1 The retractions came only months after BioMed Central.

The most important lesson is that incentives work. This pressure exists almost everywhere but is specially intense in China. It is as a result no surprise that the most inventive ways to video game the peer-review system to get manuscripts published attended from China. The firms mentioned above that provide fake peer evaluations all come from countries and China in Southeast Asia, and most of the authors involved with these full cases result from the same areas. But it will be a mistake to look at this as a Chinese or Asian problem. The nagging problem may be the perverse incentive systems in scientific publishing. As long as authors are rewarded for publishing many content articles and editors are rewarded for publishing them rapidly, new ways of gaming the traditional publication versions will be invented quicker than new control measures could be put in place..In Germany, the relevant research is at the mercy of strict legal rules. The voluntary moratorium should create an opportunity to discuss and set up a binding framework for ethically and legally accountable research – at international level also. When talking about the potential medical applications of genome editing, it is necessary to distinguish between non-heritable adjustments in somatic cells and heritable genetic changes in germline cells. But the debate on adjustments to the human genome is only one aspect of this newly developed region of research. A moratorium shouldn’t constitute a general restriction on methodological developments and thus disproportionately limit any promising new genome editing techniques for use in research and application.