Note on policy on commenting and how it relates to STAP stem cell situation

It is important for the stem cell field to gain clarity on STAP stem cells.

For this reason it is reasonable and at times helpful to critically discuss the data, past findings, concerns about elements of publications, and such.

However, it is not helpful and is in fact against the policy of this blog to engage in the comments in personal attacks, whether direct or implied.

So I am reminding commenters to adhere to the policy of not engaging in personal attacks as we discuss STAP. You also cannot link in your comment to other posts that have personal attacks.

I would also note that I am doing my best not to include in posts on this blog links to sites that might have personal attacks and if I do so inadvertently and later find that this could be the case, I will remove the link.

Let’s keep this constructive.

1 thought on “Note on policy on commenting and how it relates to STAP stem cell situation”

  1. The STAP publication took me back to 2010, when we published in Cell Cycle “A LIF/Nanog axis is revealed in T lymphocytes that lack MARCH-7, a RINGv E3 ligase that regulates the LIF-receptor.” (
    I submitted a Brief Communications Arising to Nature in response to Obokata et al, aiming to alert the field to MARCH-7 since, mechanistically, MARCH-7 is attractive as a potential mediator in control of gene expression linked to LIF. Nature declined to publish.
    NB: In T cells, rheostat-type control of LIF signaling may be coordinated by a counter-opposing LIF/IL-6 axis. Such opposing feed-forward loops characterise regulatory nodes in biological systems.

    Su Metcalfe
    Cambridge UK

Comments are closed.