A recent study on gene therapy for aging, coauthored by renowned geneticist George Church, has been retracted. This decision was made after an internal review by Rutgers University, where several coauthors are located. The paper originally appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2022. It suggested using cytomegalovirus (CMV) as a vector for an inhalable or injectable treatment aimed at aging-related decline.
The study had garnered attention, being cited 41 times, though some citations were corrections related to its findings. Church, a Harvard and MIT professor, participated in the study’s design and advocated for larger viral vectors. His view on the retraction was mixed; he acknowledged some discrepancies in the data but stated they were minor and unlikely to invalidate the paper’s conclusions.
Elizabeth Parrish, CEO of BioViva and a coauthor, publicly disagreed with the retraction, claiming that it serves as an obstacle to legitimate longevity science. This sentiment was echoed by others in the field, who described the situation as a misunderstanding rather than an outright error. Many in the scientific community are concerned about how such retractions might stifle innovation and discourage research into impactful treatments.
Interestingly, this isn’t the first controversy for BioViva. In 2021, reports surfaced about the company administering unapproved treatments to dementia patients in Mexico. Parrish herself has undergone BioViva’s gene therapy. The company continues to advocate for its CMV-based treatments, which it claims could revolutionize disease management.
Sleuth Elisabeth Bik highlighted discrepancies in the figures, suggesting that some images appeared duplicated. This raised eyebrows in the scientific community, leading to extensive discussions on platforms like PubPeer and social media. Critics argue that peer review processes must ensure integrity and transparency to maintain public trust in scientific research.
As of now, the implications of this retraction extend beyond Church and Parrish. The debate continues about the ethics of research, commercialization of scientific findings, and ensuring that processes are robust enough to protect against misleading information. This case illustrates the delicate balance between innovation and accountability in the realm of science.
