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

    #31
    Dr Stephen Minger of Stem Cell Biology Lab, London

    gives his personal view of Hwang Woo Suk

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4599974.stm


    ..."In a way, this sorry affair damages science more than it damages stem cell research - it could have been cosmology, or physics or any other area of cell biology.
    Hopefully, people will look at this and see that the Hwang affair is an isolated incident. As a scientist, you live and die by your reputation and integrity.
    That said, because stem cell research is such a contentious and highly emotive area, it will impact on some people's attitudes. It will further reinforce the attitudes of those who are already opposed to the field, and will probably shift the positions of those who are a bit ambivalent.
    We'll just have to deal with it - and stress that the vast majority of us would never take such risks.
    This is not about making money, this is not about getting famous, this is not about signing autographs.
    This is about generating cells that might be useful in improving the quality of life for people who suffer from really serious diseases. That's my motivation.
    If I can look back in 20 years and say that my lab helped contribute to the development of human therapies, that's the reward."


    also on the BBCnews website, an article on Science and peer review
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4600402.stm
    Last edited by carbar; 11 Jan 2006, 6:12 AM.

    Comment


      #32
      Schatten's Hand in Bogus paper

      Dr. Young
      I understand how hurtful it must be to imagine what Hwang did. I also realise you are an honest and good researcher, and might expect other researchers to have the same values you have, but some don't.

      I am sure many Rearchers would also say wonderful things about Schatten, but this article puts some questions in his responsibity in this fiasco also:

      Until now, Schatten hadn't been directly connected with the 2004 research. The panel's full 49-page report, translated for the Tribune-Review by Sung Joon-Kim, a Washington, D.C., correspondent for Seoul Broadcasting Systems, reveals new details about Schatten's role in publishing the falsified 2004 paper. The report does not say whether Schatten knew the data were fraudulent.

      "Fraudulent research is a particularly disturbing event, because it threatens an enterprise built on trust," said Science editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy. "Fortunately, those cases are rare -- but they damage all of us."
      A second paper, published in June 2005, also in Science, claimed Hwang later had developed 11 embryonic stem cell lines tailored to specific patients -- a landmark finding that many hoped would be the first step toward healing patients with incurable ailments like diabetes and Parkinson's disease by using their own tissue.
      Last month, the SNU panel said there was no evidence to support the 2005 paper, prompting Science to retract the article. Schatten was listed as a senior author on the fraudulent 2005 paper.
      Yesterday's SNU report on the 2004 paper states that:
      = Schatten helped Hwang and SNU colleague Kang Sung-Keun respond to follow-up questions about the paper -- which had been submitted to Science in December 2003 -- from its peer reviewers. The paper had been submitted in May 2003 to the leading British journal Nature, but was rejected. Nature spokeswoman Ruth Francis couldn't confirm this report yesterday.

      = Schatten, who heads the Pittsburgh Development Center at Magee-Womens Research Institute, also helped arrange telephone conversations among the editors of Science, Hwang and Kang about the 2004 article.
      = Hwang offered Schatten a position as co-author of the 2004 paper, but Schatten declined.
      Pitt spokeswoman Jane Duffield said that she could not verify SNU's findings and that Schatten was not available for comment.
      A six-member panel at Pitt is investigating whether Schatten committed research misconduct in connection with Hwang's 2005 paper and another article they co-wrote in Nature purporting to have created the first cloned dog.
      The now-discredited 2004 Science paper is not part of the scope of the Pitt investigation, Duffield said.
      Pitt launched its closed-door panel in early December. It is conducting interviews and might not issue its public findings until February, Duffield said. The Pitt report originally had been expected later this month.
      With the financial support of the Magee-Womens Health Foundation, Schatten served as an adviser to help analyze, interpret and write up the results for the 2005 Science paper, but did no experiments.
      Stem cell pioneer John Gearhart said Schatten's decision to accept the responsibility as senior author of the Korean paper and promote the research without overseeing the lab work was the Pitt scientist's biggest mistake.
      "If you are a senior author, you have to do more than just accept the integrity of the scientific process that you believe is going on," said Gearhart, a professor of medicine at The John Hopkins University's McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine in Baltimore. "You have to be part and parcel to it."
      Schatten cooperated with Korean investigators, Duffield said. Their report provided a more detailed timeline of his involvement in the 2005 Science paper:
      On Jan. 4, 2005, Schatten received the data from the Korean scientists needed to write the paper, and a week and a half later met with Kang at a seminar to discuss the draft.
      On Jan. 21, 2005, Schatten sent Kang his first draft, which claimed four cloned stem cell lines and efforts to make four more.
      On March 5, 2005, Schatten received additional data from Kang that accounted for 10 cloned stem cell lines. Schatten sent the Korean researcher questions about this information. Kang's reply the next day added another cell line.
      On March 7, 2005, all 25 co-authors on the paper signed a cover letter attesting that they had read the paper and agreed with its results.
      On March 12, 2005, Schatten finished a second draft. Three days later, Schatten sent a final version claiming 11 cloned stem cell lines to Science.
      Any fallout Schatten experiences from the Korean cloning scandal should serve as a lesson to scientists seeking to engage in long-distance collaborations, said Gearhart.
      "If someone is trying to be duplicitous, it is really easy to be misled," said Sue O'Shea, a professor of cell and developmental biology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, which houses one of the nation's few centers to do research with government-limited lines of human embryonic stem cells.
      Gearhart also questioned Pitt's role in Schatten's involvement with Hwang. "University of Pittsburgh had to have given permission for Jerry to enter into that collaboration," Gearhart said. "The other issue is what information from Korea was revealed to the university for him to get the OK to work with those people." Schatten's hand in bogus paper

      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 bigbob; 11 Jan 2006, 1:11 PM.

      Comment


        #33
        They typically claim that fraud is very rare, much less common than in other occupations
        It's not only the fellow researchers that say this, it's also the many people that support the science.



        When I posted my previous reply ......."I also realise you are an honest and good researcher, and might expect other researchers to have the same values you have, but some don't"..........., I wonder if I did not preface my remark, how honest and good you are as a researcher, that many people right here on CareCure would jump up to your defense. I really don't have to wonder, I know the answer. It is this kind of thinking, based on hope, loyalty and pride, that leaves the door wide open for someone to pull off something like Hwang is being accused of. Again, I will clarify, I never would ever suspect Dr. Young of doing anything like Hwang. But, I think assuming the whole industry abides by his principles only invites incidents like what happened in South Koreato occur.
        Last edited by bigbob; 11 Jan 2006, 3:04 PM.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by bigbob
          It's not only the fellow researchers that say this, it's also the many people that support the science.

          When I posted my previous reply ......."I also realise you are an honest and good researcher, and might expect other researchers to have the same values you have, but some don't"..........., I wonder if I did not preface my remark, how honest and good you are as a researcher, that many people right here on CareCure would jump up to your defense. I really don't have to wonder, I know the answer. It is this kind of thinking, based on hope, loyalty and pride, that leaves the door wide open for someone to pull off something like Hwang is being accused of. Again, I will clarify, I never would ever suspect Dr. Young of doing anything like Hwang. But, I think assuming the whole industry abides by his principles only invites incidents like what happened in South Koreato occur.
          BigBob,

          Please be careful when you use a broad brush to tar and feather many people. Because a scientist cheated in Korea does not mean that cheating is rampant in the United States. I don't know what more I can say to convince you that scientific fraud is not only very unlikely but virtually impossible in major laboratories.

          Even if I wanted to fabricate data, I would not be able to do so in my laboratory. Too many eye-balls are looking at each experiment and the data. It is not just my honesty or integrity. It is the way the laboratory is organized and the strong culture of science in the United States. If discovered, scientific misconduct would not be tolerated by the university, other faculty, or even students. The punishment is severe. No scientist who engages in misconduct would be approved for tenure in a major research university. A tenured scientist would lose his or her grants and perhaps job as well.

          Wise.
          Last edited by Wise Young; 11 Jan 2006, 3:39 PM.

          Comment


            #35
            Disaster may spell success

            from the January 11, 2006 edition

            What's next for Korea's stem-cell research?

            A report concludes cloning results were faked, but says scandal could strengthen research in long term.

            By Donald Kirk | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

            SEOUL – Exposure of one of history's greatest medical hoaxes may, in the end, be what Korea needs to emerge as a scientific power.
            A month-long investigation suggested just that in a report released Tuesday, which saw the scandal as a "stepping stone for better execution and scientific research" that could even "contribute to scientific advancement in this country." Moreover, it added,
            The young scientists who courageously pointed out the fallacy and precipitated the initiation of this investigation are our hope for the future."



            Around the campus of Seoul National University (SNU), home to now discredited stem-cell researcher Hwang Woo-Suk, professors and researchers share that philosophical approach. The episode, many say, may mark a turning point in Korea's drive for global recognition as more than just a commercial or economic success.

            Kim Sun Young, a molecular biologist with degrees from Oxford, Harvard, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who does research in gene therapy and has founded the university's first venture company, ViroMed, worries that the government "may slow down on research in general."

            The government's first response after the final report was to pull out of a global stem-cell project set up at Seoul National University Hospital for research on individual patients. Beside abandoning a plan to provide more than $11 million for the project, the health and welfare ministry says it will look more closely into subsidies for any research - and will call for revising the law on bioethics.

            In the end, Kim sees tight ethics control as ensuring a revival in government support.

            Analysts agree the level of scientific research in Korea may well improve as a result of the experience with Hwang, though the pall of national and academic humiliation may be difficult to overcome.

            "One problem is a strict policy on supporting research," says a business school professor. "If the research does not produce results in a certain period, the funds are withdrawn.!"That fear may have driven Hwang to want to show ever greater results - even though he knew they were false, some say.
            "Most of the research is very honest," says another professor, "but funding agents put a lot of pressure on researchers."

            Kim denies, though, that the pressure is such that it would spur a brain drain of promising young scientists. Although most want to do graduate work abroad, "all want to come back to Korea," he says. The drawback, he adds, is "we don't have enough positions" for all of them.

            Kim says, moreover, that training abroad tends to elevate ethics. In his own faculty, he says, 90 percent of the faculty have studied in the United States and "have the US standard of integrity."
            Hwang's veterinary college, says Kim, is "more traditional, more conservative, and more hierarchical," all factors that gave him the power to run his lab free of restraints from peers or subordinates - and to persuade women working in the lab to serve as donors, in violation of ethics regarding stem-cell research.

            Kim does not believe, however, that professors and laboratory chiefs abuse their authority that easily.
            "We may be more conservative in this country, reflecting our culture," he says, "but we're changing a lot these days" - at a pace that's likely to quicken as prosecutors question how Hwang got so much government funding and won such acclaim before younger colleagues blew the whistle.

            more on link

            http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0111/p07s02-woap.html

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by bigbob
              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.
              In a major case of meglomaniacal delusions of granduer; Dr. Hwang was not content with "mearly" shooting himself in the foot; he has done the equivalent of turning an assault weapon on everyone who ever collaborated or associated with him professionally, no one has escaped unscathed.

              Significant and/or lasting damage too the integrity of scientific research, however, is another matter entirely. Dr. Young indicates that this is one of Hwang's major "sins". I believe that the only people who's beliefs in science were invalidated by the Hwang fiasco were those who'd held erroneous conceptions of science in the first place.

              To use the field of organized team sports as a parallel, the advent of the exposure of the planned fraud of a baseball team durring World Series playoffs does not undermine the confidence of baseball devotees. Rather, it indicates that the checks on the integrity of the Series participants, are in place and functional.

              What is called into question worldwide, is the integrity of Korean scientific research and it will be with a jaundiced eye that the rest of the world will view any significant claims made by the practitioners of those fields of specialization, for some time to come.
              Last edited by jukespin; 11 Jan 2006, 7:10 PM.
              "Sometimes I just sets and thinks...
              and sometimes I just sets.
              "

              Otis Redding I think

              Comment


                #37
                he misled many vulnerable people

                Originally posted by Wise Young
                BigBob,

                Please be careful when you use a broad brush to tar and feather many people. Because a scientist cheated in Korea does not mean that cheating is rampant in the United States. I don't know what more I can say to convince you that scientific fraud is not only very unlikely but virtually impossible in major laboratories.
                So now I am the bad boy again, with one stroke of the brush I have tared and feathered many people, and presumably I have said cheating by researchers is rampant in the United States.

                Basically, I said it is not fair to assume every other scientist is as honest as you. By over exaggerating my comment, one-you are trying to dismiss my thought, and two avoid discussing - "They typically claim that fraud is very rare, much less common than in other occupations" a remark made in an article by Brian Martin

                To assume it is almost impossible to exist is asking me to not listen to or put any credability in published reports that it exists.

                A report from on just 3 research Universities in only one area (Bay area}:

                http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable SURVEY OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT
                A Chronicle survey of the Bay Area's three most prominent research
                universities found that 38 charges of scientific misconduct have been filed
                since 1994. The allegations led to 17 investigations and eight findings of
                actual misconduct
                .
                UC Berkeley
                Charges Allegation Investigation Misconduct
                Misappropriation of research 2 0 0
                Plagiarism 5 1 0
                Violation of
                human subjects regulation 3 3 1
                Conflict of interest 2 0 0
                Other 3 0 0
                .
                UCSF
                Charges Allegation Investigation Misconduct
                Fabrication and/or
                falsification of data 6 5 3
                Fabrication of interviews 2 2 2
                Falsification of records 2 1 0
                Plagiarism 1 1 1
                .
                Stanford
                Charges Allegation Investigation Misconduct
                Fabrication and falsification 1 1 1
                Fabrication of data 2 0 0
                Falsification of data 3 2 0
                Plagiarism 6 0 0
                Other 0 1 0
                Source: Chronicle research
                Chronicle Graphic
                And, still, the verdict is not out yet on Schatten's role with Hwang.

                Here is an article from the 90's Even then there was talk of pressure to produce
                This is all about money," argues Robert Bell, an economics professor at Brooklyn College and author of Impure Science (John Wiley), a troubling--and exhaustively researched--indictment of shoddy scientific practices. "Like the Pentagon's defense contractors, the science community has evolved into another patronage system which enriches those at the top. Universities have a vested interest in not finding anyone guilty of fraud. Because if they do, they may have to return the delinquent researcher's grants. When someone blows the whistle, universities set up investigatory panels, which are almost inevitably kangaroo courts that cover up abuses."
                Indeed, science is big business, and all the awesome advances of the past two decades cost plenty. The electron microscopes, ultracentrifuges, and gene sequencers that have emerged in the past decade as standard laboratory equipment cost well into five figures. Sophisticated imaging devices, like PET scanners, cost upwards of $1 million. Laboratries like Baltimore's, where as many as 60 people--graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, technicians, and junior researchers--struggle for space, equipment, attention, and glory, require hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to run.
                Unfortunately, this dramatic escalation in costs for equipment and research comes at a time when funding sources are dwindling. Nobel laureate physicist Leon Lederman, the former president of the AAAS, conducted a recent survey of researchers at 50 universities. He calculated that 1990 federal funding for scientific research of these institutions was only 20 percent higher than in 1968, while the number of scientists has doubled. Small wonder that the jockeying for grants often looks more like Roller Derby than rivalry among highly educated professionals.
                http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl..._12508167/pg_2

                Originally posted by Wise Young
                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.


                Hard to understand why something like this can only happen outside the corrupt USA
                Last edited by bigbob; 12 Jan 2006, 12:33 AM.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Inevitability.

                  Originally posted by bigbob
                  So now I am the bad boy again, with one stroke of the brush I have tared and feathered many people, and presumably I have said cheating by researchers is rampant in the United States.

                  To assume it is almost impossible to exist is asking me to not listen to or put any credability in published reports that it exists.
                  That's not why you're "the bad boy again", Bob. You're the "bad boy" again because, well...you're the bad boy again.

                  I hope I have made myself perfectly clear.
                  Last edited by jukespin; 12 Jan 2006, 8:50 AM.
                  "Sometimes I just sets and thinks...
                  and sometimes I just sets.
                  "

                  Otis Redding I think

                  Comment


                    #39
                    If his research was all faked, what did Dr.Hwang have planned to transplant to patients when the World Stem Cell hub eventually started on humans? Dr.Young, as you know Dr.Hwang, woud you have ever expexted that he would be capable of doing this? What reason do you think he did this?

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by zokarkan
                      If his research was all faked, what did Dr.Hwang have planned to transplant to patients when the World Stem Cell hub eventually started on humans?
                      Exactly!

                      He would not have been in such a hurry to start the Stem Cell Hub if he didn't think he had the technology to do it.

                      Generally a scientist might fake research in hopes another scientist might be able to "replicate" their "supposed" discovery.

                      That way, though they never were able to do it themselves, they will be given credit for being the first.

                      Someone like that, would not rush into the establishment of a Stem Cell Hub, because he would want more time for another scientist to be able to " replicate" his findings first.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Tearful Hwang Woo-suk apologises

                        It's over...

                        Stem cell scientist Hwang Woo-suk apologised today for the "wrongdoing" which has seen the once-hailed scientist reduced to a state of total disgrace, Reuters reports.

                        Hwang told a press conference: "I take full responsibility for the papers and offer you my apology. My life will be spent undoing my wrongdoing. I can't ever repay the debt fully until I die. We've gone crazy, crazy about work and I've been blinded."

                        Hwang's wrongdoing includes fabricating data regarding the production of tailored stem cells and "coercing" female colleagues into providing eggs for stem cell research. He resigned his post at Seoul National University last December after it was revealed that key findings in a stem call paper published in Science could not be proven.

                        Hwang is now under investigation for misuse of state funds. Local media reports that police today raided his home and offices as part of the execution of 26 search warrants for "places related to the research led by Hwang's team".

                        Full Pathetic Story: The Register

                        Comment


                          #42
                          A slightly changed explanation:
                          Hwang didn't double-check DNA test results provided by three researchers, he said, apologizing at a televised press conference in Seoul today. Those named -- a former researcher on his staff and two at MizMedi Hospital -- couldn't be contacted for comment.

                          ``I ask for your forgiveness,'' Hwang said. ``I feel so miserable that it's difficult even to say sorry.''

                          Hwang's two key papers on human stem cell research were this week deemed by Seoul National University to be fakes, dashing hopes his work may advance treatments for diabetes and Parkinson's disease.

                          ``It's my fault and I will take full responsibility as the first author,'' Hwang said, referring to the 2004 and 2005 papers published in the journal Science.
                          http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aomTQZHstyN4

                          Comment


                            #43
                            “fake it ’till you make it.”

                            Naturally, however, one does wonder what Hwang’s problem is. The best quote I’ve seen (was in the international media but I can’t find it) is that he might have been trying to “fake it ’till you make it.” He needed lots of money and lots of eggs, and maybe he figured that he could really pull it off before the lies caught up with him once he had what he needed to work with
                            http://oranckay.net/blog/?p=1229

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Hwang says he "can create patient-specific stem cells in six months"

                              he insisted that most of the fabrications were carried out without his knowledge, by collaborators on the project.
                              He said his lab had produced about 100 cloned human embryos, but the hospital responsible for developing them into stem cells had deceived him about the results.
                              He speculated that the head of the hospital responsible may have wanted personal revenge against him.
                              Dr Hwang also continued to insist that he had the technology to use cloning to create human embryonic stem cells genetically matched to patients. "I think we can create patient-specific stem cells in six months if eggs are sufficiently provided," he said.
                              http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/4604464.stm

                              From that article too
                              he insisted that most of the fabrications were carried out without his knowledge, by collaborators on the project.


                              He said his lab had produced about 100 cloned human embryos, but the hospital responsible for developing them into stem cells had deceived him about the results.
                              He speculated that the head of the hospital responsible may have wanted personal revenge against him. Dr Hwang also continued to insist that he had the technology to use cloning to create human embryonic stem cells genetically matched to patients.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Animal eggs 'to grow stem cells'

                                I do not think this is new news but it is an interesting article anyway:

                                http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4605926.stm

                                Stem cell researchers are looking to use animal eggs as 'hosts' to grow human cells.
                                A Chinese team has already claimed to have created human embryonic stem cells using rabbit eggs which had had their genetic material removed. had had their genetic material removed.


                                The recent controversy over South Korean researcher, Hwang Woo-suk, has added impetus to the need to find new sources of eggs, scientists say.

                                "As with all research involving human embryos, the research team would have to show that the research is both necessary and desirable, and that any embryo created could not be allowed to develop for longer than 14 days or be implanted in a woman." Dr O'Toole said a specialist panel at the HFEA had looked at the issue of such hybrids and concluded: "the resulting embryo would be almost indistinguishable from a human embryo".
                                This may not have immediate cure implications but it is a tool that could make ESC more readily avaiable and increase the pace of research.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X