澳大利亚国立大学（Australian National University）的遗传学家Gaetan Burgio曾在网上发帖公布自己重复NgAgo实验失败，称自己根本不相信NgAgo能在韩春雨和刘东的实验所用的温度下起作用，因为实验的温度远远低于细菌存活所需的温度。（...hedoesn’t believe that NgAgo can function at the temperatures used in either Han’s or Liu’s experiment. Both were carried out at much cooler temperatures than the environment in which the protein’s source — a bacterium — lives.）报道说，Burgio认为刘东观察到的斑马鱼异常是与NgAgo活性无关的其他毒理作用所致；刘东则相信NgAgo可以阻断基因表达，但同时他也承认这需要更多的证据，目前他正在收集相关的证据。（Burgio thinks the zebrafish abnormalities might have formed because of a toxicity unrelated to the activity of NgAgo. Liu says his data convince him that NgAgo can reliably block genes, but acknowledges that he needs more evidence to show this conclusively. He says he is working on assembling that now.）

　　此前，韩春雨曾向 Nature 表示他发现了一个其他人在重复NgAgo实验时没有注意到的问题，这可以解释重复实验为什么失败。在本篇报道中，韩声称自己目前正在进一步验证，之后会发表数据和实验步骤来回应批评者。韩说：“我现在不能说问题是什么，因为媒体会一窝蜂来打扰我，我还需要点时间。” （He says that he is currently running confirmatory experiments so that he can publish data and a protocol that satisfies his critics. “I cannot say right now because the media in China jumps on everything I say,” he told Nature. “I need a little bit of time.”）

　　Nature Biotechnology （发表韩春雨论文的杂志）的发言人称质疑韩春雨论文的一些个人和组织已经联系了杂志社，杂志社正慎重处理这些质疑。报道引用了发言人的原话：“我们对韩春雨论文的调查仍在继续。” ( A spokesperson for the journal that published his paper, Nature Biotechnology, said that a number of individuals and groups critical of Han’s NgAgo paper had contacted the journal, and that it has considered or is considering them carefully, alongside any published critiques of the research. “Our investigations into the paper are continuing at this time,” says the spokesperson.）报道特地说明 Nature 新闻的编辑团队和 Nature Biotechnology 的编辑是相互独立的。( Nature Biotechnology is editorially independent of Nature’s news team and is owned by Nature’s publisher Springer-Nature.）

　　3

　　NgAgo in action

　　报道提及了两位曾声称证实NgAgo技术的匿名科学家。一位曾向 Nature 透露他已证实韩的发现，但没有发布实验数据，现在，他表示正使用NgAgo进行相关研究，希望不久就能发表论文。但另一位，曾提到获得NgAgo初步阳性结果，现在却表示“数据有些模棱两可，难以下结论”。报道称，这些科学家都不希望署名，因为担心卷入这场论战。（One of the few scientists who previously told Nature he had corroborated Han’s findings — but has not published these results — now says that he is using NgAgo for experiments related to his research, and that he hopes to publish soon. But another who previously noted positive initial results with NgAgo says now that the “data are confusing” and “we cannot make a conclusion”. Neither wanted to be named for fear of being dragged into the controversy.）

　　报道还提到，atv，关于NgAgo本身以外的纷争在于河北科技大学因此成立的基因编辑中心，涉及由地方政府出资2.24亿的一项科研资助。报道引用了学术打假斗士方舟子的原话：“如果没有这篇 Nature Biotechnology 的文章和此后天花乱坠的社会热议，学校很难获得如此大的资助。”（“Without Han's Nature Biotechnology paper and the hype after that, it's impossible for the school to get such huge funding to establish the gene editing research centre,” says Fang Shimin）方还表示，根据NgAgo专利的声明可以看出河北科大缺少基因编辑相关的专业知识。“如果韩的发现不能被重复，这项资助的合理性就会大打折扣”。（He says that aside from Han’s NgAgo claims, the university lacks gene-editing expertise. So if Han's work doesn't stand up, “the centre will lose its legitimacy”.）