Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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

    Comment


    • #17
      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.

      Comment


      • #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.

        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.

        Comment


        • #19
          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!

          Comment


          • #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, 02:28 PM.

            Comment


            • #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!

              Comment


              • #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

                Comment


                • #23
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #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

                      Comment


                      • #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.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          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, 07:58 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Did He act alone?

                            Comment


                            • #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, 11:51 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                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, 04:42 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X