Page 3 of 22 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 213

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

  1. #21

    Latest bbc article

    The fall from grace was inevitable

    But, as Donald Kennedy suggests, there appear to be few options for fundamental changes to the peer review process that would make it harder for fraudulent papers to enter the scientific literature.

    "Thousands of papers are reviewed every week, and peer review works usually," says Ms Wager.

    "There aren't any alternative models to peer review. It's a bit like democracy: it's a lousy system but it's the best one we have.
    "There are always cases that seem to get through, especially in areas where everyone wants the results to be true."

    The leading British geneticist and author Professor Steve Jones commented: "The odd thing about this is that this was such a high profile claim that people were bound to try to repeat his work sooner or later and would not be able to do it; so he would be found out.

    "Let's remember that his cloned dog seems to be real, so he's got a lot of scientific credibility, and you can't blame the scientific community for having taken the rest of his results on face value. "Maybe they should have been feeling more cynical, but again that terrible illness called optimism is out there all the time."


    Lots more on link
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4600402.stm


    I don't want to be cured of optimism though!

  2. #22

    Media template

    Tuesday, January 10, 2006

    The Hwang Media Template

    It is amazing how similar every story I have read on the Hwang fraud follows the same template, including this AP report. Ditto this New York Times story that ran on the front page below the fold.

    1) Report the facts that Hwang is a fraud, but don't accurately describe the process of cloning;

    2) Have scientists assure that the field will go forward, perhaps with even more vigor.

    3) Describe the dashed hopes of people with degenerative conditions, but do not breathe a word about the adult stem cell research that offers at least as much, if not more, hope to these people--and sooner.

    The AP story has an ironic twist. It quotes Australian stem cell researcher Alan Trounson as wondering how a scientist could lie. But as described in detail in Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World, he was forced to apologize himself after testifying before a parliamentary committee that embryonic stem cells had helped mice to walk, when the experiment in question hadn't involved ES cells.

    Still no meaningful exploration of the history of hype surrounding cloning and ES cell research, whether the peer review system needs reform, the politicization of science, etc.

    Thank goodness we have alternative media.

    posted by Wesley J. Smith



    http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/200...-template.html

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by rickhemi
    Thank you Wise. My apologizes for any perceived disrespect.
    Rick,

    You are welcome. No disrespect was perceived. I wanted to wait until the Seoul National University investigation was over before I commented at length. The information was more devastating than I could have imagined. The investigation showed that Hwang engaged in deliberate and wholesale fabrication of all the reports related to cloned human stem cells in 2004 and 2005. Given that he knew that he had fabricated the data, his behavior towards colleagues and people with diseases is particularly reprehensible. Likewise, I find his treatment of junior colleagues and particularly women to be unacceptable.

    Wise.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Cherrylips
    Tuesday, January 10, 2006

    The Hwang Media Template

    It is amazing how similar every story I have read on the Hwang fraud follows the same template, including this AP report. Ditto this New York Times story that ran on the front page below the fold.

    1) Report the facts that Hwang is a fraud, but don't accurately describe the process of cloning;

    2) Have scientists assure that the field will go forward, perhaps with even more vigor.

    3) Describe the dashed hopes of people with degenerative conditions, but do not breathe a word about the adult stem cell research that offers at least as much, if not more, hope to these people--and sooner.

    The AP story has an ironic twist. It quotes Australian stem cell researcher Alan Trounson as wondering how a scientist could lie. But as described in detail in Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World, he was forced to apologize himself after testifying before a parliamentary committee that embryonic stem cells had helped mice to walk, when the experiment in question hadn't involved ES cells.

    Still no meaningful exploration of the history of hype surrounding cloning and ES cell research, whether the peer review system needs reform, the politicization of science, etc.

    Thank goodness we have alternative media.

    posted by Wesley J. Smith



    http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/200...-template.html
    Perhaps I should point out the Wesley Smith template. That template usually starts with an attack on embryonic stem cell research, a claim that the promise of embryonic stem cell is hyperbolic, and then an announcement that adult stem cells are already curing over 90 diseases including spinal cord injury. Often, he goes on to give the example of the nasal mucosa procedure in Lisbon as evidence of the cure of spinal cord injury by adult stem cells.

    Wise.

  5. #25

    This won't set us back, experts predict


    Scandal Won't Kill Stem Cells' Promise, Advocates Say
    South Korean fraud is disappointing but the dream remains alive, they contend


    What had once seemed a giant leap for science has turned out to be not even the smallest of steps -- for now.

    Seoul National University's announcement this week that all of Dr. Hwang Woo-suk's apparently ground-breaking research in human stem cells was faked closes a bitter chapter in the quest to find more and better remedies for human illnesses.

    Hwang's only legitimate claim is having cloned the world's first dog, Snuppy.

    For those who have pinned their professional and personal hopes on stem cells, the shocking disclosure means this area of research is headed back to square one.

    "We're back to the beginning in terms of trying to achieve somatic cell nuclear transfer," said Dr. Susan Okie, a contributing editor with the New England Journal of Medicine.

    Research is being reset to "where we were before, where using somatic cell nuclear transfer to derive stem cells is only a theoretical possibility," added David Magnus, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethnics. "We're hopeful, but whether it's possible and how long it's going to take is something that is now a complete unknown. This really is a setback in a lot of ways."

    The setback is not a death knell for the field, however, experts predicted.

    "I think these kinds of experiments will succeed," said Dr. Darwin Prockop, director of the Center for Gene Therapy at Tulane University Health Sciences Center in New Orleans. "They will
    eventually succeed and perhaps sometime soon."

    http://www.healthday.com/view.cfm?id=530178

    more on link

  6. #26
    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.
    He is responsible for developing the technology necessary to clone a dog so some of his work was legitimate. That alone made him a celebrity, wonder why he felt the need to falsify the data regarding the other technologies.

    The university made the announcements as it released the final results into its investigation of Hwang's cloning research. Pitt also has its own investigation of Dr. Schatten underway. Unlike the South Korean panel, which regularly reports to the public on its progress, the six-member Pitt panel is doing its work in secret, following guidelines of the National Institutes of Health's Office of Research Integrity. Pitt officials have indicated that panel may finish its work late this month.
    I'm interested in the outcome too. As Dr. Young said, the other scientists involved must have known what was going on and chose to look the other way.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    17,427

    Advocates hold out hope for stem cells

    http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky...h/13593591.htm


    Posted on Tue, Jan. 10, 2006
    Advocates hold out hope for stem cells

    MALCOLM RITTER

    Associated Press


    NEW YORK - Having spent 23 years in a wheelchair, Wall Street analyst Henry Stifel keeps a close eye on spinal cord research. And he says the latest scientific scandal in South Korea has not dimmed his hope that stem cells may one day help people like him.

    "Some research was discredited. It doesn't discredit all the research that's been achieved," said Stifel, who is quadriplegic.

    Moira McCarthy Stanford of Plymouth, Mass., whose 14-year-old daughter is diabetic and uses an insulin pump, had a more personal reaction to the news that South Korean researcher Hwang Woo-suk had fabricated results for a landmark 2004 stem-cell paper.

    "It's kind of sad a scientist would do this to people like us," she said. But "I know so many scientists are out there who are honest and working hard to move this forward, that this (fraud) will all be a distant memory in a couple years."

    Diabetes, spinal cord injury and Parkinson's disease are among the conditions scientists hope to treat someday by using embryonic stem cells. Officials of disease advocacy groups said Tuesday that they remained optimistic that stem cells will play a role in future treatment.

    Some also said the Korean scandal shows stem cell work should be encouraged in the United States.

    Hwang's fraud was revealed Monday night by an investigatory panel at Seoul National University, where Hwang claimed in 2004 his lab had cloned a human embryo and extracted stem cells from it.

    That made headlines because such "therapeutic cloning" could lead to supplies of stem cells that are a genetic match for particular patients. If those cells could be turned into the appropriate tissue, it could theoretically be transplanted into patients as a treatment without fear of rejection.

    But Hwang's announcement was a sham, the university panel found. (On the other hand, Hwang's separate claim last August - the first cloning of a dog - was legitimate, investigators said.) Last month, the same panel declared that last year's blockbuster paper by Hwang, in which he claimed he created 11 stem cell lines genetically matched to specific patients through embryo cloning, was also a fraud.

    Both faked papers had been published by the journal Science, which said Tuesday it is reviewing its methods of handling scientific manuscripts. "We are determined to do everything in our power to evaluate our own procedures for detecting research misconduct," editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy said.

    Hwang hasn't appeared in public since last month, when he said he would resign his faculty position. His whereabouts are unknown. With the discrediting of his papers, there is now no documented recovery of stem cells from cloned human embryos.

    Stem cells can also be extracted from ordinary, uncloned human embryos, and advocates say that route could also lead to disease treatments. But that is controversial because it involves destroying the embryos. The Bush administration has banned federal funding for research on stem cell lines developed after August 2001.

    That has been the main barrier to embryonic stem cell research in the United States, but the news of Hwang's fraud might give new support to calls for relaxing that ban, said Robin Elliott, executive director of the Parkinson's Disease Foundation.

    Perhaps "people will feel you cannot outsource this kind of science, that you need to have things going on in what is by far the world's most prolific scientific engine," he said.

    "We do have to go back some steps and start over on this particular avenue that Hwang was exploring. The question is, why should this not be done here?"

    Stanford, the mother of the diabetic daughter, said she remains hopeful that stem cell research will produce new treatments for diabetes.

    She recalled that when Hwang announced his now-discredited results in 2004, "that was literally a day when parents like me jumped up and down and cheered, and we were buzzing back and forth across the Internet.

    "Now it's disappointing to know we were scammed by someone. But at the same time ... I think there's going to be another day that we jump up and down, and that time it will be the real thing."
    This has been MY point the whole time...(to do it in the West)...

    Some also said the Korean scandal shows stem cell work should be encouraged in the United States.
    and this...
    That has been the main barrier to embryonic stem cell research in the United States, but the news of Hwang's fraud might give new support to calls for relaxing that ban, said Robin Elliott, executive director of the Parkinson's Disease Foundation.
    Maybe something good can come out of this at the end?
    Last edited by Leif; 01-10-2006 at 07:58 PM.

  8. #28
    Did He act alone?
    Don't ignore the Reeve Legacy, Remember he and Dana supported open research and fought hard for ESCR

    StemCellBattles

    Support H.R. 810

  9. #29
    Scientists can be quite righteous about honesty in their profession. They typically claim that fraud is very rare, much less common than in other occupations. This belief is made possible initially by the definition of corrupt behaviour, limiting it to particular extreme cases of misrepresentation such as blatant and detectable altering or manufacturing of data. Such behaviour is defined as terrible and punishable. It is conveniently defined as being quite distinct from the wide range of other misrepresentations and biases that pervade scientific practice.
    The focus on a few individual violators serves two important purposes. First, it divides the scientific community into the guilty and the innocent by heaping large amounts of contempt on the few singled out as violators. In this way it binds together the majority of members of the community, reaffirming their essential virtue. Second, it isolates a few behaviours as corrupt, and implicitly stamps others as blameless. In this way the interests of corporate and government patrons of science, and of scientific elites themselves, are less likely to come under attack. They benefit from the perception that corruption has to do with what is called 'scientific fraud' and not with obvious misrepresentations and biases which serve their interests.
    http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92prom.html

    Based on this article and Hwangs popularity it is so inconceivable that he has been found to be a Fraud so quickly, Even so, if he knew he was wrong didn't he realise no one would be able to replicate his work?

    It still bogles my mind, if as it appears now, he is guilty, how he thought he could get away with it. This was something that either is or isn't, it's not like exaggerating results to show better outcome which might not be detected.
    Last edited by bigbob; 01-10-2006 at 11:51 PM.
    Don't ignore the Reeve Legacy, Remember he and Dana supported open research and fought hard for ESCR

    StemCellBattles

    Support H.R. 810

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by bigbob
    http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92prom.html

    Scientists can be quite righteous about honesty in their profession. They typically claim that fraud is very rare, much less common than in other occupations. This belief is made possible initially by the definition of corrupt behaviour, limiting it to particular extreme cases of misrepresentation such as blatant and detectable altering or manufacturing of data. Such behaviour is defined as terrible and punishable. It is conveniently defined as being quite distinct from the wide range of other misrepresentations and biases that pervade scientific practice.

    The focus on a few individual violators serves two important purposes. First, it divides the scientific community into the guilty and the innocent by heaping large amounts of contempt on the few singled out as violators. In this way it binds together the majority of members of the community, reaffirming their essential virtue. Second, it isolates a few behaviours as corrupt, and implicitly stamps others as blameless. In this way the interests of corporate and government patrons of science, and of scientific elites themselves, are less likely to come under attack. They benefit from the perception that corruption has to do with what is called 'scientific fraud' and not with obvious misrepresentations and biases which serve their interests.
    Based on this article and Hwangs popularity it is so inconceivable that he has been found to be a Fraud so quickly, Even so, if he knew he was wrong didn't he realise no one would be able to replicate his work?

    It still bogles my mind, if as it appears now, he is guilty, how he thought he could get away with it. This was something that either is or isn't, it's not like exaggerating results to show better outcome which might not be detected.
    BigBob,

    I find the statement quoted to be disingenuous for several reasons.

    First, it is inaccurate. Scientists do not find misconduct to be "blameless". I do not condone, for example, plagiarism or failure to credit other authors for their work. If I am reviewing a paper, for example, and find that an author has taken the words of others without attribution or claimed inaccurately that they have discovered something that they did not, I will recommend that the paper not be published until that is corrected. If the plagiarism or miscitation is flagrant and deliberate, I recommend against publication of the work.

    Second, a scientist may manipulate data in many ways besides fabrication. Data omission may be as reprehensible. For example, if a scientist finds that a treatment kills a certain percentage of the patients and the surviving patients were cured but the scientist fails to mention the mortality, I would find that almost as reprehensible as a scientist fabricating data. Omissions are unacceptable if the omitted data would have substantially changed the conclusions of the study. All scientists agree on this. This is one of the reasons why there is such controversy concerning the Cox-2 and other clinical trials where certain morbidity and mortality data were omitted from the study. To suggest that scientists find this kind of misconduct is "blameless" is wrong.

    Third, researcher bias is a human frailty. We adopt certain data collection and analysis practices to minimize researcher bias. That is why clinical trials are frequently "double-blinded". Rigorous analyses of clinical trial data generally follow two principles: the data analysis should test a priori hypotheses and should be initially based on an intention-to-treat approach. An a priori hypothesis means that the hypothesis was formulated before data are unblinded and analyzed (and in some cases collected). A hypothesis that is formed afterward is called "post-hoc". An intention-to-treat analysis is one that includes all data collected, even though there may be some reason to exclude the data. So, for example, the second National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study (NASCIS 2) tested the a priori hypothesis by segregating patients that were treated early (before the median treatment time of 8 hours) and late (after 8 hours), comparing the control and treated groups treated within these time frames. NASCIS 2 also carried out intention-to-treat analyses which included all patients that were randomized, even when we knew that when the patients did not receive the assigned treatment due to some mistake. This is the conservative approach to analysis of clinical trial data. The reasoning is that if post-hoc analyses showed a finding, further clinical trials would resolve the issues.

    You are not the only one boggled by the revelation of wholesale fabrication by Woo-Suk Hwang. Every scientist that I know has been disheartened by the revelation. I am personally particularly heart-sick over this because I met the man and admired him for his apparent passion and achievements. There have been many commentaries on why he engaged in the fabrication. The first question that most of us would ask is why an experienced scientist, and Woo-Suk Hwang can be characterized as an experienced scientist, would engage in such wholesale fraud when he knows that his findings must be replicated in other laboratories and that he would be caught eventually if his claimed findings could not be confirmed. So, Woo-Suk Hwang must be very confident that it is possible to clone human embryonic stem cells in the manner that he described and that many groups would do so after his reports, thereby burying his fabrication.

    Wise.
    Last edited by Wise Young; 01-11-2006 at 04:42 AM.

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
  •