福岡伸一氏の「フレームシフト」という日経新聞の記事を読んで何度も首をかしげてしまった（その２）
前に、福岡伸一氏の「フレームシフト」という日経新聞の記事について、こう書いた。
その続きだ。
福岡氏の記事が掲載された数日後の日経新聞に、この記事の訂正のお知らせが載った。タイトル写真がそれである。前回引用した、下の文章で、太文字の部分が間違いだったというのだ。
実際、mRNAワクチンの投与を受けた⼈の抗体を調べてみると、フレームシフトの結果⽣じたと考えられる非ウイルスタンパク質に対する抗体が一部生成されていた。
正しくは以下だという。
実際、mRNAワクチンの投与を受けた⼈の抗体を調べてみると、フレームシフトの結果⽣じたと考えられる非ウイルスタンパク質に対して免疫系の初期反応が起きていた。
これは元の論文のこのあたりの部分をさしていると思われる。
We reasoned that +1 ribosomal frameshifting during recombinant antigen mRNA translation could lead to presentation of +1 frameshifted products to T cells, and elicit off-target cellular immune responses.
(omitted)
The main in-frame mRNA-encoded product is unlikely to elicit an adaptive immune response, but presentation of +1 frameshifted products could activate T cells that target host cells.
間違いに気づいたのが、福岡氏本人か、他者なのかは不明である。
過ちて改めざる、これを過ちという
孔子が言うとおりではあるが、「これはたいへん重要な知⾒である」と福岡氏が言うほどのものなら、記事を載せる前に気づくべきであった。
掲載前に、この記事は誰かのレビューを受けたのだろうか？
日本経済新聞社は、『日経サイエンス』という科学雑誌を出しているが、日経新聞の編集部には、科学専門の記者はいないのかもしれない。
福岡氏の記事には、リボゾーム、mRNA、コドン、フレームシフト、ウリジン、メチル化など生物学の用語が多数現れる。
私が高校で習った生物の教科書には、リボゾームやmRNAは載っていたが、それ以外の単語は習っていない。
２０２１年発行の実教出版の高校「生物」の教科書には、コドンやフレームシフトなどは載っているが、ウリジン、メチル化などは載っていない
（ついでに言うと、今の教科書は結構難しくて、説明を聞かないとわからない。生物の教科を学ぶ高校生は大変だ）。
ひょっとして、福岡氏が書いた他の部分も不正確かもしれないが、私は元の論文を理解できないので確認できない。間違いがないかどうかを元の論文と照合するためには、高校より上の生物学の知識が必要だろう。
福岡氏は、「できるだけ例え話ではなく論⽂の意義を解き明かしてみたい」「細部のロジックこそが重要になる」と言うが、学術用語の説明もないのに記事を理解できる人がどれほどいるだろうか？
それに、訂正記事は必ずしも、対象の記事を読んだ人すべてが読むわけではない。
福岡氏は、他人の手を借りてでも、「できるだけ」最初から正しい記事を載せることをこころがけるべきだろう。
When I read the Nikkei Shimbun article titled "Frameshift” by Shinichi Fukuoka, I had many questions (Part 2)
Previously, I wrote this article following about Shinichi Fukuoka's article in the Nikkei Shimbun called "Frameshift."
This is the continuation of that.
A few days after Fukuoka's article was published, a notice of correction to the article appeared in the Nikkei Shimbun. That's the title photo. In the sentence below that I quoted last time, the part in bold was incorrect.
In fact, when we examined antibodies in people who received the mRNA vaccine, we found that some antibodies were produced against non-viral proteins, which are thought to have arisen as a result of frameshifting.
The correct sentence is below.
In fact, when we examined antibodies in people who received the mRNA vaccine, we found that the immune system's initial response was directed against non-viral proteins thought to be the result of frameshifting.
This seems to refer to this part of the original paper.
We reasoned that +1 ribosomal frameshifting during recombinant antigen mRNA translation could lead to presentation of +1 frameshifted products to T cells, and elicit off-target cellular immune responses.
(omitted)
The main in-frame mRNA-encoded product is unlikely to elicit an adaptive immune response, but presentation of +1 frameshifted products could activate T cells that target host cells.
It is unclear whether it was Mr. Fukuoka himself or someone else who noticed the mistake.
To err and not change one's ways, this is what it is to err.
Confucius is right, but if Mr. Fukuoka was serious enough to say, "This is very important knowledge," he should have realized this before publishing the article.
Was this article reviewed by anyone before it was published?
The Nihon Keizai Shimbun publishes a science magazine called "Nikkei Science," but the editorial department of the Nikkei Shimbun may not have a reporter specializing in science.
Many biological terms appear in Fukuoka's article, including ribosome, mRNA, codon, frameshift, uridine, and methylation.
The biology textbook I studied in high school included ribosome and mRNA, but I didn't learn any other words.
The high school biology textbook published by Jikkyo Publishing in 2021 covers things like codons and frameshifts, but not uridine, methylation (By the way, current textbooks are quite difficult. You won't understand without an explanation. It's difficult for high school students who study biology subjects).
It's possible that other parts of what Mr. Fukuoka wrote are also inaccurate, but I can't confirm that because I don't understand the original paper.
In order to check the original paper for errors, you would need to have knowledge of biology beyond high school level.
Mr. Fukuoka says, "I want to try to explain the significance of the paper as much as possible, rather than relying on analogies" and "It's the logic of the details that is important".
But how many people can understand this article without any explanation of academic terminology?
Additionally, corrected articles are not necessarily read by everyone who read the original article. Mr. Fukuoka should try to publish correct articles from the beginning as much as possible, even with the help of others.