The Lord just smiled on us about that.
We were just really rejoicing thinking that this brother is alive.
Their faith is intact.
We are very, very thankful for the acts of kindness.
We carefully considered the implications of publishing this research and concluded that the knowledge we're gaining to potentially protect public health far outweighs the risk of working with the virus.
It is clear the authors are going to need to provide more details as to where the errors lie and how they arose.
I think it's a 'sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander' proposition. If you're going to be a full co-author and share in the credit for an accomplishment, then you have to take the fall if it's wrong.
Since we do not yet have sufficient information to proceed with the retraction, we are issuing this statement so that readers are aware that concerns have been raised about the validity of the data in this paper.
This was a carefully constructed fraud and appears to have involved many people.
We are determined to do everything in our power to evaluate our own procedures for detecting research misconduct.
As Science celebrates its 125th birthday, we've recognized that an examination of science's outstanding mysteries also reflects its tremendous accomplishments.
Scientific fraud is not new to us. It is not rare, but it is not common either. It happens at a frequency that's high enough to bother certainly people in the United States Congress, and probably others as well. But it is not frequent enough to declare that because the peer review system cannot reliably detect it, something has to be done about the peer review system. I think the peer review system is not quite fine, but absolutely the best thing we have.