Recommended weekend science links

snuppyWoo-Suk Hwang & his dog clones…all started with Snuppy (pictured): Disgraced Scientist Clones Dogs, And Critics Question His Intent

Human gene editing summit under the microscope of Hurlbut, et al. CRISPR Democracy: Gene Editing and the Need for Inclusive Deliberation

New CRISPR partner protein Slices through Genomes, Patent Problems

For anyone who grows human pluripotent stem cells: What if stem cells turn into embryos in a dish?

Good stem cell news: no cancer evident in first IPSC transplant patient.

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.

Could stem cells treat or even cure some forms of blindness?

Weekend science reading: fantastic found links

glioblastoma

Glioblastoma, image from Wikipedia

David Jensen reports on the future of CIRM as a “beautiful machine”.

CIRM funds brain cancer research in a big way: Funding a clinical trial for deadly cancer is a no brainer. Glioblastoma is a fatal tumor that needs new clinical approaches so this is exciting. One of the goals of my lab is to find new pathways to treat glioblastoma in children.

Jacob Corn of IGI has a Wish List for Science on CRISPR science, but also science more generally.

The case for possibly retracting a retraction over at RetractionWatch.

Take another look at last year’s Takaho Endo paper, which was a major step toward debunking STAP so why did the new paper in Nature debunking STAP using similar approach not cite Dr. Endo’s 2014 paper? I’m glad to see that the other new Nature paper did cite Dr. Endo’s paper.

Pete Shanks over at BioPolitical Times from CGI voices concerns about balance at upcoming NAS meeting on human gene editing.

Zhang’s lab reports on Cpf1, a useable new CRISPR partner protein in place of Cas9 and Antonio Regalado has the backstory: New CRISPR Protein Slices through Patent Problems

The Node on Enabling research with human embryonic and fetal tissue resources

The tiny fingers that touch stem cells from David Kent on Signals Blog