Professor Rudolf Jaenisch of MIT and his former postdoc/now assistant professor at The Weizmann Jacob Hanna have gotten into a very public, stem cell skirmish over conflicting papers. Hanna raised concerns over a Jaenisch lab paper and things have escalated from there.
This mess is playing out before our eyes on PubMed (there was a commentfrom Hanna on the Jaenisch lab paper, but now removed), PubPeer(scroll down near the bottom of the comments on that page for several items), on the website of the journal Cell Stem Cellwhere Hanna also left a comment, and on Twitter, where Hanna posted an edgy series of tweets (see latest below).
Note that the now deleted PubMed comment was nearly the same as the one from Hanna still on PubPeer. Hanna also posted a comment on a Jaenisch PNAS paper from this year and that comment has now been removed as well from PubMed.
Theunissen/Jaenisch, de facto, retract neg results of detection of human naive PSC integration in mouse embryos. https://t.co/4i3sq3fdzh
It’s not every day that you see biologists duking it out in the wide open like this. Well, maybe a stem cell skirmish happens every month or two, but not every day. This one has quickly gotten pretty ugly.
Based on his lengthy public comment on the article on PubMed, stem cell scientist Jacob Hanna isn’t too happy about the recent Nature review (related to STAP cell refutation) on hallmarks of pluripotency.
Speaking of STAP refutation, Takaho Endo correctly pointed out that his paper last year used similar methods to the new Nature BCA papers that provided more STAP refutation and yet one of those new papers didn’t even cite his. He tweeted about how when he contacted the authors to inquire about this that they said they had originally cited his paper, but ended up leaving it off due to restrictions on the # of citations allowed. That seems very regrettable.
Clinics make an appearance? It’s a long shot, but I keep wondering if some of the stem cell clinic folks will show up at ISSCR some day to try to legitimize themselves even if they don’t speak, etc. Maybe they’ll sneak in with some posters or even just attend to make some connections. Unlikely, but if it happened could prove very interesting.
I’ll be curious if the Hanna-Silva feud of a sorts continues persist over ground state pluripotency, MBD3 and NuRD.
Does anyone still believe in VSELs? A scandal is still smoldering there.
Anybody know what happened to Vacanti and the assumed to exist Brigham & Women’s/Harvard investigation over STAP cells? Last year in Vancouver at ISSCR STAP cells were one of the hottest topics.
Will Mitalipov continue to assert that NT-hESC are better than IPSC after the more recent paper (on which he was an author seemed to show otherwise)? More broadly will the SCNT/human therapeutic cloning folks continue to claim a clear path to the bedside?
Any news on Masayo Takahashi’s IPSC trial? More preliminary data?. I’m excited to see how that goes.
I keep hoping also that more biotechs will present at ISSCR and be given plenary talks.
Is ethics/policy given sufficient attention at the meeting?
Will CRISPR-Cas9 editing of stem cells be the talk of the meeting? The explosive trend of this amazing gene editing technology in science overall has really gripped everyone’s attention.
How many reports of clinical trial data will be given? Sometimes in the past ISSCR meetings have had a sizable tilt towards basic science. Could that be changing?