m****g
发帖数: 530 | 1 looks like the original discovery was wrong due to the experimental
artifacts.
this is linked to the 2003 HMS sinclair's discovery.
linked to : http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v28/n3/full/nbt0310-185.html |
s****y
发帖数: 682 | 2 Is it a consequence that big drug companies give up basic research?
【在 m****g 的大作中提到】
: looks like the original discovery was wrong due to the experimental
: artifacts.
: this is linked to the 2003 HMS sinclair's discovery.
: linked to : http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v28/n3/full/nbt0310-185.html
|
m****g
发帖数: 530 | 3 I think it is a consequence of bold investigation.
GSK bought Sitris before they get anything useful for the clinic,just the
idea. it has been considered that GSK took a big risk for this purchase.
finally it turned out that it is really a problem.
in addition, from the scientific point of view, Sirtris's nature paper is
suspected to manipulating the data because the other two company's ( pfizer
and Amgen) can not repeat their result at the same condition.
For the original scientific discove |
s****y
发帖数: 682 | 4 It is good to know. Just don't understand how GSK could repeat that result (
so called experimental artifacts) while Pfizer and Amgen cannot. A lesson
for me here is always to repeat before following other people's data.
pfizer
as
did
【在 m****g 的大作中提到】
: I think it is a consequence of bold investigation.
: GSK bought Sitris before they get anything useful for the clinic,just the
: idea. it has been considered that GSK took a big risk for this purchase.
: finally it turned out that it is really a problem.
: in addition, from the scientific point of view, Sirtris's nature paper is
: suspected to manipulating the data because the other two company's ( pfizer
: and Amgen) can not repeat their result at the same condition.
: For the original scientific discove
|
