago (nanotechnology gregoryi Argonaute) after scholars at home and abroad publicly questioned its repeatability for the past year The paper has been marked "withdrawn" (source: Nature Biotechnology) In the withdrawal statement, Han Chunyu's team said, "because the industry has been unable to repeat the key results shown in Figure 4 according to the experimental scheme provided by our paper, we decided to withdraw this study In this figure, we report that using 5 'phosphorylated single strand DNA as a guide, ngago (natronobacterium gregoryi Argonaute) can effectively cause double strand breaks and edit the genome of human cells Although many laboratories have made efforts (protein cell 7913-915, 2016; NAT Biotechnology.35, 17-18, 2017; cellres.26, 1349-1352, 2016; PLoS One 12, e0177444, 2017), there is no independent report of these results Therefore, we now withdraw our initial report in order to preserve the integrity of the scientific record However, we will continue to investigate the reasons for the lack of repeatability of the study to provide an optimized experimental scheme " Retrieval: DNA guided genetic editing using the nanotechnology gregoryi Argonaute http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v34/n7/full/nbt.3547.html Nature Biotechnology editorial (source: Nature Biotechnology) Meanwhile, Nature Biotechnology published an editorial online: time for the data to speak Speak) The editorial said that in today's "7 × 24-hour" all-weather "social media" era The publication of ngago's paper is not the end of the scientific process, but just the beginning "As with any other report in the literature, a broader research community is needed to test its methods, identify potential sources of error, validate reagents, and optimize experiments." Since last summer, as more and more laboratories were unable to repeat the genome editing function reported in the paper, questions began to appear "Based on the published experimental methods, dozens of researchers gave a well-documented and well controlled refutation study (protein cell 7, 913 – 915, 2016; NAT Biotechnology 35, 17 – 18, 2017; cell res.26, 1349 – 1352, 2016; PLoS One 12, e0177444, 2017)." Finally, the editorial concluded, "what we know about replication research is that it takes time As far as this paper on ngago is concerned, it's time for the data to speak " The editorial concluded Editor: time for the data tospeak http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nbt.3938.html in view of the withdrawal of the paper, Hebei University of science and technology will select a third-party Laboratory for Han Chunyu's team, carry out experiments with the support of peer experts, verify the effectiveness of ngago gDNA gene editing, and publish the experimental results to respond to social concerns In addition, the university decided to launch the academic evaluation and related procedures for the research results Http://news.hebust.edu.cn/zhxw/85838.htmlack to May 2, 2016, Han Chunyu's DNA guidenode editing using the nanotechnology gregoryi Argonaute paper was received by naturebiotechnology (9 months after science rejected it after half a year) On May 27, 2016, the first post claiming that Han Chunyu's experiment could not be repeated appeared in the unnamed space of "the first portal of overseas Chinese" Since then, such doubts have emerged in different platforms On July 2, 2016, Fang Zhouzi published the repeatability of Han Chunyu's "Nobel Prize" experiment of Hebei University of science and technology, and the dispute on ngago gene editing technology began to enter the public view On July 7, 2016, Hebei University of science and Technology issued a public announcement to recommend Han Chunyu as the candidate for the 2016 "Yangtze River scholars award plan" On July 13, Han Chunyu was elected vice chairman of Hebei Association of science and technology On July 21, 2016, Qiu Zilong, a researcher from Shanghai Institute of neuroscience, Chinese Academy of Sciences, said that he could see the gene editing caused by ngago at the genomic level, and called on Han Chunyu's team to release the ngago 2.0 and smart versions as soon as possible On July 29, 2016, Professor Gaetan burgio of Australian National University published a long article "my ngago experience" on twitter, saying that there is no evidence in a strict sense that ngago gDNA technology shows signs of gene editing, and that Han Chunyu's team is required to disclose all the original data and actual conditions On August 2, 2016, naturebiotechnology made a statement on the dispute for the first time, "a number of researchers have contacted this journal and said that they cannot repeat this study We will follow the established process to investigate this matter " On August 8, nature made a special news report on the dispute, saying that scientists who did not want to be named confirmed the repeatability of the experiment to nature Hebei University of science and technology said that within one month, Han Chunyu will take appropriate forms of public verification, when there will be an authoritative third party to testify On September 9, Han Chunyu's team released a new version of the experimental process (Protocol) On August 18, 2016, Han Chunyu won the honorary title of "the most beautiful teacher in beautiful Hebei" On December 31, the development and Reform Commission of Hebei Province approved the investment of 224 million yuan to build the gene editing and research center of Hebei University of science and technology On September 9, 2016, Fang Zhouzi reported Han Chunyu to the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and suggested Rao Yi of Peking University, Lu Bai of Tsinghua University, Shaofeng of Beijing Institute of life sciences and other well-known scholars in the industry to participate in the investigation On October 10, 2016, the front page of science and Technology Daily published Han Chunyu's answer to the reporter of science and technology daily about "repeated experiment failure" In an interview, Han Chunyu refused to prove his innocence On the same day, 12 scholars jointly said that their laboratory could not "repeat" the experiment of Han Chunyu's team On December 12, Professor Rao Yi of Peking University and Shao Feng, academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, published a letter with sun hexu, President of Hebei University of science and technology, suggesting that Hebei University of science and technology should establish a committee composed of experts from inside and outside the University in accordance with international practice to carefully verify the research results On Thursday, Hebei University of science and technology provided the media with a written material entitled "response to public opinion questioning the achievements of Han Chunyu", saying that the university has been paying active attention to this matter, and imploring all sectors of society to have more relaxed and harmonious public opinion environment with Han Chunyu's team On November 15, 2016, protein & cell published an academic review jointly written by 20 domestic and foreign experts in the industry, entitled questions about ngago For the first time in academic journals, it seriously and formally proposed the non repeatability of ngago gene editing technology On September 19, Nature Biotechnology published an online "editorial concern" on the papers of Han Chunyu's team On January 9, 2017, the State Intellectual Property Office "deemed the notice of withdrawal" showed that the patent "gene editing technology with Argonaute nuclease as the core" was withdrawn because the applicant did not reply to the first examination opinion notice of the office within the prescribed time limit On December 12, Han Chunyu's team issued a statement, saying that from the perspective of intellectual property protection strategy, they chose to protect China's domestic patents by submitting international patents to China On January 19, 2017, Hebei University of science and technology announced that Denmark novozyme company and Hebei University of science and technology gene editing technology research center have signed a cooperation agreement on the cooperative research and development and industrial application of ngago gDNA gene editing technology tools, sharing their respective ngago technology achievements before reaching the cooperation conditions On May 9, 2017, naturebiotechnology once again released the "concern of the editorial department" online, once again reminded the readers that the editorial department of Nature Biotechnology was worried about the repeatability of the results of the original paper, and said that it was investigating the research, once completed, it would provide the readers with the latest information On August 3, 2017, Han Chunyu's team announced the withdrawal of the study As of the withdrawal, the research has been cited 53 times in website of science, belonging to high city paper It is more than one year since this paper was published So far, the debate about the reliability of the results of ngago's paper has had results for the time being However, there are still many problems to be clarified in the future As for the follow-up development of the draft withdrawal, we have integrated several views of the industry This is a sensitive event of academic ecology node in China, in view of its influence and attention Will the Ministry of science and technology, the Ministry of education, the NSFC, the China Association for science and technology and other relevant ministries and commissions launch an investigation or have other solutions? If the official response is slow or inappropriate, what should the academic community do next? Last year, Hebei provincial government approved the construction of gene editing and research center of Hebei University of science and technology with an investment of 224 million yuan After Han Chunyu's team's research work was withdrawn, what prospect will it face? Is it a continuous investment or a temporary suspension? If we continue to invest, what kind of output will there be? If it is shelved, does the project establishment process need to be reconsidered? At present, the non repetition of ngago is not "some can be repeated, some can't be repeated", but all real names that can't be repeated are anonymous Regardless of "academic misconduct", it is not involved in the original experimental errors or the occasional false appearance of Nature Biotechnology After the withdrawal of the manuscript, the reliability of the research became more ambiguous, and where would the relevant patent and technical cooperation projects go?