The reviews of a STAP paper submitted to and rejected by the journal Science in 2012 were posted at Retraction Watch yesterday. They filled in some gaps in the puzzle of the series of events that led to such flawed science being published in Nature in January 2014, but the reviews also raised more questions. Today, more STAP paper reviews have surfaced. ScienceInsider posted a piece with additional STAP paper reviews with these coming from Nature reviewers commenting on what would later become accepted and published by Nature only months later …Read More
Before the two STAP cell papers were published in Nature in January of 2014, much of the same data was reportedly submitted as single papers to other high-profile journals including Science. In these cases, the proto-STAP papers as we might call them were rejected. But why? Until now we largely could only speculate. However, the reviews of the 2012 proto-STAP manuscript at Science can now be read at Retraction Watch. As a result of reading the Science reviews, today we know what the reviewers at Science thought …Read More
Nikkei is reporting that the RIKEN internal attempt to replicate so-called STAP (acid bath) cells has failed. Update: apparently, although RIKEN calls the efforts preliminary, the team tried to make STAP an amazing 22 times and 22 times it failed. The rumors for weeks in the stem cell gapevine that RIKEN itself could not get STAP to work, even with the help of Dr. Haruko Obokata, have been confirmed by Nikkei. Obokata was first author on both Nature STAP papers, which were retracted. One of …Read More
Here is a STAP Cell Image Gallery With Links Want to go to the links associated with specific STAP images? Click on thumbnails with embedded links below.