4 ms·

Most news is source from places that are not reputable, with a lot of the publishings recently going under extreme scrutiny the best a person can do is look at

Most news is source from places that are not reputable, with a lot of the publishings recently going under extreme scrutiny the best a person can do is look at any CRISPR advancement with optimism and wait patiently till all collective facts are in.Just in case anyone gets too excited.

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
The source here is the journal Nature,[0] which is one of the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world (together with Science). That being said, Nature publishes the highest impact papers, which often turn out to be wrong (or overstated). Still, this isn't some random news source trying to report about science. 0. I realized after commenting here that the journal is Gene Therapy, which is part of the Nature Publishing Group, rather than Nature itself.
- fsh 3y ago
  The article was published in the journal "Gene Therapy" which belongs to the Nature publishing group, but is far less prestigious than Nature.
  - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
    Thanks, I just noticed that. I was deceived by the URL.
- snoman 3y ago
  I know nothing about scientific publishing. Why is Nature still considered prestigious, if they often publish things that are wrong?
  - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
    Because whenever someone has a really big result, they try to publish it in Nature or Science. By their very nature, big results are more likely to be wrong than small, incremental results. The main reason why Nature is prestigious is because getting published there means the scientific reviewers and editors think your result is really important.
- Sparkyte 3y ago
  Certainly don't want to be that person. I just want people to curb their enthusiam a lot of stuff by colleges especially research is getting torn apart. Most often people in the field were pressured for results to keep receiving funding which is problematic. It itself has that startup momentum where even if the science isn't perfect they'll gamble it and fix it later after the investments. We still do not know the long term effects of COVID vaccines using the expiremental design. We don't know what sort of diseases are introduced after gene editing.
  - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
    > We still do not know the long term effects of COVID vaccines using the expiremental design. First, the CoVID vaccines have been more extensively studied than most other vaccines by this point. Second, "long-term effects of vaccines" reveals an unfamiliarity with how vaccines work. Vaccine side-effects show up quickly, within weeks at most. After months or years, the only thing left of the vaccine in your body is the immune system memory it induced.
    - Sparkyte 3y ago
      I am saying you need to be mid. Know the risks and the consequences. Long term side effects can result in anything. mRNA itself has been used for vaccines since 2013. We learned how mRNA works in 1960, this is messenger ribonucleic acid. Vaccines through it were proposedd in the 90s, but development of vaccines didn't start till late 2000s. Some long term side effects of COVID vaccines are linking to an increased risk for uterine fibroids. The discovery of potential problems is ongoing. But it was a great achievement for rabies, considering the other options were not great.
    - b112 3y ago
      I won't wholly disagree, but some edge cases, such as the mouse brain derived je-vax, had issues > 1 month. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8828133/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8828133/ Read the Inactivated mouse brain–derived JE vaccine section. These reactions seem to be more about mouse brain prions, and there was a rare case of (unproven!!) issues a year out, which were cited during discussions about forced discontinuation. I can't seem to find that, but anyhow, the > 1 month issues are well accepted.
- Cullinet 3y ago
  Whilst historically those publications enjoy such a reputation you can find a body important retractions and delayed retractions in both journals. The Spectator magazine of 12th of August this year has some recent specifics. Titles used to almost regularly pass through phases of better and worse administration it doesn't mean that the name is ruined when things go wrong, but the purpose of publication has never been to establish unassailable truths something that I am sure that every editor concurs with for legal practical moral and social reasons.

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago

The source here is the journal Nature,[0] which is one of the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world (together with Science). That being said, Nature publishes the highest impact papers, which often turn out to be wrong (or overstated). Still, this isn't some random news source trying to report about science. 0. I realized after commenting here that the journal is Gene Therapy, which is part of the Nature Publishing Group, rather than Nature itself.

fsh 3y ago
The article was published in the journal "Gene Therapy" which belongs to the Nature publishing group, but is far less prestigious than Nature.
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  Thanks, I just noticed that. I was deceived by the URL.
snoman 3y ago
I know nothing about scientific publishing. Why is Nature still considered prestigious, if they often publish things that are wrong?
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  Because whenever someone has a really big result, they try to publish it in Nature or Science. By their very nature, big results are more likely to be wrong than small, incremental results. The main reason why Nature is prestigious is because getting published there means the scientific reviewers and editors think your result is really important.
Sparkyte 3y ago
Certainly don't want to be that person. I just want people to curb their enthusiam a lot of stuff by colleges especially research is getting torn apart. Most often people in the field were pressured for results to keep receiving funding which is problematic. It itself has that startup momentum where even if the science isn't perfect they'll gamble it and fix it later after the investments. We still do not know the long term effects of COVID vaccines using the expiremental design. We don't know what sort of diseases are introduced after gene editing.
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  > We still do not know the long term effects of COVID vaccines using the expiremental design. First, the CoVID vaccines have been more extensively studied than most other vaccines by this point. Second, "long-term effects of vaccines" reveals an unfamiliarity with how vaccines work. Vaccine side-effects show up quickly, within weeks at most. After months or years, the only thing left of the vaccine in your body is the immune system memory it induced.
  - Sparkyte 3y ago
    I am saying you need to be mid. Know the risks and the consequences. Long term side effects can result in anything. mRNA itself has been used for vaccines since 2013. We learned how mRNA works in 1960, this is messenger ribonucleic acid. Vaccines through it were proposedd in the 90s, but development of vaccines didn't start till late 2000s. Some long term side effects of COVID vaccines are linking to an increased risk for uterine fibroids. The discovery of potential problems is ongoing. But it was a great achievement for rabies, considering the other options were not great.
  - b112 3y ago
    I won't wholly disagree, but some edge cases, such as the mouse brain derived je-vax, had issues > 1 month. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8828133/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8828133/ Read the Inactivated mouse brain–derived JE vaccine section. These reactions seem to be more about mouse brain prions, and there was a rare case of (unproven!!) issues a year out, which were cited during discussions about forced discontinuation. I can't seem to find that, but anyhow, the > 1 month issues are well accepted.
Cullinet 3y ago
Whilst historically those publications enjoy such a reputation you can find a body important retractions and delayed retractions in both journals. The Spectator magazine of 12th of August this year has some recent specifics. Titles used to almost regularly pass through phases of better and worse administration it doesn't mean that the name is ruined when things go wrong, but the purpose of publication has never been to establish unassailable truths something that I am sure that every editor concurs with for legal practical moral and social reasons.