An academic paper entitled "Questions about NgAgo" co-authored by 20 scholars at home and abroad has been published in the journal Protein and Cell. This is the first publicly published paper dedicated to the inability to repeat the NgAgo experiment of Han Chunyu. In response to Han Chunyu, the scientific paper will respond with scientific papers and will publish the results of recent experiments, but he will immediately add that the paper will not be published immediately. The Han Chunyu incident was once a hot spot. Whether it was the "Nobel Prize-winning achievement" that caused the sensation at first, or the various criticisms and doubts that followed, the problem was at least within the scope of scientific research. But how many people continue to pay attention to the incident now? The delay of the truth has long since ruined the public's patience. With the in-depth reports of relevant media, a pure scientific experiment is gradually intertwined with the interests of universities, teams, commercial organizations, etc., and the negative impact of the incident is growing. . It is time to put an end to the Han Chunyu incident. Who should draw it? It is reasonable to say that the most suitable candidate is of course Han Chunyu himself. Han Chunyu is also the person in the entire research team who dares to face the media and often actively throws new information. Unfortunately, he is always used to eating his own words. Prior to this, Han Chunyu said that he was willing to discuss face-to-face with experts and scholars who were skeptical about the experiment. To this end, many domestic and foreign laboratories have sent interns, hoping to observe the "excellent experimental skills" repeatedly mentioned by the Han Chunyu team. However, the interns were excluded from the gene editing experiment without exception. Is Han Chunyu forgetting his promise or is there a new "trade secret" that needs protection? It is not known, but we at least understand that it is unlikely that he will tell the truth. Similarly, other members of the Han Chunyu team are equally vocal and consciously or unintentionally avoiding many international conferences. After the success of the experiment, they are unwilling to share the latest achievements with their international counterparts and do not actively seek recognition. It is really incredible. We once pinned our hopes on other scientists, hoping that they would break the silence through academic dialogue. From the initial foreign laboratories, they complained that they could not repeat the results. Nowadays, scientists at home and abroad have jointly questioned, but the dialogue has not been opened, but has become even more embarrassing. The self-talking situation: the experiments of the peers have been continually failing, and the experiments conducted by the Han Chunyu team have been successful in succession. To make the exchanges effective, it is a necessary premise to be honest and unconstrained. If the Han Chunyu team always adopts such a perfunctory attitude, obviously never expect to be able to end this. When the initial questioning voice appeared, "Nature-Science and Technology" magazine said that it would conduct a special investigation. It is said that the investigation is still going on, but we might as well imagine how the magazine's investigation will proceed. Obviously, an independent third party was commissioned to repeat the experiment. In this case, even if the final result comes out, can the Han Chunyu team not be able to reapply? We also hope that the law can be a powerful weapon to end the incident. After all, Han Chunyu’s team has repeatedly emphasized that its results have been adopted by some commercial organizations. If it is true, we can start the investigation from the commercial organization because of the experimental results. In case of doubt, there are obvious commercial risks. However, the team of Han Chunyu did not say much about the name of the partner institution. According to China's current academic system, the most suitable for clarifying the facts and conducting investigations is the Hebei University of Science and Technology, the unit of Han Chunyu's team. The academic committee of the university must respond positively to the doubts that have been so open, and it is also a matter of repeated opinions. The credibility has long been lost. It is by no means a simple question to figure out who will end the event. It is inferred from the progress of the incident that China's scientific research community lacks effective experience in dealing with this situation, and the relevant state departments are also not allowed to intervene because of lack of legal authority. How to prevent "latecomers" from imitating such acts, thereby jeopardizing the authenticity and credibility of scientific research results, and even jeopardizing the country's reputation, etc., these issues are urgently to be resolved. "Nature-Biotechnology" said: "Today, we have not only published a communication article by Cathomen and colleagues, which may negate the main finding of the original paper to effectively edit endogenous genes." Not long ago, the British international journal Nature-Biotechnology published online commentary on Toni Cathomen, head of the Cell and Gene Therapy Research Institute at the University of Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues' comments on the NgAgo gene editing technology of Han Chunyu's research group. The article stated that DNA-guided genome editing was not detected using NgAgo technology. At the same time, "Nature-Biotechnology" also published a "Editor's Concern" to "remind readers to worry about the reproducibility of the original paper results (Han Chunyu's paper). Fresh Fruit refers to the edible fruits of plants with juicy and mainly sweet and sour tastes. Fruit not only contains rich vitamin nutrition, and can promote digestion. AGOLYN offers a variety of fruits such as Fresh apples, Fuji apples, kiwi, pears, lemons and so on . Fresh Fruit,Fresh Apple,Kiwi Fruit, Fresh Lemon,Fresh Pears Xi'an Gawen Biotechnology Co., Ltd , https://www.seoagolyn.com