2/ May be some other papers without COI (conflict of interest) statements as well. We will see if authors correct
Show this thread
Gattaca embryo test company corrects Nature Scientific Reports paper on predicting traits from DNA which did not disclose financial interests of the founders. (thread) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-54426-1 …pic.twitter.com/L7Ea6XQIc3
-
-
-
3/While COI discloses the *roles* of the authors in the company, does not disclose any actual financial interest/COI in the specific technology (genetic models) described in the paper. Like, who owns it -- Michigan State? The company? -- and is it being used commercially.
Show this thread -
4/ This company in the news because its genetic prediction tests for embryos, LifeView, has reached the market.https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614690/polygenic-score-ivf-embryo-dna-tests-genomic-prediction-gattaca/ …
Show this thread -
5/ Also owning a company that uses (or may use) the described models is not correctly described as a "potential conflict of interest" but just as a "conflict of interest."
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How the hell do they make that mistake? It must have been an oversight - it couldn't have been a plan in the hopes that the conflict would not be noticed. Hsu is the chief advocate for Genomic Prediction. But also, how the hell does the journal not notice before publication?
-
Lack of COI has been true of every one of the company's papers I've looked at. Hsu is also Vice-President for Research at MSU, with an office responsible for human research and COI compliance. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.