Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 213

Thread: Please post all Dr. Hwang Woo Suk articles and comments in this thread

  1. #11

  2. #12
    Now that Seoul National University has completed their investigation and concluded that Woo-Suk Hwang has fabricated all the data in his 2004 and 2005 human embryonic stem cell studies, I think that it is appropriate to comment.

    What has happened is unethical and unacceptable. Dr. Woo-Suk Hwang not only fabricated data and lied about it, he misled many vulnerable people, including people with spinal cord injury, to believe that he would cure them when he knew that it was all fake. He falsely accused colleagues of sabotaging his experiments, blamed mistakes such as substituted pictures on other scientists, and damaged the careers of his younger colleagues. He lied to and betrayed collaborators. He damaged the field. In short, he has committed the most egregious sins that a scientist can.

    When the news of Hwang's scientific fraud first appeared, most U.S. scientists (including myself) could not believe it, in part because we cannot conceive of such wholesale scientific fraud occuring in the United States. For example, I cannot imagine any U.S. scientist requesting or ordering a student, a junior colleague, or another faculty member to fake data, or anybody who would agree to do so. You can fool some of the people some of the time but not so many people so completely and for so long.

    Hwang not only hurt himself and betrayed the trust of colleagues and friends but severely damaged the careers of young people who worked for him and eroded public trust in science. He hurt millions of people who had put their hope in his work. I have seen him look directly into the eyes of people with spinal cord injury and say that he would cure them, knowing that he had faked the results. These are not just acts of an ambitious man who is willing to cut a few corners here and there. These are inexcusable acts that show the depths of his depravity.

    Evidence also appears to have emerged that Hwang maintained a coercive atmosphere in the laboratory which induced several women in his laboratory to donate eggs to the experiments. After initially denying it, Hwang has now admitted that junior colleagues in his laboratory had donated eggs. One woman has indicated that Hwang forced her to donate her eggs after she had mistakenly spilled some ova in experiments in 2003. Finally, there are suggestions that he may have reached an agreement with the women to not publicize their egg donations. Such behavior is not only unethical but may break criminal laws.

    Should he be punished? Woo-Suk Hwang has lost the most precious assets that an academic scientist possesses: his credibility, integrity, and tenure. He will not be able to do science again, certainly will not be believed or trusted, and will undoubtedly lose his job as well. He will be subject to the scorn of a nation that he has betrayed. He may be prosecuted for breaking laws, including misuse of government funds and abusing junior colleagues. In my opinion, he is being and will be severely punished for what he did.

    The more important question is what can be done to prevent such unethical conduct in the future. The scandal exposed three serious deficits in Korean science:
    1. Inadequate ethics training. I don't know whether Korean universities require ethical training of scientists but it is clearly ineffective. The U.S. National Institutes of Health requires ethics training for pre-doctoral and postdoctoral students. Even undergraduates are taught that plagiarism and data fabrication are unacceptable, how to recognize and avoid scientific misconduct, and what to do if they see it.
    2. Ineffective early detection. Korea appears to be lacking effective mechanisms to detect scientific misconduct at their universities. Scientific fraud and abuse of junior colleagues of this magnitude do not happen de novo. There were likely to have been precedent events that escaped detection or went unpunished. Early detection and prevention is the only effective way of stopping scientific misconduct before it becomes outright fraud.
    3. No whistle-blower protection. It is clear that many of Hwang's colleagues and students were unwilling or unable to criticize his reprehensible behavior. In hierarchical systems where a leader of a laboratory may have significant power over the careers of students and colleagues, there must be rigorous and well-publicized policies to protect whistle-blowers and to encourage anonymous reports of illegal and unethical behavior.

    I recommended to the Korean government that they institute the following programs immediately. First, they should require formal ethics training for science students and scientists. Second, they should install effective mechanisms for early detection and disciplining of scientists who commit misconduct. Third, they should establish rigorously maintained and publicized procedures to protect and encourage anonymous whistleblowers. For the longer term, the government should establish an Office of Research Protection and Integrity empowered to investigate and punish cases of scientific misconduct. They should establish a National Commission to assess and recommend changes of the structure of the research universities that allow such outrageous behavior.
    Last edited by Wise Young; 01-10-2006 at 07:44 AM.

  3. #13
    Dr. Young
    I agree with most of what you say, but would like to know how you feel this has been determined
    He falsely accused colleagues of sabotaging his experiments
    With all the evidence you supply for how hard it is to fake the science, I still feel somewhat unsure if he was sabotaged or not.

    I also wait to hear what Pitt decides about Schatten's role
    Don't ignore the Reeve Legacy, Remember he and Dana supported open research and fought hard for ESCR

    StemCellBattles

    Support H.R. 810

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    17,427

    Dishonesty in Science

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17563

    Thanks Wise. Here is also an interesting article by Richard Lewontin on the subject, a bit old but still valid. You have probably read it but here goes some excerpts anyway plus the link. Leif


    Scientists in training are conscious of the appropriation of credit for their work by senior scientists and they resent it but feel that they cannot protest. It is not that they place no value on the details of authorship. They will fight bitterly with colleagues of their own rank about who should be first author on jointly authored publications. Yet when they too become seniors they will engage in the same fabrications of intellectual credit. The fabrications and falsifications of scientific results that we condemn as fraud are carried out from the desire for fame, status, and economic reward. But the misappropriation of credit by senior scientists arises from the same motives. How can we expect scientists to hold literal truth about nature as an inviolable standard, when they participate, en masse, in a conscious everyday falsification about the production of that truth? That is an aspect of what Judson calls "the culture of fraud" that is far more relevant to scientific honesty than the behavior of the executives of Enron on whom most scientists claim to look with disdain.
    This comment is also interesting; maybe this was what was happening in Hwangs lab - Regardless if it is ideology or a desire for money and fame behind the scam and the manipulations here it shows also that the human itself do have weaknesses. Like Richard Lewontin also hinted here;
    The problem of the role of elite knowledge in a democracy is an old one. A version of a story in the Babylonian Talmud tells of four rabbis walking in a field, engaged in a dispute over whether an oven of a particular design can be purified. Three hold one opinion, while the fourth has the opposite view. The lone holdout appeals to God, asking that He send first thunder, then lightning, and then that the lightning strike a lone tree in the field. Although each request is granted, the others are not convinced. After all, thunder and lightning are usual natural phenomena and in a lightning storm what is more natural than that a tree standing in the middle of a field should be struck? In desperation the dissenter calls on God to speak directly to them. Sure enough, a voice from above is heard proclaiming "IT IS AS HE SAYS." "So," asks the dissenter, "what do you three have to say now?" "All right," they answer, "that makes it three to two."

  5. #15
    Banned Faye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    6,839
    the misappropriation of credit by senior scientists arises from the same motives. How can we expect scientists to hold literal truth about nature as an inviolable standard, when they participate, en masse, in a conscious everyday falsification about the production of that truth? That is an aspect of what Judson calls "the culture of fraud" that is far more relevant to scientific honesty than the behavior of the executives of Enron on whom most scientists claim to look with disdain.
    Leif, thank you for that quote.

    Dr. Young, I don't think the systems are in place in the US to rule out fraud in science either,or even lessen it. In fact the environment is very conducive to fraud given that the grant application process/funding heavily favors those with the greatest volume of publications.

    Maybe there is less of a coercive atmosphere in laboratories in the US, but even that can't be ruled out either in the US.

    It usually takes a long time before fraud is discovered and many never get discovered.

    For every Enron discovered, many go undiscovered. I'm sure it's the same in the scientific community.

    You can have all the rules and regulations in place,.....(including peer review), but without proper enforcement abuse is always possible.

    "There’s far too much unthinking respect given to authority,” Molly Ivins explained; “What you need is sustained outrage.”
    Kerr, Keirstead, McDonald, Stice and Jun Yan courageously work on ESCR to Cure SCI.

    Divisiveness comes from not following Christopher Reeve's ESCR lead.
    Young does ASCR.
    [I]I do not tear down CRPA, I ONLY make peopl

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    17,427
    At least 10 percent of what appears in our leading journals, while certainly not fraudulent, is, however, incomplete, inadequate and even incompetent. In this milieu, if scientific fraud is not increasing, it will be. The victims will be all of us." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DG2IGCOIT1.DTL
    Says Horace Freeland Judson in the book "The great betrayal Fraud in Science". But are we always victims due to this? Of course the Hwang gate is not good for the specific science but at least more people now are aware of this science and the research in the field – isn’t it possible that something good will come out if this due to this fact? Leif

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by bigbob
    Dr. Young
    I agree with most of what you say, but would like to know how you feel this has been determined


    With all the evidence you supply for how hard it is to fake the science, I still feel somewhat unsure if he was sabotaged or not.

    I also wait to hear what Pitt decides about Schatten's role
    BigBob,

    As you know, it is only with great reluctance and a sense of disbelief that I came to the conclusion that Hwang fabricated data and falsely accused his collaborators of sabotage. If some cell lines did not show the DNA that would be consistent with being cloned stem cells, if there were any evidence that he had successfully cloned human stem cell lines, or if there were any evidence of sabotage, I would have given the benefit of the doubt. But, unfortunately, there is no evidence that he has succeeded in cloning *any* human embryonic stem cells. Even the earliest frozen cells reported in his 2004 and 2005 papers could not be verified. This indicates that all the data was fabricated. Once this was established, one cannot avoid the conclusion that he falsely accused his colleages of sabotage. If he faked all the data, how can he then accuse colleagues of sabotage? There was nothing to sabotage!

    Wise.

  8. #18
    Faye, I disagree with you. The environment in the United States is not conducive to scientific fraud. As I explained earlier, I don't believe that it is possible for a scientist to conduct wholesale fabrication of this extent without being discovered and punished. I have already said that misconduct can and do occur in small laboratories where one investigator may be working alone. However, in large laboratories, data fabrication would not be possible, let alone sustained and massive fraud at this level.

    In addition to a culture that regards scientific misconduct as absolutely unacceptable, peer review and, most important of all, scientific verification of experimental results are both effective and efficient in preventing data falsification. Regarding Judson, I know him and worked with him. I respect him and am grateful for his work uncovering and providing a history of scientific fraud because they serve as a lesson to all of us. However, we should remember that very few cases of scientific fraud occur despite millions of papers that are published every year. While there have been several surveys suggesting that as many as 10% of the papers published every year show some form of scientific misconduct, most of these are relatively minor and do not cast doubt on the data presented or the conclusons of the papers.

    Wise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Faye
    Leif, thank you for that quote.

    Dr. Young, I don't think the systems are in place in the US to rule out fraud in science either,or even lessen it. In fact the environment is very conducive to fraud given that the grant application process/funding heavily favors those with the greatest volume of publications.

    Maybe there is less of a coercive atmosphere in laboratories in the US, but even that can't be ruled out either in the US.

    It usually takes a long time before fraud is discovered and many never get discovered.

    For every Enron discovered, many go undiscovered. I'm sure it's the same in the scientific community.

    You can have all the rules and regulations in place,.....(including peer review), but without proper enforcement abuse is always possible.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young
    Faye, I disagree with you. The environment in the United States is not conducive to scientific fraud. As I explained earlier, I don't believe that it is possible for a scientist to conduct wholesale fabrication of this extent without being discovered and punished. I have already said that misconduct can and do occur in small laboratories where one investigator may be working alone. However, in large laboratories, data fabrication would not be possible, let alone sustained and massive fraud at this level.

    In addition to a culture that regards scientific misconduct as absolutely unacceptable, peer review and, most important of all, scientific verification of experimental results are both effective and efficient in preventing data falsification. Regarding Judson, I know him and worked with him. I respect him and am grateful for his work uncovering and providing a history of scientific fraud because they serve as a lesson to all of us. However, we should remember that very few cases of scientific fraud occur despite millions of papers that are published every year. While there have been several surveys suggesting that as many as 10% of the papers published every year show some form of scientific misconduct, most of these are relatively minor and do not cast doubt on the data presented or the conclusons of the papers.

    Wise.
    Thank you Wise. My apologizes for any perceived disrespect.
    Rick

    GO FORWARD! 2 FIGHT! PARALYSIS!

  10. #20

    Seoul Universitys Final Summary

    http://www.bio.com/newsfeatures/news...l?cid=15800086


    Seoul National University: Summary of the Final Report on Hwang's Research Allegation 01/10/06 -- The Seoul National University Investigation Committee, initially organized to investigate the claims of scientific misconducts associated with the research article published in 2005 in the journal Science by Professor Woo Suk Hwang and co-workers (Hwang et al., 2005), expanded its scope of investigation to determine the facts and truth regarding another article in the same journal published in 2004, the cloned dog, Snuppy, the technical expertise of Professor Hwang's research team, and the process of obtaining human eggs.

    Today we submit the final report based on our investigative effort from December 15th of 2005 to January 9th of 2006. ?Here is a brief summary of our report.


    1. 2005 Science paper
    (Hwang WS, Roh SI, Lee BC, Kang SK, Kwon DK, et al. 2005. Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts. Science 308: 1777-1783)
    This article claimed that 11 human embryonic stem cell lines have been established through transfer of somatic cell nuclei. ?In interim reports we issued previously, we already reported that data from only two embryonic stem (ES) cell lines have been used for this publication and that even these two lines are not derived via somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) but from in vitro fertilized (IVF) eggs. ?The stem cells that Professor Hwang claims to have created subsequent to the 2005 publication were also turned out to have originated from frozen fertilized eggs and not from cloned blastocysts. ?The data in 2005 article including test results from DNA fingerprinting, photographs of teratoma, embryoid bodies, MHC-HLA isotype matches and karyotyping have all been fabricated. The method and process of fabrication are described in the report. In conclusion, the research team of Professor Hwang does not possess patient-specific stem cell lines or any scientific bases for claiming having created one.


    2. 2004 Science paper
    (Hwang WS, Ryu YJ, Park JH, Park ES, Lee EG, et al. 2004. Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. Science 303: 1669-1674)
    The investigation on the 2004 Science paper in which the establishment of the first human ES cell line from cloned blastocyst was reported was initiated in response to various doubts raised on photographs of the cells and results from DNA fingerprinting analyses.
    The committee has undertaken DNA fingerprinting analyses on the samples obtained from the ES cell line in question (NT-1), teratoma allegedly derived from NT-1, and the donor (donor A) of the egg and somatic cell. ?The DNA samples for the ES cell line included those from 20 subcultured NT-1 cell lines in culture or in frozen state from Professor Hwang's laboratory, one deposited to the Korean Cell Line Bank for the purpose of securing a patent, one maintained in Professor Shin Yong Moon's laboratory at SNU, and one maintained in the MizMedi Hospital. ?The 23 samples were examined by three independent test centers, and all three centers have obtained identical results.
    The teratoma, the cell line deposited in the Korean Cell Line Bank, and the cell lines maintained in Professor Moon's laboratory and in the MizMedi Hospital all showed an identical fingerprinting pattern. ?Among the twenty independent subcultures from Professor Hwang's laboratory, nine produced the identical pattern to the aforementioned three samples, but the other eleven produced a distinct pattern that was in fact identical to the fingerprinting pattern of MizMedi ES cell line #5 derived from IVF egg. ?The fingerprinting pattern of NT-1 line is quite distinct from what was reported in the 2004 Science article. ?While the fingerprinting pattern of the anonymous donor A, the source of the somatic and egg cells according to Professor Hwang's team, was identical to what was reported in the Science article, it was clearly different from that of NT-1 line. ?Therefore, NT-1 ES cell line was not derived from nuclear transfer using somatic cells from the donor A as claimed in the report.
    NT-1 was shown to be distinct from all of IVF-ES cell lines MizMedi Hospital had produced. ?The committee has thus attempted to determine its origin by obtaining blood samples from two other individuals who donated their eggs and cumulus cells at about the same time and comparing the DNA fingerprinting patterns. One of the donors, the anonymous donor B, appeared to show a certain association with NT-1. That the donor B and NT-1 show an identical mitochondrial DNA fingerprinting pattern indicated that she is the donor of the egg. ?However, of the 48 nuclear polymorphic loci tested, 40 gave results that indicate the nuclear identity of NT-1 cells and donor B cells while eight gave results that point to the contrary. ?If NT-1 is derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer, all 48 polymorphism markers must be identical between the donor B cells and NT-1 cells. ?That eight are inconsistent implies that NT-1 is not an ES cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. ?The eight markers were heterozygous in donor B blood but homozygous in NT-1. These data suggest that there is a high possibility that NT-1 resulted from the fusion of a non-enucleated egg and a nearby polar body, which initiated a parthenogenetic process.
    The claim in 2004 article that the DNA fingerprinting pattern of NT-1 and that of the donor A match perfectly was a clear false report. Given that none of the alleged NT-1 derived cells or tissues match the donor A, the committee concluded that NT-1 ES cell line reported in Science in 2004 is not an ES cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. In addition, claims that photographs of cells in 2004 Science article are those of MizMedi ES cells have also been confirmed to be true. Therefore, the committee concluded that results described in 2004 Science article including DNA fingerprinting analyses and photographs of cells have also been fabricated.


    3. Verity of the cloned dog, Snuppy
    We also carried out DNA fingerprinting analyses on the cloned dog Snuppy whose generation has been published in Nature in 2005 (Lee BC, Kim MK, Jang G, Oh HJ, Yuda F, et al. 2005. ?Dogs cloned from adult somatic cells. Nature 436: 641). ?We obtained somatic tissue from the egg donor, blood samples from Snuppy, from Tie, the dog that provided somatic cells, and from the surrogate mother and engaged three independent test centers for the analyses. ?Results from analyses of 27 markers that allow distinguishing amongst extremely-inbred animals and of mitochondrial DNA sequencing indicate that Snuppy is a somatic cell clone of Tie. ??


    4. Propriety of procedure in acquiring and using human eggs
    Information obtained from computer files and notes of Professor Hwang's laboratory members, from records of egg donation by four hospitals including the MizMedi Hospital, and from interviews with relevant personnel confirmed that from November of 2002 to November of 2005, a total of 2061 eggs from 129 females have been collected from four hospitals and provided to Professor Hwang's team. ?The exact accounting for the number of eggs used for each of Science articles is impossible as the initiation date for each project is uncertain and laboratory recording is not thorough. ?However, while the 2005 article claims to have used 185 eggs, laboratory notes indicated that at least 273 eggs have been used from September 17 of 2004 to February 7 of 2005. ?
    Regarding the article in 2004, Professor Hwang claimed to have been unaware of the egg donation by the laboratory members. ?However, the graduate student who donated eggs informed the committee that the act of donation, while voluntary, was approved by Professor Hwang. ?Egg aspiration was carried out by Dr. Sung Il Roh on March 10 of 2003 at MizMedi Hospital, and notably, Professor Hwang accompanied the student to the hospital himself. ?In May of 2003, Professor Hwang's research team circulated a form asking consent for voluntary egg donation and collected signature from female technicians. ?This is based on information provided by eight current and former lab members.


    5. The evaluation on the technical expertise of Professor Hwang's research team
    The ES cells from somatic cell nuclear transfer are established through three main stages: the nuclear transfer, blastocyst formation, and establishment of the cell line. ?In order to be used for treatment of patients, cells from the established cell lines must be able to differentiate into desired cell types and to function in an effective manner in vivo and must be free of tumorigenic potential.

    5-1. Nuclear transfer:
    Professor Hwang's research team is one of the most active team internationally in performing nuclear transfer using eggs from animals such as pigs and cows. ?There are approximately 100 technical experts in this procedure in various veterinary institutions in Korea including those in Professor Hwang's laboratory. ?Thus, when it comes to animal cloning, with the added consideration for the successful cloning of a dog, Korea seems to be internationally competitive. ?The squeezing technique utilized in enucleation of human eggs is highly efficient in Hwang's team, but has long been used for the same purpose in animal eggs and thus cannot be considered unique or novel. ?

    5-2. Cloned blastocyst formation:
    According to Professor Hwang's record, a success rate of 10% is claimed for blastocyst formation following human nuclear transfers. ?However, a close examination of the data indicated that most of blastocysts are in poor condition. Some nevertheless appear to have successfully developed into blastocysts, implying that the team was in possession of technique of creating cloned human blastocyst. ?

    5-3. Establishment of stem cell lines:
    According to the records of Professor Hwang's research team regarding the stage of cell line establishment, the scientific bases for claiming any success are wholly lacking. ?The establishment of ES cell lines must meet the criteria of being able to differentiate through embryoid body formation or to form teratoma, for example. ?However, Professor Hwang's team regarded the initial formation of cell colony as the successful establishment of ES cell line, and no record of further confirmatory experiments could be found. ?

    Taken together, Professor Hwang's research team possesses neither the patient-specific ES cell line described in 2005 publication nor the NT-1 ES cell line, the forerunner cloned cell line described in 2004 publication. ?The data in 2004 publication are also fabricated as can be seen by the non-match between the donor A and NT-1. ?Such act is none other than deceiving the scientific community and the public at large. ?Even the scenario based on switching cell lines cannot explain the parthenogenetically derived cell line and cannot undo the fabrication of DNA fingerprinting data.

    Not all the wrongdoing of all the individuals associated with fabricated publications can be revealed by this committee. ?However, that the publications are fabricated alone mandates a severe penalty by the academia. ?These individuals cannot be regarded to represent science in Korea. ?We have numerous well-qualified researchers whose works are globally recognized, and we also have a world-class research capability in biological sciences that will ensure a successful partaking in the field of stem cell biology. ?Our judgment is thus that the scandalous case of Woo Suk Hwang and cloned ES cells will not have a large impact on the effort of the scientific community in Korea. ?Rather, we are certain that this learning experience will be a stepping stone for better execution and management of scientific research and contribute to scientific advancement in this country. ?The young scientists who courageously pointed out the fallacy and precipitated the initiation of this investigation are our hope for the future. ?We would like to express our gratitude to those who supported the effort of this committee and provided critical assistance. ?

    written and reported by SNU Investigation Committee (Chairman Chung Myung-hee)

    Source: Seoul National University
    Last edited by Cherry; 01-10-2006 at 02:28 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 07-09-2008, 09:48 PM
  2. Replies: 80
    Last Post: 03-22-2006, 05:25 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-14-2005, 07:33 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-13-2003, 10:01 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-09-2002, 04:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •