George Church and BioViva scientists retract their PNAS report on intranasal gene therapy for healthy life extension in mice due to data discrepancies in critical figures, underscoring the need for rigorous data backup and validation in longevity research.
Key points
- PNAS paper on intranasal and injectable gene therapy for life extension in mouse models suffers data inconsistencies in Figures 1 and 3.
- Discrepancies in raw datasets, uncovered via PubPeer, lead to two corrections and eventual retraction.
- Not all coauthors agreed to retract, highlighting debates over data reliability and longevity science governance.
Why it matters: This retraction underscores the essential role of data transparency and rigorous validation in advancing reliable gene therapies for healthy life extension.
Q&A
- What does it mean when a paper is retracted?
- Why were Church’s data deemed problematic?
- How does an intranasal gene therapy delivery work?
- Who are BioViva and Liz Parrish?
