补充：才注意到方舟子生化博士说：【全世界还在实名为韩春雨辩护的，只剩下一个对分子生物学技术一窍不通的名为岳东晓的物理学博士，因为其辩护理由过于荒唐，甚至被国外分子生物学家怀疑是韩春雨的马甲。】
加黑部分充分证明我的分子生物学造诣已经得到国际生物学界的认可 --- 否则我与国外生物学界专业对话之后，怎么会被认为我就是发现了 NgAgo 的韩春雨呢？你看自然杂志介绍舟子就只提他是打假斗士，不提他专业。韩被《自然》作为学术带头人，而我又被国际分子生物界视为韩。可见，方舟子列出的事实证明我的生物水平可以做他导师了--看看下面我在自然上对方的专业分析就知道，只是他嘴上不服气，加些一窍不通情绪化词汇。
前些天，我在 GOOGLE GROUPS上看到几个质疑韩春雨的生物学人士在怀疑我岳某就是韩春雨。这些质疑者的思维判断能力令人惊奇。如果我不说几句，质疑者们估计还会热烈庆祝自己的天才发现 -- 又发现了韩春雨的马甲。
这些以为我就是韩春雨的还在抱怨韩的实验程序太麻烦。我于是发了个贴：【When you can't do something someone else claimed to have done, there is one distinct possibility that you ought to consider: yourself is the problem. If you don't consider this possibility, then you are beyond help. Han established a set of procedures in his paper, however complicated, he said it so. If you find a working shortcut, you refuted Han and made a breakthrough. But if you didn't follow Han and failed, you only verified his finding. Is this logic so hard for you to grasp?】
结果这帮韩质疑者更为恼羞成怒、开始骂街。我于是写道：【I am trying to help, so you may think about the alternative explanations of your failure. Blaming everyone else is not the way to do science. Anyone here who failed to replicate Han should share his information like Dr. Burgio, so the problems can be identified. In Burgio's case, his failure is expected, and was a partial validation of Han. If you don't want to share your details for whatever reason, keep working or give it up. Science is hard. Not everyone is cut for science. 】
这几个韩质疑者继续谩骂，我又写道：【when you suspected that I was Han, I thought I should say something to help you get out of your delusion. Yet you kept calling me a "troll". Why? And why did you make the wrong speculation that I was Han? Shouldn't that indicate to you that your logical circuits might not be functioning properly? You believe that multiple transfections should be unnecessary in your case. But Han suggested otherwise in his paper. Isn't your failure appear to be consistent with Han's paper?】
我拨冗教他们逻辑思维，这帮人却继续谩骂。但我很耐心：【 I have no interest in engaging with you or anyone here in personal attacks. But judging from your behavior and lack of logic, I seriously doubt your mental capacity in conducting original scientific research. It is just frustrating for the public to sense so much resentment and unwarranted emotions from the bio-science circle. Note, I am not saying Han must be right. I am only saying that you people should do science in a professional manner, instead of quickly launching personal attacks against others simply because you failed to replicate his result by choosing NOT to follow his published procedures. When you fail, put your data online like Dr. Burgio and others may help you. In fact, one researcher (unrelated to Han) in China wanted to lend Burgio a helping hand. He claimed to have helped two labs in China in partially replicating Han's result. It would seem all that you needed was the modesty to admit that you don't know everything and the willingness to seek help. Success or failure, just wait and see. Science research is competitive. Those who fail will have consequences. Either way, it's not my business. This is my last post here. Good luck to you all.】
这些韩春雨质疑者素质低下，继续谩骂不过自曝其弱。我话说得够清楚，也不必再理睬了。
把韩春雨讨论中各方列个表，可以看出拼命反对韩的那一群教育程度、以及各方面平均水平明显偏低。方舟子连一个电泳图的看不懂，其支持者多半连 pH 值都搞不清(韩春雨实验 pH 值讨论暴露质疑者基础薄弱)，其余问题也是稀里糊涂，以谩骂为主。另外，可以注意到一点，在科学网，反韩博文下经常看到这种匿名推荐者多于实名的现象，而且很多不是常见 ID。
另外，前些天澳洲的 BURGIO 更新了他的博文，说还是没有重复出韩春雨的结果。我于是问他这次他是否多次转染 gDNA。BURGIO 回答称：没有，老鼠受精卵没法多次转。
BURGIO 还是给老鼠受精卵打一针就转基因；但韩春雨没做老鼠实验，而且强调要多次转染。所以，我们又兜回到了原地。
我看到前两天成都商报首席记者王毅报道韩春雨事件称：
【[韩春雨]介绍，《自然》是第三方，调查是公正、正式的，结果是公开的，《自然》的结果就是，这个实验是可以重复的，但有的能够做出来，有的做不出来。目前，至少已经有3名科学家重复了该实验，但3人在接受戴卫调查后，不希望被打扰，要求匿名。他认为，《自然》的调查访谈结果已经相当于是公开回应了。】
上面不是引用韩的原话。但韩春雨的基本意思是清楚的：有三人接受了戴维调查，已经有三名科学家重复了韩的实验（其中一人进行了测序确认）。
如果这三个科学家说的是真的，韩春雨的实验就是被重复了。如果有三个人真做出了，其余人做不出，是其余的人自己的问题。如果有人愿意请教，做出来的也许愿意学雷锋指点一下，但根本可以蔑视那些指责。
网上争议的问题是，成都商报报道写的【《自然》的调查访谈结果已经相当于是公开回应了】这句话怎么理解，是说《自然》公开回应，还是韩春雨公开回应？单看这一句话，记者的行文模糊存在歧义。怎么办？ 看上下文。报道前面一段是这么写的：
【韩春雨告诉成都商报记者，在上个月社会上有了质疑声音后，“我们不可能放着不管，肯定要做出回应”，不过对回应的方式做了选择。他们认为在民间回应不合适，他们很快就联系了《自然》的调查员戴卫，用《自然》调查访谈的方式回应。他们认为，《自然》对各种事实有比较全面的调查和报道，这是最好的回应方式。】
这是一个关键信息。原来，这个《自然》新闻其实是韩春雨回应质疑的方式。韩让戴维去找几个已经重复出来的实验室，戴维然后采访了三家。
但是也显然，戴维是否相信、或者是否资格表示相信、有资格确认这三家的说法是另外一个问题。戴维只是相当于一个记者。对于韩春雨质疑者的说法，戴维的回应是他只是报道新闻、不管编辑的事情。戴维说: "我没有独立做实验，当然无法对结果给出一手的信息。" (【I have not read the original article in Chinese so I cannot comment on that quotation from Dr. Han. There might have been some kind of miscommunication. What I can say is that my news article should not be taken as evidence that Dr Han' experiments are reproducible. I did not carry out any independent replication experiments, and thus cannot add any first-hand knowledge regarding the findings. My article does reflect that there are differences of opinion about the reproducibility of Dr Han's experiments, and as far as I know, that controversy has not yet been resolved. My work as part of the Nature news team and the Nature Biotechnology editorial team are distinct, so I cannot comment on that journals investigation into the matter. By the way, have you tried to confirm with Dr Han that he actually said that?】)
稍微有点思维能力就应该知道，《自然》杂志只是发表投稿文章的刊物，不是研究机构，根本没有去验证实验的职能。
下面是我在NATURE上的评论
The following is a summary of some very heated debate in China on the Han NgAgo paper.
1. Fang's rash accusation of fraud was a mere result of his misunderstandings of the Han paper and molecular biology in general. Even one of Fang's ardent supporters pointed out to him that he misinterpreted the electrophoresis bands presented in the paper. Fang further mistook distances between target sites for DNA segment size deltas.
2. Another named person, who was Fang's main source, has been discredited in a direct online debate, for failing to consider NgAgo's effect of removing 1 to 20 nts at the target site.
3. As stated in Han's paper, the guide can be loaded only when the NgAgo protein is in the process of expression. Dr. Burgio admitted that he did not follow a starred procedure in Han's published protocol.
Thus far, the accusations of fraud have been shown to be unfounded. A single successful replication is sufficient to qualitatively vindicate Han's result. Hopefully, the suspicion and ridicule will trigger more curiosity and research to bring about more definitive answers, instead of misguided abandonment of a potentially potent tool for gene editing.
The failure of the Burgio experiment is actually a partial validation of Han's paper. Han theorized that the guides can be loaded only when NgAgo is in expression, and he taught the procedure of multiple transfection of gDNA post NgAgo. Logically, according to Han, if one loads both the same time, he or she is very likely to fail. Dr. Burgio co-injected the NgAgo and gDNA once simultaneously into mouse zygotes, and was disappointed when a new breed failed to emerge. But this is exactly what one would expect from reading Han's paper.
So far, only two named people spoke up against Han in China, one is Shimin Fang, the other I mentioned but withheld the name. Both have been thoroughly discredited, as I explained in the previous comment. As discussed above, the only fully reported experiment, that of Dr. Burgio, served to prove one of Han's findings.
The orchestrated attacks on Han in Chinese cyberspace by a small anonymous gang is disruptive of scientific and societal norms. A rational person can easily identify the logical breakdown in their deductions. The incredible stories told by these anonymous IDs are quickly dismissed as pure fabrication and defamation in China. Yet as they spread the products of their illogical minds across the internet, the gullible may regard their crude fiction as insider information. Beware.
The following is my response to some in Google groups who suspected that I am Han. No. I am not Han.
When you can't do something someone else claimed to have done, there is one distinct possibility that you ought to consider: yourself is the problem.
If you don't consider this possibility, then you are beyond help.
Han established a set of procedures in his paper, however complicated, he said it so. If you found a working shortcut, you refuted Han and you made a breakthrough.
But if you didn't follow Han and failed, you only verified his finding.
Is this logic so hard for some to grasp?
