Slashdot Mirror


Korean Lab Worker Forced to Donate Her Own Eggs

An anonymous reader writes "According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Woo Suk Hwang had attained international fame by successfully cloning a human embryo, but he accomplished his feat by pressuring a lab worker into donating her own eggs. Consequently, Gerald Schatten, a cell biologist at the University of Pittsburgh, has severed his ties with Mr. Hwang and cited gross breaches of ethics."

376 comments

  1. Forced? by whitehatlurker · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't see anything in TFA about coercion ... where did that part come from?

    --
    .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    1. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! Typical Slashbot fare. These morons aren't working anymore.

      I'd also like to know how the last post about anti-gravity has anything to do with my "Rights Online."

    2. Re:Forced? by Ben+Varrey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Coercion came in the same way that it would come in when a high-powered executive tells his female secretary that, for the good of the firm, she should put on some nice red lipstick and give him a messy blowjob. A woman's job should not involve her sexual organs, apparatus, or cells in any way, damn it!

    3. Re:Forced? by Tlosk · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't see anything in TFA about coercion ... where did that part come from?
       
      It's implied by the nature of the situation. Which is why it's prohibited. You might easily compare it to a statutory rape scenario. Are there people under 16 who can make sound judgements about whether to engage in sex? Probably, but in order to protect those who aren't we have made an arbitrary cutoff and whether the person was "willing" or not doesn't enter the equation, they are just off limits period.

      A person who works in a lab cannot reasonably be expected to be free from improper pressures that could influence a decision to participate. So to protect them we don't allow it.

    4. Re:Forced? by cheesee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What if she is a prostitute?

      --
      Got Shadowrun? Awakened Worlds
    5. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are surmising a fiction not in evidence. This article posting is exactly why you cannot consider Slashdot a source of "news."

      Reputable journalists preface opinion pieces as such. Infering facts that do not exist is not journalism.

    6. Re:Forced? by whitehatlurker · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I agree that the situation is a serious ethical breech, and I do understand the situation. However, the submitter indicates that there are allegations of direct coercion of the employee by this Hwang fellow.

      I'm just looking for a source for the reports of this allegation.

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    7. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Coercion came in the same way that it would come in when a high-powered executive tells his female secretary that, for the good of the firm, she should put on some nice red lipstick and give him a messy blowjob. A woman's job should not involve her sexual organs, apparatus, or cells in any way, damn it!

      What if there were no negative consequences if she refused (a la Paula Jones, who was not fired nor demoted for refusing to give Bill Clinton a blow job)?


      Anyway, she says -- echoing the comments of a Smithsonian official -- Sternberg did not really suffer.

      "He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his research privileges, he still has his office," Scott says. "You know, what's his complaint? People weren't nice to him. Well, life is not fair."
    8. Re:Forced? by drsquare · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or a secretary?

    9. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In more advanced countries, we name the laws after the wrong committed.

      ie: It's "sex with a minor", not "Statutory Rape" since whether or not it was rape is not the problem being dealt with (it's a separate problem). The problem being dealt with is that, in fact, sex with a minor occurred. If the minor were raped, then a secondary charge of "raping a minor" would be enforced.

      In some countries (notably my own) it is not considered rape should a 16 year old have sex with a willing 15 year + 11 month old.

      Similarly, we call "improper practices" exactly that, "improper practices". We don't call it "forcing" or "coercion" because we don't know if that's true or not. There's every chance that a doctor so engaged in her duty might actually be willing to donate her eggs to further her research -- it doesn't seem unlikely that it could be so.

      The title should be "Korean Lab Worker uses Improper Practices to Further Research".

      I just wish people would use say what they mean and mean what they say, dammit. Thank God the laws in most countries are much more clear.

    10. Re:Forced? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      I didn't see anything in the linked article, so I dug a little deeper and came across this:

      Were Korean egg donors public-spirited or press-ganged?

      In it, it says:

      Korean bioethicists, human rights activists and the leading journal Nature have all suggested that the donors included junior members of a research team headed by Woo Suk Hwang. Nature was told by a PhD student on the team, Ja Min Koo, that she and another woman in the lab had donated eggs. She subsequently changed her story, blaming her poor English for a misunderstanding. Hwang and the ethics committee which approved the research refused to provide further information.

      There may not have been concrete proof that this had occured, but people are obviously starting to distance themselves from the research.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    11. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      All that means is that this is a violation of policy, not that it is a violation of ethics. People like to toss the term "ethics" around, but you can't properly use it to describe something that does not have moral significance. Requesting and/or accepting eggs from a subordinate may in fact have no moral significance. Same for a blow job. It all depends on the circumstances and subtleties of the situation. For example, the subordinate might be my wife, and we may be in bed at home. Or she might be someone that is even more passionate about the reasearch than I am, and has been volunteering to donate her eggs for months. Policy != Morality. Following policies doesn't make you moral and breaking them doesn't make you immoral. Actions are moral or immoral in themselves.

    12. Re:Forced? by zzz1357 · · Score: 1

      By "implied" you mean "there's no evidence of." And although you might "compare it to a statutory rape scenario," the comparison is a poor one at best: statutory rape laws protect women who are too young to have the capacity to consent, whereas a researcher in a genetic lab would have all the information she would need to consent to an egg donation - quite the opposite of statutory rape!

      --
      You can't add pianos and telephones.
    13. Re:Forced? by Bezben · · Score: 0

      Doesn't that scenario involve his organs rather than hers?

    14. Re:Forced? by timeOday · · Score: 1, Insightful
      A woman's job should not involve her sexual organs, apparatus, or cells in any way, damn it!
      What if she is a prostitute?
      That's why prostitution isn't a legitimate job.
    15. Re:Forced? by Melkman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is here. There was even a specialized union for it "De rode draad" (the red thread). Alas this has been terminated and they can now only join one of the big multidisciplinairy unions. Gotta love the Netherlands.

    16. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd also like to know how the last post about anti-gravity has anything to do with my "Rights Online."

      Stay with me, here, genius. There's going to be two steps. Hold on tight. Ready?

      The patent office approved a patent for something impossible, showing that they don't have a clue what they're doing.

      Still with me? One more step to go.

      They allow software patents.

      This ain't fucking rocket science.

    17. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or your mother.

    18. Re:Forced? by FST777 · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to TFA she wasn't forced, but under American rules she either shouldn't have provided the eggs, or shouldn't have worked on the project.

      The whole "forced" thing is nowhere to be seen (at least, not in the linked FA) nor is there any word about "pressuring" in TFA. What's more: I guess that under (South-)Korean rules there hasn't anything gone wrong with the whole thing. TFA is about an American scientist who withdrawed from the collaboration. Nothing more, nothing less.

      --
      Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
    19. Re:Forced? by daremonai · · Score: 5, Informative
      Check out the Washington Post article, which has a lot more info (registration required, blah, blah, blah): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/11/11/AR2005111101836.html

      Here's a snippet of the relevant section:

      For many months after Hwang's 2004 publication, rumors had spread in scientific circles that the eggs Hwang used to achieve that landmark result had been taken from a junior scientist in his lab. That situation, if true, would be in violation of widely held ethics principles that preclude people in positions of authority from accepting egg donations from underlings. The rules are meant to prevent subtle -- or not-so-subtle -- acts of coercion.

      Questions have also circulated as to whether the woman received illegal payments for her role.

      Schatten said that Hwang had repeatedly denied the rumor and that he had believed Hwang until yesterday. "I now have information that leads me to believe he had misled me," Schatten said. "My trust has been shaken. I am sick at heart. I am not going to be able to collaborate with Woo Suk."

    20. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why prostitution isn't a legitimate job.
      That's not what your mom said.

    21. Re:Forced? by aussie_a · · Score: 5, Insightful
      A woman's job should not involve her sexual organs, apparatus, or cells in any way, damn it!
      What if she is a prostitute?

      That's why prostitution isn't a legitimate job.

      No, the reason prostitution isn't a legitimate job (in the USA anyway) is because America has a very puritan view when it comes to sex (and see's the depiction of violence to be much more acceptable then the depcition of consensual sex) and the American government loves to invade people's bedrooms.

      Don't think for one minute prostitution being illegal is because of protecting women's rights. If it was truly about that, then the government would set up standards of health, working hours, working conditions, pay, etc that people must follow if they are in the prostitution industry.
    22. Re:Forced? by aussie_a · · Score: 5, Insightful

      statutory rape laws protect women who are too young to have the capacity to consent, whereas a researcher in a genetic lab would have all the information she would need to consent to an egg donation

      Obviously women are weak-minded and are unable to grasp the situation in order to protect their rights and themselves.[/sarcasm]

      Before sperm donations could be paid for, the men working at the clinics would often donate their own sperm in order for there to be enough supply of sperm, because demand was so great and there simply wasn't enough unafilliated men donating to meet the demand there was for sperm. No blanket laws or guidelines had to be made to stop these men from donating their sperm. They knew exactly what they were doing. The same thing should be applied to women.

      The idea of men or women being coerced into donating sperm or ovaries in order to keep their jobs is despicable. But If you're going to make a blanket policy to protect one sex, then you should protect the other as well. Otherwise you say the "protected" sex is too weak to protect themselves and make decisions, while the "unprotected" gender isn't important enough to be protected.

    23. Re:Forced? by gbdc · · Score: 1
      There is an oversupply of women in Korea who wants to contribute to Dr.Hwang's research by donating their eggs.

      That means there's no reason for the researchers to force anyone for eggs, especially at the expense of damanging its own ethics and reputation.

      You say it's implied, but making assumptions without knowing the actual context is a step too close towards making false judgement.

    24. Re:Forced? by AnotherBrian · · Score: 5, Funny
      That's why prostitution isn't a legitimate job.

      EXACTLY, if god had intended women to prostuite themselves he would have given them free will and a vagina.

    25. Re:Forced? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      It's implied by the nature of the situation. Which is why it's prohibited.

      No. Coercion is implied neither in the linked article nor in the situation itself. Why it's unethical is because the research may no longer be unbiased. You look at the situation and see a woman being pressured into providing her eggs. I look at it and see a woman who wants the first cloned human embryo to be her own.

      And comparing it to statutory rape is truly over the top. You should get a +5, Troll for that one!

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    26. Re:Forced? by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      Prostitution is 100% legal in Nevada.

    27. Re:Forced? by Zen+Punk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you're misrepresenting the lawsof the United States here. There's no federal law against prostitution. Most states in the union do have laws against it, yes, but not all do. I know that Nevada allows it, as long as the brothels have licenses and the workers are treated fairly and screened for diseases. I don't know the positions of all the states with regard to prostitution, though. I would appreciate examples if anyone has any.

      --
      Sleep is futile.
    28. Re:Forced? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Aah, I didn't realise it was legal in same states. Well I ammend my statement for most states in America then ;)

    29. Re:Forced? by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      So, they took his master key away, restricted his access to the collections in a manner unique among his colleagues, reassigned him from the supervisor who was supportive of him to one who wasn't, and are just counting down the days to his renewal because they've blackballed him and have made sure that nobody will dare renew his sponsorship. Oh, they also spread vicious rumors about him in order to defame him professionally among his colleagues.

      Nah, nothing happened to him at all.

      The only reason the Smithsonian isn't in court right now is that the first avenue he went to protest didn't have proper jurisdiction. The SI's going to lose a major court case in a few years over this one.

    30. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ie: It's "sex with a minor", not "Statutory Rape" since whether or not it was rape is not the problem being dealt with (it's a separate problem

      Right, so just how many times have you been to jail, perv?

    31. Re:Forced? by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

      Clearly you aren't Reese Witherspoon, as you can't tell me the difference between and ethics.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    32. Re:Forced? by IdleTime · · Score: 1

      Incorrect!

      It's illegal in most cunties in Nevada, just a few have legalized it. So in 99.99% of all counties in USA, it's illegal.

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    33. Re:Forced? by coyotecult · · Score: 1

      I think I'm in the same camp as you, but the two situations are completely different.

      Sperm donation is extraordinarily easy. Egg donation requires weeks of hormone therapy and an invasive surgery.

    34. Re:Forced? by Landshark17 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Or an intern?

      --
      This sig is false.
    35. Re:Forced? by ResQuad · · Score: 1

      Actually it is legal in most of nevada - it is illegal in cities. So any area which is not inside "city limits" (which in nevada is kept preety close in, where the majority of the population is) its legal to have a brothell in. Which is why you see the brothells AROUND carson city (state capital) and not IN the capital.

    36. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I repeat myself.

    37. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no implication of coercion. You misunderstand the reason why there is such a prohibition. It is to prevent the researchers from cloning themselves or people that they know.

    38. Re:Forced? by zzz1357 · · Score: 1

      The idea of men or women being coerced into donating sperm or ovaries in order to keep their jobs is despicable. I couldn't agree more. I also agree with your implication that the law treats women in general as less capable of consent as compared to men. (Though today, many statutory rape laws are gender-neutral.) However, the point still stands that nowhere in TFA is corcion or compulsion suggested. One wonders of the submitter read more than the headline, or if the submitter was merely wanted to stir up contraversy. A woman who does genetics research for a living is far more qualified than I am to decide what to do or not do with her eggs. If the news had reported allegations of coercion, that would be another issue. Fortunately, the only suggestion of coercion is here on /. and not on in the press.

      --
      You can't add pianos and telephones.
    39. Re:Forced? by KremlinKOA · · Score: 1

      Actually you are mistaken Morals has to do with right and wrong Ethics has to do with public perception of what is acceptable... it is a confusing difference but it is there

    40. Re:Forced? by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      I guess that since about half of all Americans have smoked pot that it's now popular and legal?

    41. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As another poster has pointed out, when a person in a position of power over another person asks something like this of the other person their position of power automatically qualifies that request as coercion. I work with sex offenders, and that is one of the primary means by which this population perpetrates its crimes. We require them to pass polygraphs detailing all of their offenses, and a situation like this would definately be considered a victimization in their cases.

    42. Re:Forced? by akpoff · · Score: 2, Informative
      The idea of men or women being coerced into donating sperm or ovaries in order to keep their jobs is despicable.

      I think you meant to write eggs. Donating ovaries in this case would be beyond despicable.

    43. Re:Forced? by alexq · · Score: 1
      . But If you're going to make a blanket policy to protect one sex, then you should protect the other as well. Otherwise you say the "protected" sex is too weak to protect themselves and make decisions, while the "unprotected" gender isn't important enough to be protected.

      Except that it's much more difficult/serious to donate ovaries.

    44. Re:Forced? by tsa · · Score: 1

      Maybe there weren't any eggs available at that time and she volunteered to give some of hers.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    45. Re:Forced? by Dwonis · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sperm donation is only easy for men, you insensitive clod!

    46. Re:Forced? by coyotecult · · Score: 1

      How very true; I should have worded things differently!

      The ease of donation of gametes differs between the sexes...is that better?

    47. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree with those numbers, I would say it would be closer to 75% of all people in the US have tried it, at least once. As for teenagers I also believe that the number is skewed since most teenagers would lie when asked a question of "have you ever tried marijuana", "have you ever smoked", "have you ever had sex", etc.

    48. Re:Forced? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Yep, exactly right.

      Don't be fooled by this... it's just yet another attempt to hold onto the societal esteem of women and debase the importance of men.

      If we can clone humans, what do we need the wombs of women for?

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    49. Re:Forced? by koreaman · · Score: 1

      I am a teenager and spend a lot of time around other ones.

      I believe most of us (myself not included) would lie to say they had done xyz "rebellious" action, even if they hadn't.

    50. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "amend".

      - A caring Australian

    51. Re:Forced? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Except that it's much more difficult/serious to donate ovaries.

      So women are too stupid to assess the risks and do with their body what they wish? If it wasn't such an important issue, then their little brains would be able to handle the situation better? Perhaps they believe strongly in the research, and won't to contribute however they can, which means both donating their own eggs and working in the lab. To assume that any woman who wishes to donate her eggs to her work has been coerced is ridiculous. And yet, that's exactly what Tlosk is claiming.

    52. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK there, Zippy - you still haven't explained how it has anything to do with my rights using the Internet - Get it? Online? Hello, McFly.

    53. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you're right. There's no relation at all between software and the Internet. Computers just communicate through magic.

    54. Re:Forced? by Jack+Zombie · · Score: 0, Troll

      "I don't see anything in TFA about coercion ... where did that part come from?"

      From the Slashdot editors. They're lying bastards; you must be new here.

      --
      "You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
    55. Re:Forced? by plumby · · Score: 1

      I don't see anything in the article suggesting that anyone asked the woman to do it. To carry on your analogy, if you saw a secretary wearing bright red lipstick and acting slutty, would you automatically assume that she's been pressured into doing it by her boss?

    56. Re:Forced? by mysticwhiskey · · Score: 2, Funny
      It's illegal in most cunties in Nevada

      Uh.... no comment. ;)

      --

      Stuck down a hole! In the middle of the night! With an owl!

    57. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's difficult for a woman only if she swallows...

    58. Re:Forced? by Filip22012005 · · Score: 1

      It's illegal in most cunties in Nevada

      What kind of typo is this?

      --
      When the policeman of the tie, rule you violate, hello punishment of the kitty?
    59. Re:Forced? by danila · · Score: 1

      What if she is a porn actress? Now that's a legitimate job. What if she is a paid surrogate mother? What if she is an exotic stage performer?

      Also, in your example the job of the secretary didn't include her sexual organs, apparatus, or cells. It only involved those of the executive. :)

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    60. Re:Forced? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      "If we can clone humans, what do we need the wombs of women for?"

      Carrying the fetuses to term. A more accurate statement is:

      "If we can clone humans, what do we need men for?"

    61. Re:Forced? by chialea · · Score: 1

      > Egg donation requires weeks of hormone therapy and an invasive surgery.

      Plus, it depletes the finite number of eggs a woman has -- doing it a few times, especially, can make it harder for the donor to get pregnant herself.

      Lea

    62. Re:Forced? by Kuscheltier · · Score: 1

      You don't honestly think, that even a minority of the prostitutes wouldn't get another job if they could. Its probably one of the most disgusting jobs around.

    63. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It pays bloody well and the hours are good.

    64. Re:Forced? by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1

      it's highly possible that the number of eggs a woman has is not finite at all, but rather new egg cells can be produced well into adulthood.

      http://www.massgeneral.org/news/releases/031004til ly.htm

      http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/03/ 10/eggs.php

    65. Re:Forced? by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1
      Don't think for one minute prostitution being illegal is because of protecting women's rights.

      What's really sad is that heavy, yet proper gov't regulation of the sex industry would eliminate abusive pimps, eliminate coerced introduction into drugs, cut down the spread of fatal STDs, and near eliminate the use of minors as prostitutes.

      I always felt people who support anti-prostitution laws are really in favor of statutory rape; they're just too stupid to see it.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    66. Re:Forced? by Compaq_Hater · · Score: 1

      cunties,counties full of cunts whats the diffrence ?

      CH

    67. Re:Forced? by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      Ditto. It's weird how those numbers seem to go down when you get older.

      As an undergrad, most of the people that I met had smoked marijuana, as a grad student, far fewer, but still a good percentage. I don't know so many adults who do though. I would say that they probably regret it and have developed cognitive dissonance.

      Not to encourage teenagers to smoke the stuff, but I think that this is based mostly on cultural norms, and not the actual harmfulness of the stuff. Tobacco and alcohol are much worse for you, but few people deny having ever tried them.

    68. Re:Forced? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      You don't honestly think, that even a minority of the prostitutes wouldn't get another job if they could. Its probably one of the most disgusting jobs around.

      You don't think there are millions of men in this country who also work disgusting jobs and would also like find other means of employement?

    69. Re:Forced? by wronskyMan · · Score: 1

      No,he's saying that women are donating eggs, not ovaries, which are the organs that produce eggs and would need to be surgically removed.

      --
      --- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
    70. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't honestly think, that even a minority of the prostitutes wouldn't get another job if they could. Its probably one of the most disgusting jobs around.

      Cleaning up porta-pots is probably a pretty disgusting job, but I bet it pays well.

      In comparison, prostitution is a pleasureable walk in the park.

    71. Re:Forced? by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      A freudian slip is when you type one thing but mean your mother.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    72. Re:Forced? by aeryn_sunn · · Score: 1

      Washington Post registration for all to use

      l/p freethepresses@hotmail.com/freethepresses

      enjoy! I think there is a similar l/p that works for the latimes.com but i am unsure about the nytimes.com. If anybody has any universal registration passwords for those "free" registration sites, please share.

      cheers

    73. Re:Forced? by jdbo · · Score: 1
      First of all, statutory rape laws apply to both women AND men. The fact that they are not as often enforced in the case of older women/younger men reflects societal attitudes, not the law.


      No blanket laws or guidelines had to be made to stop these men from donating their sperm. They knew exactly what they were doing. The same thing should be applied to women.


      In general:
      Wow; while I was unaware of that, regardless of the scientist's attitudes towards the act I'd have to assume that's also a breach of ethics - unless the "researchers donating == OK" policy was explicitly laid out under the terms of employment and made through a transparent process. (Even then I'd find it questionable, but at least it'd be open for review by outside parties and understood as an aspect of the research process. This isn;t "just a sex thing" either, this should be done even if they're just donating mucus on days that they've got colds.)

      As far as this specific case:
      a) comparing the act of sperm donation to egg donation is like comparing giving $5 to the Salvation Army Santa vs. donating your house; i.e. in no way similar. Egg donation is an involved, lengthy, and to potentially risky process for the donor. Sperm donation has no inherent physical risks and doesn't involve much more than a trip to the bathroom, a magazine, and a cup. (Sure, some men may have religious hang-ups about donation, but that applies equally well to women).

      b) it's inherent to any sort of hierarchical situation that those at the top of the hierarchy may abuse their authority over those lower in the hierarchy; that's why we have, you know, rules and shit about this sort of thing. It's not about gender as much as it is about the potential abuse of power by authority figures.

      Given that "donating eggs" is not considered a standard workflplace practice the concern is warranted. Is it possible that this worker may have done this entirely of her own free will, with no pressure whatsoever? Sure, but its equally possible that some sort of abuse was involved. Given the (current) lack of evidence in either direction, the situation appears suspicious, and should at least ben investigated.
    74. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this isn't working

    75. Re:Forced? by 6hill · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's illegal in most cunties in Nevada (Emphasis mine.) Oh, sir, sir! I do believe your Freudian slip is showing.

    76. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to be redundant

    77. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like they do in Nevada? So what were you saying about it not being legitimate?

    78. Re:Forced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's illegal in most cunties in Nevada, just a few have legalized it. So in 99.99% of all counties in USA, it's illegal.

      Freudian slip?

    79. Re:Forced? by Secrity · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that setting an arbitrary age for "age of consent" laws is not an optimal situation. I am not a lawyer. The under-age sex laws in your country are not that much different from the laws in the US.

      In the US, most state laws say that somebody under n years of age is unable to give consent to having sex, hence, it is always considered to be non-consentual; it does not matter whether it was forced or not. If it were forced rape, the rapist would also be charged with assault and probably some other things. The age of consent in the US varies by state and can vary depending upon the age and/or sex of both parties. According to the table at http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm, the US age of consent ages are pretty much in line with the rest of the world. The table also has links to the laws specific to different countries and US states.

      Your country's law and the US state laws in these matters seem to be pretty similar, the ages vary and in many cases the names of the laws are different. I think that as in your country, there are US states where it would also be legal for a 16 year old to have sex with a 15 year old.

  2. cheapskate by BushCheney08 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Man. What a fucking cheapskate. Eggs are like, what, $1.29 a dozen?

    --
    Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
    1. Re:cheapskate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I think they meant "Her Own Eggs" as in "the lab worker is a bird or a reptile".

    2. Re:cheapskate by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      That sounds pretty expensive for caviar. You're getting ripped off!

      --
      Be relentless!
    3. Re:cheapskate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

    4. Re:cheapskate by krunk4ever · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know the parent was being funny, but on the contrary, eggs cost between US$10,000 to US$50,000. I'm curious to why they didn't just purchase the egg themselves instead of having one of the lab assistants to donate. The only viable reasonings that I can come up with is:

      1. They didn't have enough money, which I highly doubt because with a project of this size, money's gotta be pouring in from somewhere. Though money conservation may be another reasoning, but once again, I don't believe money should've been an issue with this project.

      2. The lab assistant insisted they use her eggs and was happy to donate them. There can be multiple reasons for that. She may have been an unknown lab assistance and if the project was sucessful, her name might have come up once in the findings document, but the top researchers would be the one getting a the credit. Now with her name gauranteed in the article, her fame can be used for multiple things such as taking her into higher levels of research or even lead governmental sponsered researches. I'm not sure what this lab worker exactly was, but if she was an undergrad, she's probably going to be garaunteed admission into any graduate program and if she was a graduate student, have her Ph.D papers signed off. Many of you can see this as 'betraying yourself' to get somewhere and I guess that's what the ethical reasons against this is for.

    5. Re:cheapskate by Mad+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      3. They *did* have enough money, but pressured (overtly or not) the woman into giving her own eggs anyway -- which is the whole point of the article.

      (Or didn't have the money. The ethics are still the same, I'd argue.)

    6. Re:cheapskate by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 1

      I know the parent was being funny, but on the contrary, eggs cost between US$10,000 to US$50,000.

      In the US.

      I'm curious to why they didn't just purchase the egg themselves instead of having one of the lab assistants to donate.

      Because they needed (and used) hundreds of them. And because apparently they had many anonymous volunteers who gave them eggs *free*.

      The fact that Korean scientists had access to a large number of voluntary donations is one of the reasons why they are so far ahead of any competition in human cloning research.

      Now of course if these coercion stories are true, that's another matter entirely.

      Thomas-

    7. Re:cheapskate by Lally+Singh · · Score: 1

      They may have had the money, but not the time.

      --
      Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
  3. Re:Science Ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Real progress towards dead ends? Scammers! Liers! Cheats!

  4. gross breaches of ethics by pedantic+bore · · Score: 1, Insightful
    ... and fairly disgusting, too.

    This one goes in the "mad scientist" file. Talk about complete loss of perspective.

    --
    Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
    1. Re:gross breaches of ethics by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the article is all there to go on, it is sensationalist.

      I see nothing over coercion:

      "Dr. Schatten, who was to have led the organization's board of directors, says he is now severing collaboration with Dr. Hwang, due to questions over the source of human eggs used in a 2004 cloning project, and errors in a 2005 paper coauthored by the scientists.

      A 2004 news report in the journal Nature said at least one female laboratory worker had provided eggs for the project, an allegation that Dr. Hwang has denied on several occasions. Under U.S. rules, collecting eggs from women working on a cloning project would be considered unethical. In the original paper, published by the journal Science last year, the scientists said the eggs all came from anonymous donors."

    2. Re:gross breaches of ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up, damnit! I want a +5 Troll!

    3. Re:gross breaches of ethics by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Informative

      Such situations between superiors and subordinates are inherently coercive. Even if the superior adamantly claims that he won't take the refusal into account when considering promotions, raises, recommendations, etc. there's absolutely no way to assure that. Moreover, even if the superior genuinely won't hold it against the subordinate, the subordinate could still feel as though he's being coerced.

      This is why, in these situations, it is assumed that coercion would occur, and the situation is therefore forbidden without exception.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  5. Re:North or South by cheesee · · Score: 5, Informative

    A quick glance at the article shows it happened at Seoul University which is in South Korea. Last I heard, South Korea hadn't been overrun by the communists from the north.

    --
    Got Shadowrun? Awakened Worlds
  6. Re:North or South by dot.solipsist · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Dr. Woo Suk Hwang of Seoul University

    --
    Sig Sig Sputnik
  7. Re:North or South by PaintyThePirate · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Dr. Woo Suk Hwang of Seoul University."

    North Korea doesn't have the money, the technology, or the support necessary for stem cell research.

  8. Questionable Ethics? by nmb3000 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Questionable ethics from somebody working towards human cloning?

    Why doesn't this surprise me?

    --
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
    /)
    1. Re:Questionable Ethics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Questionable ethics from somebody working towards human cloning?

      Why doesn't this surprise me?


      I don't know. Prejudice maybe?

    2. Re:Questionable Ethics? by Dante+Shamest · · Score: 3, Funny

      If this was a comic book, he'd probably gain superhuman powers from some weird lab accident and be called The Kloner.

    3. Re:Questionable Ethics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, but doubt it matters. Looking at nmb's history somebody decided to take his comment personal.

  9. Re:North or South by koreaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you grossly misunderstand Communism. Communism is not the same thing as fascism, authoritarianism, or anything along those lines. In fact, it's not a governmental so much as an economic system. I'm not advocating it, all evidence shows that Communism does not work. Nevertheless, it is not "evil." If you take the word "communist" out of the above post, it'll work fine.

  10. Re:North or South by stunt_penguin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Or a totally capitalist country where everything matters except the progression of the state?

    --
    When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
  11. Re:North or South by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds like something I could easily expect from a capitalist regime where not much is sacred except the progression of the state.

  12. But baby... by Tufriast · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dr. X: I love you. I love your eggs. I promise not to slap you anymore. No fork them over bitch, I GOT SHIT TO CLONE.

    --
    Help me, help you. - Jerry McGuire
  13. Nelson Muntz by The+Amazing+Fish+Boy · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Ha ha!

  14. WHO SUCK WANG?! Thats HER FUCKING NAME?! by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 0, Troll

    You're kidding me...

    hahahahahaha

    $sys$mysenseofhumor.dll

    1. Re:WHO SUCK WANG?! Thats HER FUCKING NAME?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only on Slashdot would sexual harrassment be modded "Funny." Posting AC because unlike some others, I'm not a karma whore.

    2. Re:WHO SUCK WANG?! Thats HER FUCKING NAME?! by Seumas · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You're an idiotic little pussified twat. Making fun of someone's name is sexual harassment? Let me guess, if he said her shoes were ugly, that'd be sexual harassment, too - because anything a woman dislikes is harassment?

      If the researcher's name was Dick Johnson, you wouldn't have a problem with it. Moron.

    3. Re:WHO SUCK WANG?! Thats HER FUCKING NAME?! by slavemowgli · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, that was (is) *his* name, not hers.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    4. Re:WHO SUCK WANG?! Thats HER FUCKING NAME?! by korea · · Score: 2, Informative
      Work with me here, Jackie Chan Fan...

      Subvocalize this phoenetically. Dok-tur Wu Saugk Hwahng. The 'h' sound consonant is actually a part of the surname "Hwang" but the it is not a part of the Wu portion of his first name.

      It's not really rational to misread something then exclaim that anyone is kidding you. If anyone, it's your dyslexic inner adolescent that is kidding you.

      --

      --

      "pain is weakness leaving the body."
    5. Re:WHO SUCK WANG?! Thats HER FUCKING NAME?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the guy would probably go by Richard Johnson but everyone would still call him a dick and laugh at him behind his back.

      Obligatory movie quote "I'm agent Johnson, this is special agent Johnson, no relation..."

      But seriously, why is it considered unethical for biological material to be donated by a researcher working on cloning?

    6. Re:WHO SUCK WANG?! Thats HER FUCKING NAME?! by zerojoker · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm from overseas. First time I've heared about Dick Chaney I thought they were talking about a porn actor.

    7. Re:WHO SUCK WANG?! Thats HER FUCKING NAME?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a man called Richard Face. Poor bastard.

    8. Re:WHO SUCK WANG?! Thats HER FUCKING NAME?! by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "It's not really rational to misread something then exclaim that anyone is kidding you. If anyone, it's your dyslexic inner adolescent that is kidding you."

      Umm, yeah, if you overanalyze it it's not so funny. In reality, however, it was not as big of stretch as you're making it out to be. And, yeah, it's funny.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    9. Re:WHO SUCK WANG?! Thats HER FUCKING NAME?! by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was a man's name he was making fun of to begin with -- Woo Suk Huang is the doctor, not his assistant.

    10. Re:WHO SUCK WANG?! Thats HER FUCKING NAME?! by MooUK · · Score: 1

      Unethical if she didn't do it willingly but was instead coerced into donating eggs.

    11. Re:WHO SUCK WANG?! Thats HER FUCKING NAME?! by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      People occasionally die from egg donation. It's always a very uncomfortable procedure, no matter what the results. This is why it's important to have true volunteers. All sorts of pressures can be applied to a subordinate in a lab and the overwhelming chances are that the boss will get away with it.

    12. Re:WHO SUCK WANG?! Thats HER FUCKING NAME?! by KremlinKOA · · Score: 2, Informative

      Funny you should mention that. Down in OZ we had a top flight race car driver called Dick Johnson

    13. Re:WHO SUCK WANG?! Thats HER FUCKING NAME?! by korea · · Score: 1

      It's funny if you're 12. Here's another nugget of comedy gold for you, 'doodie'.

      --

      --

      "pain is weakness leaving the body."
    14. Re:WHO SUCK WANG?! Thats HER FUCKING NAME?! by NanoGator · · Score: 0

      "Here's another nugget of comedy gold for you, 'doodie'."

      Gold? More like you're making brownies!

      heheehehehehee.

      Yeesh. I hope I never grow up to the point where I can't find fart and sex jokes funny.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  15. Heh heh, you said... by bergeron76 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dr. Who suck wang...

    Dr. Woo Suk Hwang

    "Dr. Who" suck wang?
    or
    Dr. whom sucks wang?

    Interesting indeed.

    --
    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    1. Re:Heh heh, you said... by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      The name has all the marks of a Howard Stern-esque "bababooey" plant.
      I wonder if the WSJ just got p0wned.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    2. Re:Heh heh, you said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about "woo, suck wang!"

    3. Re:Heh heh, you said... by cnflctd · · Score: 1

      Google the name; he's world famous...and rownry, so rownry

      --
      I'm cool like a fool in a swimming p-p-pfft-pool
    4. Re:Heh heh, you said... by revengance · · Score: 1

      Such mature thoughts. I think Slashdot hencefore be known as "News for Kids. Stuff that does not matters"

  16. Capitalism by LIQID · · Score: 0

    I will have to agree that nothing is sacred in business except business and ethical demoralization is bad business hence not recommended or practiced very long if a company wants to stay in business. Its an invisible check or balance set by the people. Yet an ignorant society that abandons its morals will invariably have have a corrupt government and business umbrella. Free people can only blame themselves.

    1. Re:Capitalism by Duhavid · · Score: 1
      ...hence not recommended or practiced very long if a company wants to stay in business...


      This is the ideal, true.

      But how many businesses are in business despite ethical lapses.

      Take for instance, Sony, the subject of much talk here of late.
      They may suffer some small loss of profits, but very likely will
      continue in business. If you are not in the "Microsoft can do no
      wrong" camp, I, personally, believe them to be an excellent example
      of doing some degree of wrong over a while and continuing in business.

      I think other examples could be found as well.

      The basic problems with the ideal are that it is difficult to educate
      yourself as a consumer as to the ethical lapses of those you are considering
      doing business with. That is getting easier, but there are some fundamental
      issues that may never be overcome.

      It is difficult as a business to know the bottom line costs to themselves
      of certain actions, and even if it is, it will likely be decided not by
      right and wrong, but on bottom line costs ( Look up the issues about
      Ford Pinto's catching fire in rear end collisions, and how Ford decided
      in that case ).

      ...an ignorant society that abandons its morals will invariably have have a corrupt government...


      Quite true, but this is true of just about any government instituted amoung men. Some are better than others.
      Democracy is good, provided there is accountablity and visibility ( something America needs more of, in my
      considered opinion ). And your point is right on target there, I guess we get as much of that as we insist
      on, overall. I wish we insisted on more. Capitalism, in my mind, is a blind animalistic set of passions
      travelling on it's stomach. It is as good in this regard as the regulations ( whether instituted in effective
      law, or naturally arising from the participants thereof )
      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  17. Re:People may not agree on where the line is. by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 0, Troll

    To put things into perspective, a columnist during the past election cycle quoted her child as having said to her 'John Kerry wants to make medicine out of babies.'

    Think about it. It's not that far off from the truth, even for those who pooh-pooh the origin of 'little bits of human tissue' as being irrelevant.

    And, of course, comments like that have tremendous propaganda value when quoted to polarized subsections of the public.

    --
    resigned
  18. Oh great. Just what we needed. by St0rmwarden · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would say something about having egg on his face, but I don't really think it's appropriate.

    Now the poor chaps who are trying to achieve something worthwhile with their medical science using stem cells or whatnot have to deal with another round of "oh god, what is the world coming to?" And "quick! Lets ban the whole lot before someone else does something this stupid."

  19. RTFA? by MichaelPenne · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nothing about pressuring? Where are you getting that from, ScuttleMonkey, and do the /. editors RTFA's themselves?

    "According to the WSJ" Schatten quit because he heard that one of the lab workers had donated eggs, but there is nothign about pressure in the WSJ article. Is there in the Nature one?

    1. Re:RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here.

    2. Re:RTFA? by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 2

      ScuttleMonkey can't be marked down 'troll' and lose his +1 posting privledges.

      In fact, people who slag that 'class' of slashdot 'community members' will find their comments 'modded down' with no reason listed.

      If you haven't had a slashdot comment 'modded down without a reason given' yet, you're not trying hard enough.

      Uh, smash the system.

      --
      resigned
  20. Editors, read the article. by freidog · · Score: 5, Informative

    Typical misrepresentation of the facts by the submitter.
    No where in the linked article was there any impliation that Dr. Hwang used any form of pressure, coersion, or other unscrupulous means to obtain the eggs.

    The reasons given by Mr. Schatten is pretty clearly stated:

    Under U.S. rules, collecting eggs from women working on a cloning project would be considered unethical. In the original paper, published by the journal Science last year, the scientists said the eggs all came from anonymous donors.

    Hwang lied about where the eggs came from, and used (from the standpoint of the US) and inappropriate donor.
    I know this is just user submitted stuff here, but could we at leat pretend like accurately representing the article is important. Or do we just assume no one will bother to read a 1/2 summary without some creative spin in the summary.

    1. Re:Editors, read the article. by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No where in the linked article was there any impliation that Dr. Hwang used any form of pressure, coersion, or other unscrupulous means to obtain the eggs.

      Certain questions from a supervisor carry pressure and coersion- simply because the employee fears for their reputation and livelihood. That's precisely why we have numerous sexual harassment laws in the US.

      If he asked the group or the donors individually, or dropped hints ("gee, we're having a lot of trouble here, wouldn't it be handy if we had some volunteer donors..." - either way it was coersion. The only way it would not be coersion is if the employee voluntarily donated.

      Even then, there's a question of whether she was under self-imposed pressure (ie, "if I don't donate, the project will die and I won't have a job.")

      That's one of many reasons the whole thing was unethical.

    2. Re:Editors, read the article. by thej1nx · · Score: 1
      Good call.

      So he is in violation of US rules. Correct ?

      But is he an American citizen ? Or do US rules apply to all of the world ? Or is this a rule under some international treaty ?

      Where did the "forced" part come from ?

    3. Re:Editors, read the article. by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      All fine and good, except that nowhere do they say they have proof that Dr. Hwang lied or that the eggs really came from a co-worker. Just because it's reported doesn't make it true. People usually need facts to back it up first.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    4. Re:Editors, read the article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashbot's interpretation of the article:

      The researcher in question coerced a colleague to give up her eggs... which he believes gives him sexual powers!

    5. Re:Editors, read the article. by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      The editors are slackers and always will be. I know I may sound arrogant, but lets remember that it's the users that made Slashdot popular. Slashdot basicaly just had to be there at the right time.

    6. Re:Editors, read the article. by gordo3000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but then, why is it not unethical for me to work 80 hour weeks for a few months to keep my job by keeping my project up and running? That woman damn well ought to have been under pressure if they can't get donors. The research is important and she, working on the project, was in the best position to know what was needed to keep it going.

      We aren't talking about a woman being asked to give up a baby. We aren't even talking about an embryo. We are hypothetically talking about a lady giving up an egg towards research she probably cares at least a little about.

      In the US, lots of things get called unethical and I don't know why. Even in science, you want the person in your lab group who will take a hit for the team if it won't leave any permanent marks. So the lady couldn't get pregnant that one time around. It is only unethical if you think it is wrong for someone to give up something with almost no value to help a project along. She lost about 28 days of her reproductive life.

      Now if she had been told upon being hired to not get pregnant because they might need her as a donor, that gets into my unethical side. I don't believe there are many fields of work where involving yourself in someone's personal life to that extent is acceptable.

      Though, I"m not attacking you. I'm really attacking a system that says a scientist can't give one more thing towards the success of the project.

    7. Re:Editors, read the article. by no_carrier · · Score: 2

      Egg donation is not a trivial procedure and carries some risk. She would have to take a battery of injected fertility drugs and undergo a minor surgical procedure to retrieve the eggs. There is a small chance that she could lose her ovaries or even her life (search for ovary hyperstimulation syndrome). Given that typically only the principal investigator on a project sees any recongition, I think it's highly unethical.

    8. Re:Editors, read the article. by MooUK · · Score: 1

      She's almost certainly lost absolutely nothing, in fact. Most eggs are wasted.

    9. Re:Editors, read the article. by Ben+Varrey · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, she wasn't necessarily all that invested in the project. The article called her a "lab worker." Those are often the folks who clean the poop out of the rat cages and wash the floors after everyone else has gone home. Now, this might not be the case, but you can't assume that there wasn't a power differential.

    10. Re:Editors, read the article. by MooUK · · Score: 1

      Nor can you assume there was any coercion, even if just by differing rank/position, unless you have proof of that.

    11. Re:Editors, read the article. by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      Maybe the fact that he has been lying about where he got the eggs for over a year might lead to a reasonable suspicion that there's something else unethical going on.

      Or when did lying in your published research become ethical for a scientist?

    12. Re:Editors, read the article. by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      The research might be important. It certainly looks important at this early stage but if we already knew it was going to work, we wouldn't need to do the research at all, would we. There is a small but real percentage of women who die when they donate their eggs. They apparently got an unusually large number of eggs out of a few donors. All we really know for sure is that Huang lied to the public and his colleagues about at least one aspect of his research. The question then becomes whether this was the only lie.

      It's absurd to defend this guy as if he did nothing wrong. He did. The only real question is whether this was an isolated incident or there's other problems with him. At the very least, he needs an ethics minder.

    13. Re:Editors, read the article. by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      first off, absolutely nothing is proven against this guy. he has been accused of using eggs of one of his lab assistants. While it may be semantics, I think it is improper to condemn someone without any hard evidence.

      anyways, there is a small but real percentage of people who die doing anything we consider normal. The question remains, if she voluntarily decided to do this(no threats of personal or professional sabotage), even if the lead scientist let it be known or asked, why is it a problem? The point is, nothing is certain but if a person in a lab wants to do that much more to help, I say let them. Just because you see the possibility of a moral conflict doesn't mean everyone else falls into such a nice little cookie cutter definition.

      There are a small but real percent of people(many more than egg donation in fact) who die by working extra hours to help get a project up and running on schedule. We don't chastise every case of a person having to work above and beyond because there is the possibility of them dying, do we? Or maybe because its "scientific research" we feel the need to be stricter.

    14. Re:Editors, read the article. by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      He's actually been accused of two things. One is taking eggs unethically. The second is lying about his research methods. The guy dissociating himself from the S. Korean researcher is doing so based on information that came to him on the second charge.

    15. Re:Editors, read the article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats too hard to prove. Thus statutory rules like "no sex with people under X years of age, even if they really want it and are mature enough to handle it and made the choice to have sex themselves, because we can't prove that either way in a court of law".

      You can argue about whether a low-level lab grunt should be able to donate their own body to science until you're blue in the face, the rules are there to protect those who would be coerced into doing something they wouldn't want to do otherwise.

    16. Re:Editors, read the article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, so how would you feel if your boss required your left nut for your "project"? C'mon, take one for the team. You'll still be able to reproduce with one perfectly good testicle. It's not like you'll even really miss it. What's the problem? We're only hypothetically talking about you giving a nut towards something you probably care at least a little about.

    17. Re:Editors, read the article. by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      but then, why is it not unethical for me to work 80 hour weeks for a few months to keep my job by keeping my project up and running?
      Because the two situations are radically different?

      When you got your job, it was presumably with the understanding that you might sometimes have to work 80 hour weeks. When this "lab worker" got her job, it was with the understanding that she would not be pressured into donating her eggs.

      If your employer told you when they hired you that you would never have to work more than 40 hours a week, and then a few months later starts dropping hints that you'd better put in unpaid overtime if you want to keep your job, that is definitely unethical (and, depending on local laws, illegal).

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    18. Re:Editors, read the article. by SandiConoverJones · · Score: 1

      The previous poster stated, "Most eggs are wasted."

      While this is ion fact true, this is at a rate of 1 per month, NOT the numbers harvested with the drugs used for egg donation. If she has not had any children of her own, here in the US she would not be considered in any egg donation scenario, beyond that for a close relative.

    19. Re:Editors, read the article. by diaphanous · · Score: 2, Informative

      This was involving her work in her personal life. Her work was literally inserted into her person. In this case, a needle was inserted through her vagina, into one of her ovaries.

      There is a difference between being expected to temporarily work overtime at a job and being expected to submit to an invasive medical procedure. Working overtime does not violate the your body's integrity, a basic human right.

      We have rules to protect people from having their fundamental interests potentially set against each other. In this case, her ability to earn a living, at present and in the future, was potentially set against her health and her right to assert control over her body.

      ~Phillip

    20. Re:Editors, read the article. by po8 · · Score: 1

      "In the original paper, published by the journal Science last year, the scientists said the eggs all came from anonymous donors."

      ...and there is the key fact everyone seems to be missing. Lying about your data is the cardinal sin of experimental science. Regardless of the reasons, if you're caught lying about your data in a paper in Science, expect to be shunned by the respectable scientific community.

    21. Re:Editors, read the article. by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      how radically different. as I said(though maybe not in this exact post), I didn't sign up for 80 hour weeks. Every now and then you step up and have to do something for the team. Yeah, its not excellent, but its part of working on a project.

      IF I get hints that I need to put in unpaid overtime and decided that I didn't want to do that for my job, so be it. Sometimes certain jobs aren't for everyone. Everyone starts screaming about ethics here, but no one has either shown that

      1) she was in any way threatened into doing this

      2) she ddn't voluntarily donate eggs to help the project

      3) that this in any way posed a real risk to her.

      note that the entire argument is that it is unethical to even use volutarily donated eggs if they came from people working on the experiment.

      and of course, you dodged my question. I specifically said why it would be unethical for me to be asked to work well beyond my contract to keep my project up and running(I was implying, keeping the project going so I still had a job). So while you try to recast what I said and say they are different, they aren't.

    22. Re:Editors, read the article. by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      obviously you've never submitted to minor surgical procedures and had to work several 80+ hour weeks. I"ve done both. I'll take the first any day of the week. but of course, if you haven't had both, you might not realize the hell working that much can bring into your personal life(which by the way, is another fundamental interest in my book, so I guess I was being set against myself??) as compared to a couple of hours in a hospital followed by being sore for a couple days. Of course, having your "fundamental interests" set against each other happens every single day. People wake up and decide if they should not get fired or go see their child in the school play that afternoon. Life's full of tough choices, in't it? or is only your definition of a fundamental interest valid?

      these ethical rules are arbitrary measures of what should be allowed. Anyways, even in the worst of casting of what might have happened(though it is denied by the lab worker, the lead scientist, and the hospital, which could easily account for nothing because there is a real value of this not becoming a scandal for all three), the lady was not forced or had her job threatened. She was offered money to do this. And none of this is proven. So in total, the screaming is really about a woman voluntarily submitting to a procedure and it is only questionable because she works in the lab. No matter how vividly you try to describe a relatively simple procedure, it won't change what actually is being said about this.

    23. Re:Editors, read the article. by diaphanous · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This isn't about tough choices. It's about setting limits for what a boss, someone who may have the authority to set wages, promote, or recommend an employee for future employment, can ask of their employees.

      Everyone values their ability to grant access to their body. We typically only allow people we are close to (family, friends and lovers) or trusted individuals (health care providers) to do anything much more intimate than shake hands with us. Any violation of our body is seen as intensely repugnant: we have laws against rape and assault, and at least in the United States, a person can only be searched when there is a warrant, or there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been commited. We only allow medical procedures to be performed on people without their consent in emergencies when they are incapable of consent, and even in this case, people can prepare advance directives limiting what is done to them. That this is proper is the consensus view in the United States.

      The disruption of ones personal life, and family/work scheduling conflicts are important, and the United States has labor laws, including Family and Medical Leave Acts, allowing some workers to claim some time as only their own. However, if you put these issues on a par with surgical procedures, then you are probably far off the social consensus.

      The United States Congress, local legislatures, funding agencies, and universities and hospitals, have all set rules for employment conditions and biomedical research (most stringently for research using human subjects). If you think these rules are inappropriate, then you should to lobby these bodies to repeal these laws and guidelines. I suspect that you will have a tough time.

      The woman might have come forward, wholly on her own initiative, and volunteered to be an egg donor for this project, but this is irrelevant. We have blanket codes of conduct in employment and biomedical research for a reason: there is a consensus that in a case like this any coersion would be so reprehensible that we need to eliminate any possibility of, or even the appearence of the possibility of, coersion or conflict of interest. These rules have to apply to everyone or they risk becoming a paper tiger, easily circumventable by anyone with power. It's imaginable that independent review boards could allow people to apply for exemptions to rules like these, but their integrity would have to be so unimpeachable, and the gains would be so minor, that I doubt it would be worth the time or the money: the risks far exceed the benefits.

    24. Re:Editors, read the article. by ogrizzo · · Score: 1

      but then, why is it not unethical for me to work 80 hour weeks for a few months to keep my job by keeping my project up and running?
      It is unethical to demand you so. And it is even illegal, at least in the civilized world.

    25. Re:Editors, read the article. by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      And where has it been proven that he lied? So far this is based on the allegations of a single person...and who's to say a woman working on the project couldn't have donated the eggs anonomously?

    26. Re:Editors, read the article. by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Maybe the fact that

      But it's not a fact, it's an allegation made by a single person.

    27. Re:Editors, read the article. by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      but there is no even hint of this lady being demanded to undergo this procedure. btw, its not illegal in the civilized world to have a job that demands you to work 80 hours a week to keep your job. It happens all the time in the US, Europe, Japan and other first world countries. IT is only unethical from your point of view. Ethics are constantly changing and in many cultures, working 60 hours a week is seen as completely normal.

      you of course, ignore the implication of my statement so I will make it more clear. Why is it unethical to be asked to go above and beyond your job description when it is required to keep the project going? I am making the assumption that if the project fails to go further, it will be shut down and you along with several others will lose your jobs.

    28. Re:Editors, read the article. by DigitalCrackPipe · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm sure you'd be just as understanding when your boss asks for a small piece of your testicle. It's only a small surgical procedure, and it would really help the project. Hardly different from the 80 hours you've already put in.

    29. Re:Editors, read the article. by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      no, this is akin to my boss asking for several sperm samples. don't exagerate what the procedure is. Its that kind of ignorance that leads to bad policy(not saying this is a bad policy born out of ignorance, but it is how it gets sold off to people, like partial birth abortion).

    30. Re:Editors, read the article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir, are an ass.

      You clearly have no idea what a female goes through to get these eggs. The decision to give these eggs should only be given freely and voluntarily. There are many possible complications, and it's not exactly a painfree procedure.

      Do yourself a favour and think before you open your mouth.

    31. Re:Editors, read the article. by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      It's been an allegation published in Nature during 2004, a journal that's usually more credible than "as single person". The controversy sat like a turd in the cloning punch bowl until now when a collaborator with his own considerable reputation decides to cut ties and resign from the project based on new evidence that he's received that Dr. Huang was lying. I tend to believe the US scientist. It's legitimate to say that the evidence hasn't been proven in a court of law but it's hardly an allegation made by a single person.

    32. Re:Editors, read the article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so... newscientist has a followup. This wasn't just one egg... this involves hundreds of eggs.

      "Gerald Schatten, at the University of Pittsburgh, made his announcement on 12 November. The controversy concerns the source of the hundreds of donated human eggs that Woo-Suk Hwang used in recent ground-breaking research. Human eggs are generally difficult obtain..."

      "Taking eggs from a woman involves modest but real health risks, and there are guidelines to protect donors. One of these prevents people in positions of authority from accepting egg donations from their junior staff...."

    33. Re:Editors, read the article. by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      It's been an allegation published in Nature during 2004, a journal that's usually more credible than "as single person".

      Oh, so instead of it being an allegation by a single person, it's an allegation of a single person that's being published in a magazine. How could I have been so blind?

      when a collaborator with his own considerable reputation

      The man he's accusing also has a considerable reputation. They might do things differently in South Korea, but I'm going to go by the U.S. legal standard of guilt: innocent until proven guilty. As opposed to the ESPN standard, where an uncredible allegation is treated as a fact with videotaped evidence and Jesus as a witness.

  21. Re:Damn Commies! Oh, and don't bring your dog the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're an idiot, and you can't even spell "nuke". Must be an American.

  22. Re:People may not agree on where the line is. by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

    If cloning ends up having the potential to prevent birth defects and such, is forcing someone to give up her eggs, worth it in the end?

    Don't worry about it. Never going to happen. You can't take a chunk of someone's liver by force to save someone else, and there's no reason to think that would be different with other parts of people.

    To everyone else, please don't respond to the troll portion about embryos. Don't let him win.

  23. Contradictory..... by Mayhem178 · · Score: 1

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the term "forced donation" sounds a little self-contradictory to me. Something like "forced concession" fits the situation better. A "forced donation" is more like the offering plate at church.

    On a side note, how do you force someone to give up their eggs? What's he gonna do, saw her open and steal them if she doesn't hand them over?

    Oh, wait.....

    --

    "You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles

    1. Re:Contradictory..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when the church passes that plate full of money around you're supposed to put more on? Whoops...

  24. Re:North or South by external400kdiskette · · Score: 1

    North Korea has the ability to do advanced technological stuff, just only a few things due to their perpetually screwed workers paradise. Stem cell stuff would serve no purpose to them unlike weapons technology and satellites where the technology can be resold to Axis of Evil (TM) countries earning them cash $$$ .

  25. Schatten sure took his time severing those ties by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Consequently, Gerald Schatten, a cell biologist at the University of Pittsburgh, has severed his ties with Mr. Hwang and cited gross breaches of ethics.

    What the submitter left out was this nice bit:

    Dr. Schatten, who was to have led the organization's board of directors, says he is now severing collaboration with Dr. Hwang, due to questions over the source of human eggs used in a 2004 cloning project, and errors in a 2005 paper coauthored by the scientists. A 2004 news report in the journal Nature said at least one female laboratory worker had provided eggs for the project, an allegation that Dr. Hwang has denied on several occasions.

    Is it just me, or does it look like Schatten didn't have a problem with the forced collection, only starting to sever ties (note the tense there: "is now severing", ie, he hasn't finished?) after problems come up with a paper?

    I can't see why else he waited a year after it was public knowledge (and no doubt knowledge to him well before the news report) to sever his ties.

    1. Re:Schatten sure took his time severing those ties by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps because only an idiot would abandon such a prestigious project and severe all ties with colleges of his own profession after all the work they have put in, at such a haste without even thinking about it or making sure that he could confirm all the details of the allegations?

    2. Re:Schatten sure took his time severing those ties by dbrutus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Schatten believed Huang's denials. He now has information that makes him doubt those denials. He's figured out that his colleague has been lying to his face for over a year. That's not evidence of being ok with forced egg donations/harvesting.

    3. Re:Schatten sure took his time severing those ties by Mocenigo · · Score: 1
      What the submitter left out was this nice bit:


      > Dr. Schatten, who was to have led the organization's
      > board of directors, says he is now severing collaboration
      > with Dr. Hwang, due to questions over the source of human
      > eggs used in a 2004 cloning project, and errors in a 2005
      > paper coauthored by the scientists. A 2004 news report
      > in the journal Nature said at least one female laboratory
      > worker had provided eggs for the project, an allegation
      > that Dr. Hwang has denied on several occasions.

      Is it just me, or does it look like Schatten didn't have a problem with the forced collection, only starting to sever ties (note the tense there: "is now severing", ie, he hasn't finished?) after problems come up with a paper?

      Well, there are a few things you maybe do not know about scientific collaboration projects. When people from different institutions work together, they do not always know all the technical details of the work of each other. There is trust about details which are not of competence of the others. For example I am writing a paper with a colleague from Canada, where I am supposed to implement a specific algorithm he wrote: He does not need to see my code, he need to see the timings. FWIW, I could have asked a "slave" to write it: I did not, but if I did and I did not acknowledge this, this would have been unethical.

      Hence, one can assume in good faith that Dr. Schatten did not know the source of the eggs when the paper was written (presumably not later than early 2004). Then the paper was submitted and accepted for publication - scientific journals have a big backlog and the paper was supposed to be in print in 2005. It could have even been that online publication was in 2005 and print in 2006, I did not check this.

      If the Nature report was published in 2004, it is simply impossible that the paper was not yet written and that it appears in print now. The paper must have been written before the allegiations have been made.

      Now, of course it is entirely possible that he knew what was happening and he did not care about it until the source of the eggs was made known. I have seen worse in the scientific community. Somebody else mentioned prostitutions in this discussion: I have seen entire academic carreers built around a vagina...

  26. Re:Damn Commies! Oh, and don't bring your dog the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YHBT YHL HAND

  27. Ethics dumbed down to queasiness by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 0

    Modern medical ethics seems to me to have no philosophical underpinings, and is just the sum of forbidding anything that might bother anyone. It is a response to a quest for funding, not an interest in morality. If you cover all possible things that might bother someone, then you may get funded.

  28. I'm sure the right-wing will be glad to hear this by BassZlat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They have exhausted their other options when it comes to delaying embryonig stem-cell research.

    Since several states have started passing budgets with money dedicated to embryonic stem cell research, its oponents have been growing increasingly rabid and vicious in the last few months. The 3B dollars approved under proposition 71 in California have been delayed so far for more than a year. Expect those well-meaning folk trying to save your soul at the expense of your body to jump on this news and integrate it in their propaganda machine ASAP.

    If you are subscribed to the google news feed on the topic ("stem cell" or "stem cells" are good candidate strings (does that thing take regexp btw?)) you will see that almost every week a major new scientific announcement is made. There are signs of improvement for a lot of diseases previously thought incurable. Not all of this stuff gets mentioned in the mainstream media in the US.

    --
    Don't go silently into that peaceful night
  29. Wow. A LOT better than porn and a plastic cup. by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1

    Oh wait, that was for an egg donation. 8-)

  30. Re:People may not agree on where the line is. by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    a columnist during the past election cycle quoted her child as having said to her 'John Kerry wants to make medicine out of babies.'

    I remember that. And right after that, my 1-year-old son put down his Tonka truck and asked, "Daddy, why do columnists make up bad propaganda lines and then pretend their kid said it to make up for the fact that if an adult said it, he'd look really, really dumb?" Then he burped up on himself.

  31. oh noes :) by loakers · · Score: 0

    Have any been e-bayed yet?

  32. Re:North or South by korea · · Score: 1
    I'm not so sure I'm aware of any regime that worships eggs.

    Also, neither the North nor the South parts of Korea are communists.

    What does this have to do with the progression of the state?

    Liquid has the letter U in it.

    --

    --

    "pain is weakness leaving the body."
  33. When this came up on in 04 by hey+hey+hey · · Score: 5, Informative
    Hwang says it was a language problem.

    Pulled from Science, Vol 304, Issue 5673, 945 , 14 May 2004:

    Last week Nature reported that in an interview a member of the research team admitted being one of the egg donors, raising questions about whether she profited professionally by being a co-author. Nature quoted bioethicists as saying that, to avoid any hint of coercion, there should be an arms-length relationship between the research group and the donors.

    Hwang blames the language barrier for "a miscommunication." He says the woman had tried to explain that, in the future, she would be willing to donate eggs for such research by other groups. Moon-il Park, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Hanyang University in Seoul and chair of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the university hospital that approved the research plan--the eggs were harvested at the hospital--wrote in an e-mail that no one from Hwang's team was among the 16 volunteers. "I confirmed this after being contacted by Professor Hwang" regarding the allegations, he wrote.

  34. Re:North or South by stunt_penguin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree with parent. Its kinda sad that Communism itself has become so associated with being 'evil', mostly I suppose because of the anti-Soviet rehetoric of the US Govornment, which i suppose was necessary at the time.

    People confuse the utterly vile evil of Stalin & Mao with the Communist ideals, which are pretty benign and were designed to create an equal society. Mao (who was an order of magniture more dispicable than stalin) & co. abused these ideals for personal gain as soon as they took power.

    In the end, communism doesnt really work in the real world because of human nature. Power corrputs, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Shame :o( Oh, BTW absolute Capitalism doesnt work either. See USA for details

    --
    When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
  35. Name. by Bezben · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Woo suk hwang? Sounds like the kind of name you find in a dirty limerick...

    1. Re:Name. by Bushido+Hacks · · Score: 0

      Who's his lawyer: Won Hueng Hwo?

      --
      The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
  36. In other news.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dr. Who was forced to suck wang

  37. Re:People may not agree on where the line is. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    No, because it really isn't all that hard to find someone that will. It's different when you are talking about a resource that can only be acquired through unethical means: then you have a value judgment to make. For example, should someone be forced to give up a heart, or a lobe of their brain, in order to advance the state of human knowledge? I would say no. But heck, right now I could line you up half a dozen women that would be proud to donate an egg or two to a significant research project. No coercion required.

    Of course, now, if there was money involved that would help.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  38. NKKSU by this+great+guy · · Score: 3, Funny

    As an eminent member of the NKKSU (North Korean Kraeizy Scientist Union), I see absolutely no problem with such practices. I myself regularly force my own lab slav^H^H^H^Hworkers to do such things. Those bastards are so lazy anyway that this is the only way to justify their outrageously high wages. No later than yesterday one of them even asked me a raise to $3.75 per hour. What the H-E-L-L was he thinking ? I can tell you that I added him immediately to the list of subjects that are going to be used in this experiment with the RNA-deconstructor human immunodeficiency virus. This time this is an improved version which works (I think). -- Dr. Madh

    1. Re:NKKSU by this+great+guy · · Score: 1

      Err I was supposed to be "funny", who modded me "insightful" ?

      Usually when I try to be funny, I am modded "flamebait" because nobody get my joke, or not modded at all because nobody not even care about reading me. But this is the 1st time ever that I am modded "insightful".

      Damn ! Why is it so hard to be funny on slashdot ? Am I that bad ? :)

    2. Re:NKKSU by markild · · Score: 1

      Sorry. You probably belong in the real world.

      Here at slashdot we take pride in laughing at things we are not supposed to be laughing at.

      --
      Scully: Should we arrest David Copperfield?
      Mulder: Yes we should, but not for this.
    3. Re:NKKSU by TheStonepedo · · Score: 1

      I replied to a funny modded insightful last night. This most recent round of eligible moderators (except myself) don't do such a hot job. Oh well, wait three days, lather, rinse, repeat.

      --
      I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
    4. Re:NKKSU by -kertrats- · · Score: 1

      That's ridiculous, it's obvious you're not a North Korean scientist.

      They can't read.

      --
      The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
  39. Mean what you say. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    "I just wish people would use say what they mean and mean what they say, dammit. Thank God the laws in most countries are much more clear."

    So do you really want it damned, whatever it is? What is it, anyway?

    1. Re:Mean what you say. by Dwonis · · Score: 1

      He just misspelled the German word meaning "thereby".

  40. Feynman did a similar thing... by sdfad1 · · Score: 1

    Slightly off-topic, but one wonders about people who might have done all sorts of research on themselves/their "by-products".

    If the following account is accurate, it's another example of a slightly less inethical incidence:

    When he was a grad student at Princeton he was having an argument with a colleague about the mobility of sperm; Feynman went away for a bit and came back with a sample. (from "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman."?)

    1. Re:Feynman did a similar thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Feynman went away for a bit and came back with a sample

      Ok I think I get it. You're implying went home and collected a sample from his cat. That's extremely unethical. That guy should be neutered. ^:(^ (my lame attempt at an emoticon for a frowning cat)

      Meow wait. You said Feynman, not Schrodinger. Can I at least get a point for the almost-on-topic, except it was the wrong guy post? Pretty please? I promise I'll use the litter box. Besides, you won't know til you check.

      -A little black cat trapped in a big silver box

    2. Re:Feynman did a similar thing... by n6kuy · · Score: 1

      "Surely you're Joking..." is a great book. Highly reccomended (by me, anyways).
      I wish mine hadn't fallen apart after reading it to death...

      --
      If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
    3. Re:Feynman did a similar thing... by n6kuy · · Score: 1

      I also wish I could spell "recommended" properly before I hit the submit button..

      --
      If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
    4. Re:Feynman did a similar thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The scientist who discovered that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria went out to prove his theory by ingesting a large sample of the stuff.

      By the next day he was puking his brains out, and within a week a serious ulcer formed.

      Of course, as he proved that ulcers were caused by the bacteria, he only needed to take tricyclic antibiotics to cure himself.

      See http://www.pacpubserver.com/new/health/i-q/hm0308. html

  41. Prostitute? In Korea? I can't imagine. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    prostitute? in korea? U can't imagine. . . me want you long time! nuther words, nuthin but there.

  42. Append this submission immediately. by apflwr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The tag is misleading at best, if not an outright troll. There is no indication that the donor was pressured or coerced in any way. In fact there is no indication of any wrongdoing except for an allegation by the American scientist, with no offering of proof. Do we know what HIS motives were?

    Whoever greenlit this should have caught it-- for God's sake the article itself is a blurb, it would take 30 seconds to read. If you're against human cloning there's plenty of fodder for your argument, you should not be allowed to use Slashdot as your pulpit to demonize the other side.

    1. Re:Append this submission immediately. by g0at · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot. There is no editorial quality whatsoever. Why do we keep acting as though they give two shits?

      -b

    2. Re:Append this submission immediately. by Hartree · · Score: 1

      I think you miss the moderator's point of view. It was quite a successful post. It got 275 comments so far. It means that eyes were looking at the pages, and thus, they were justified in charging the ad revenues.

      You just have to understand where the concern lies. Slashdot's a business.

      Just like Action News (tm), pushing crap pays off in ratings.

    3. Re:Append this submission immediately. by dougTheRug · · Score: 1

      Appended.

    4. Re:Append this submission immediately. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tag is misleading at best, if not an outright troll

      Whoever greenlit this should have caught it


      I see from your vocabulary that you are from Farkland. Let me explain Slashdot in your native dialect:
      ScuttleMonkey is shocked - SHOCKED! to hear that there's more to the story.

      HA! HA!
      The joke's on /. subscribers.

  43. Re:People may not agree on where the line is. by cptgrudge · · Score: 1
    To put things into perspective, a columnist during the past election cycle quoted her child as having said to her 'John Kerry wants to make medicine out of babies.'

    My mom has told me a story about when I was little. At my first experience at a wake, we went up to view the body; the young man had been killed in a motorcycle accident. I was young at the time, but old enough for the experience. There was a woman in front of us, and she started to cry at the casket. When my mom and I went up next, I started to cry as well. The man's head was covered in a bandage and the lower part of the casket cover was lowered.

    We walked back to our seats and after a few minutes I asked "where the man's legs were". This was the reason for my crying. The thought of the man's legs being removed when his body was put in the casket was a bit unsettling for me. She explained the reality of it, and I understood. It was a good thing that I had asked the question, because she initially had the impression that it was just the woman in front of us. Monkey see monkey do, or something.

    My point is this. Young kids see the world through *very* different eyes, without the benefit of life's experiences to draw from. I'm not taking either side in this debate, but not everything can be reduced to the innocent view of a child.

    --
    Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
  44. Only North Korean Lab Workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh wait, nevermind....

    --
    North Koreans have no Seoul.

  45. Re:North or South by koreaman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh, BTW absolute Capitalism doesnt work either. See USA for details
    Or Somalia.

  46. Re:North or South by koreaman · · Score: 1

    By the way, I'm not from Korea. The name is a long story.

  47. Nine Months and Eighteen Years Later by Bushido+Hacks · · Score: 0

    Future Headline: "Fook Mai and Fook Hue in dirty video on the Internet."

    There goes my karma.

    --
    The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
  48. Re:North or South by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I disagree with the assertion that communism doesn't work. The problem is that communism doesn't scale. It works quite well in communities of up to a few dozen people, however.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  49. The Kloner? by BocaJuniors · · Score: 1

    It would be a KDE comic book?

    1. Re:The Kloner? by niteice · · Score: 1

      No, a Komic booK.

      --
      ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
  50. Medical Ethics? by putko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've often thought that the medical ethics community was a bunch of smart, Talmudic guys somehow looking for relevancy and importance through their arguing skills. E.g. if a man dies in a car wreck and there's no next of kin, is it OK to harvest his organs? OK, fine -- you are in the middle of harvesting the guys liver, and the intended donor is there cut open -- just when you are about to transfer the liver, the next of kin appear, declare that if you take the liver out of their family member, he won't have one in the afterlife. But if you don't do the transfer the intended recipient will probably die earlier due to having been cut open -- blah blah blah blah.

    Is it OK to harvest fetal material from abortions. When is it OK to pull the plug on a brain-dead person? When is it OK to euthanize somebody?

    This is comical: in early medicine, you had doctors robbing bodies out of graves so they could figure out how the bodies worked. Sometimes they'd get lynched for this, so doctors established a network, so that doctors from town-a would tell doctors from town-b, "we got a body in cemetary-a". Town-b doctors would rob it, and when they had a body in cemetary-b, they'd tell the doctors from town-a. That's the origin of modern medicine.

    I wonder what the medical ethicists would have said.

    I think we'd all be better off if we didn't have medical ethicists, and instead just asked ourselves, "what is legal?"

    --
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    1. Re:Medical Ethics? by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      I think we'd all be better off if we didn't have medical ethicists, and instead just asked ourselves, "what is legal?"

      Indeed. Then all that will be necessary is to ban the study of 'Ethics' in academia, (declare it 'Terrorist Ideology' or something) and a more democratic, free community will prosper. To say nothing of the reduced R&D Costs in producing the 'optimal human' for Industrial and various other purposes.

      --
      resigned
    2. Re:Medical Ethics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're still mishandling bodies for science. See the (former) UCLA Willed Body program.

    3. Re:Medical Ethics? by MooUK · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I can see any real reason for allowing people to opt out of organ donation after death. If your liver, say, can save someone's life, and you've no further use for it, what right do you have to denying the other person that chance at life?

    4. Re:Medical Ethics? by dbrutus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then it wouldn't be organ donation but eminent domain. Private companies couldn't take it against your estate's will and the government would have to pay the going market rate. Nobody would be without estate if they have viable organs. A full set of organs would be tens of thousands of dollars at least.

    5. Re:Medical Ethics? by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      It would depend, in my mind anyway, on the beliefs of the person who died, and on the beliefs of the person's relatives.

      In any case, it seems a very personal decision, with the one "thing" ( your body )
      that you most truly "own".

      I understand where you are coming from, I wish more people would donate. I dont
      think it should be a governmental decision.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    6. Re:Medical Ethics? by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      We'd be better off if we didn't have people thinking about ethical issues? Are you mad? The law is not (and should not be) the final arbiter of right and wrong. We use the law to approximate right and wrong; professional ethics are an adjunct to that system, in place for professions whose members can have the most direct, life-altering influence over the lives of laymen: doctors and lawyers.
      I wonder what the medical ethicists would have said.
      This statement has so many things wrong with it, I can't even speculate where to begin.
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    7. Re:Medical Ethics? by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      The law is not "up" with the latest and greatest capability we have medically, unless
      we ask ourselves what is ethical. Law seems to be reactive, not static, we have new
      laws added every year, nominally to deal

      What is the law about in the first place? Codifying what we find to be right and wrong, I think.

      How will the laws be framed?

      If all we do is ask "what is legal", we will find "legal" to be twisted to fit whatever.

      We have, at least here in the US, the ability to donate our bodies for cases like
      those you bring up. I think, with time, we may have similiar outs for such issues.

      I think it right and proper that we reflect on these questions. I further think
      that we should always ( in all situations ) be asking what is ethical, as well as
      what is legal.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  51. Well then, "sex" is in the job description. by Ben+Varrey · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, a prostitute knows what she's selling, doesn't she? A lab worker, on the other hand, probably expects to use her mind, not her ovaries.

    1. Re:Well then, "sex" is in the job description. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless of course she is a "sexy" lab worker :)

    2. Re:Well then, "sex" is in the job description. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Agreed, what we have here is essentially a 'breech in contract' with the lab worker. If your going to be expected to donate parts of yourself(blood, semen, eggs, other tissue samples) as part of the job, well, it should be listed at the time of interview/hire.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:Well then, "sex" is in the job description. by Anarcho-Goth · · Score: 1

      Well, technically speaking, it isn't the ovaries that a prostitute is selling, but you still make a good point.

      --
      I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
      If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
      Courage.
  52. It's the definition of sexual harrassment, folks. by Ben+Varrey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What everyone seems to be missing is that, if there's a power gradient, there's implicit coercion involved.

  53. Few right-wingers have a problem with stem cells by StupidKatz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... it's the stem cells from human fetuses that they have a problem with. It's one of those "slippery slope" cases, whether you believe it or not.

  54. How do I get a job like that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anyone would like to pay me to sit around and produce sperm samples, I can start immediately.

    No, seriously.

    1. Re:How do I get a job like that? by MooUK · · Score: 1

      Just go visit your local sperm bank. They'll pay you some amount of money (I think it's probably in the region of $20-$50).

    2. Re:How do I get a job like that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just go visit your local sperm bank. They'll pay you some amount of money (I think it's probably in the region of $20-$50).

      That's only for Nobel Prize winners. Acne-covered teenage geeks whose only claim to fame is finishing the Legend of Zelda probably aren't in enough demand to even justify the storage costs.

  55. Re:North or South by imsabbel · · Score: 1

    Er...
    Normally im not really busy in this "comparing evil" buisness...
    But how exactly would you gauge Mao "an order of magnitude more dispicable" than Stalin?
    I mean, they were both cruel bastards, and if maos actions had the death of more people as direct result (which is debatable), then it wasnt out of stalins lack of trying... (but more about population numbers)

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  56. What about med students? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Medical students are regularly used in studies. There was even a case in which a student died because of an asthma study. They inhaled a drug that wasn't approved for that purpose in order to simulate an asthma attack. Who's to say that a student can't feel compelled to participate in his research advisor's studies? I don't think that's a whole lot different from the situation here.

  57. Re:People may not agree on where the line is. by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 0, Troll

    Don't worry, you'll get modded troll soon enough.

    --
    All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
  58. stemming by SpectralDesign · · Score: 1

    QUOTE: If you are subscribed to the google news feed on the topic ("stem cell" or "stem cells" are good candidate strings (does that thing take regexp btw?))

    I can't say about the news feed subscription, but when it comes to the Google search they've implemented something that they refer to (oddly enough) as "stemming" which if you enter *either* cell or cells the engine actually searches for *both*

    --
    Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seuss
  59. He did NOT force anyone. RTFA, submitter. by gbdc · · Score: 3, Informative
    "an allegation that Dr. Hwang has denied on several occasions"

    Where did anyone other than this slashdot submitter accuse Dr.Hwang of forcing anyone?

    On the contrary, Dr.Hwang is well known for being exceptionally careful to keep his experiements in ethical domain, even at the expense of progresses in his experiments. Please examine the facts first before making a serious accusation like this

  60. about the tag line. by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's apparent from your tagline that that is indeed all you know about Bush.

    --
    resigned
    1. Re:about the tag line. by KremlinKOA · · Score: 1

      that's because few economists own farms in Kentucky

    2. Re:about the tag line. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Few librarians own farms in Kentucky either. What the hell is your point?

    3. Re:about the tag line. by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      He qualified his remark. He spoke of Academic economists, i.e. those who nobody but a bureacracy will pay to 'be an economist.'

      --
      resigned
    4. Re:about the tag line. by KremlinKOA · · Score: 1

      Simple, if you ask a kentucky Farmer about the Clinton economic policies, you will discover just how well he did for that state

      You will probably discover exactly what a bullet wound feels like too

  61. Re:It's the definition of sexual harrassment, folk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Apologies for the anon posting... have already moderated and don't want to waste that moderation.

    "Missing" nothing. If the individuals involved don't see the situation that way, there's been no coercion. History is brimming with people who put themselves forward (often into harm's way) because they felt strongly about the value of the research they were doing -- from lab assistants to lab owners.

    "Implicit coercion" is just a media twist to substitute external judgement. It's reasonable to judge minors incapable of giving informed consent, but let's not patronise adults.

  62. Re:North or South by PintoPiman · · Score: 1
    This sounds like something I could easily expect from a communist regime where not much is sacred except the progression of the state.

    South Korea. A capitalist regime where not much is sacred except the pursuit of money. Lot of money to be made in the cloning business, I'll wager.

    ~p

  63. Article says nothing about pressuring for eggs by marcybots · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read the article, it says nothing about pressuring anyone about eggs, whoever wrote the blurb should be punished, they obviously have a political axe to grind against human cloning. The sad part is that most people who see this will believe this guy coerced a employee to donate an egg blindly without reading the story first...READ THE ARTICLE AND TELL ME WHERE IT SAYS HE "PRESSURED" HIS ASSITANT FOR EGGS! It doesnt, it says he misrepresented where the eggs came from, period. So for everyone who is all outraged about this, go to the article and read it before you start venting out of control.

  64. Ethics? No... by Sr.+Pato · · Score: 1

    Gross breaches of your morality? Perhaps. I hate it when people replace the word "morals" with "ethics", thinking that they're both synonymous. Learn the difference.

    --
    Nobody's gay for Mole-Man. :-(
    1. Re:Ethics? No... by mjtaylor24601 · · Score: 1

      "I hate it when people replace the word "morals" with "ethics", thinking that they're both synonymous. Learn the difference."

      Hmm...ok I'm no english major but

      ethics: 1. A set of principles of right conduct. 2. The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy

      morals: 1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character. 2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior

      So for us stupid people in the audience could you perhaps enlighten us as to what distinction you're making, because to me both morals and ethics seem to be equally acceptable in this context.

      --
      I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
    2. Re:Ethics? No... by Sr.+Pato · · Score: 1

      Okay. Ethics, in a nutshell, is the "study of morality". Morals is, in a nutshell, "One's personal guidlines to the distinction between good and bad"
      So where morals is the actual distinction, "Killing people is bad", ethics asks the question, "Why is killing bad?" or "Why do we think killing is bad?". Think of it as Ethics being "Philosphy" and Morals being "Religion". So where ethics talks about the moral dilemma, morals is the actual decision of what we believe to be true about the dilemma. I don't believe "Ethics" fits in this context, because the scientist is not debating whether or not the decision was moral, but has made a clear stance against the decision. And hence, is a "Moral" stance.

      --
      Nobody's gay for Mole-Man. :-(
    3. Re:Ethics? No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact is that the definitions of these terms are not even remotely technical. They can both mean both things and many others. In philosophy as I have been exposed to it there are ethics and meta-ethics, and between those they cover everything to be discussed. The term "morality" could stand in for either one. In my experience, "meta-ethics" is the study of ethical systems (moral principles, etc.) and "ethics" is the study of applying those principles to determine what action to take.

      What is being called "ethics" here (as in "ethical voilations") is not really either; it is a set of rules to avoid ever falling on the wrong side of the true ethical line. No one should claim that the rule itself *is* the ethical line. Obviously a subordinate, female scientist could, conceivably (pun not intended!), donate eggs out of the goodness of her heart without any funny-business going on anywhere. So as far as I am concerned, the term "ethics" is really deceiving when used in this modern fashion. For the term "ethical violations" to admittedly include perfectly ethical activities (in the traditional, moral sense) is just too confusing for normal use. They should find other terms.

    4. Re:Ethics? No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you must make an analogy, "ethics" is more like "law" and "morality" more like "opinion", but those analogies also break down in some cases; language isn't as simple as that, and "ethical" and "moral" can mean different things depending on context.

      In this context, however, ethical is the proper term: did Hwang violate agreed upon conventions?

    5. Re:Ethics? No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I this context, "ethics" is the only proper word to use. "Ethics" and "morality" are indeed not synonymous, and you yourself should learn the difference.

  65. Re:North or South by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'd just like to add that this is a perfectly natural thing to happen in a Korean company. Some say there should be a better word for weird. There is; it's "Korea."

    We in the West have a difficult time grasping how a Disney-loving, triplet-fearing madman could end up as the leader of an entire country. The answer is simply that if your average Korean had no financial or legal hindrances to being as weird as his heart desired, every man, woman, and child would be just the same.

  66. Suk Hwang? by danratherfoe · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seeing as how his name is Woo Suk Hwang, we can at least be assured that he has an abundant supply of semen to work with.

    1. Re:Suk Hwang? by danratherfan · · Score: 1

      Me love you long time.

    2. Re:Suk Hwang? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how droll.

      I supposed I shouldn't expect any better from slashdot, from all these "humourous" post about foreign names, it seems like most slashdotter are still in kindergarten, or just mentally challenged.

    3. Re:Suk Hwang? by B_Billy · · Score: 1

      I tend not to believe this story. Woo Suk Hwang is a name you write on the attendance sheet the substitute teacher hands out. It's right after Jim Shorts, Dick Hurts, etc.

      --
      LET'S GO ISLANDERS!!!
    4. Re:Suk Hwang? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now...anyone else feel like a little giggle when I mention my fwend

      Woo... Suk... Hwang...

      He has a wife you know...

      You know what she's called?

    5. Re:Suk Hwang? by Dwonis · · Score: 1
      You must be new here.

      "This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original..."

    6. Re:Suk Hwang? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet they switch their names for fun all the time

  67. Full Text of "Wall Street Journal" Article by reporter · · Score: 2, Informative
    I actually submitted this news story to SlashDot. Regrettably, the screener did not include the full text of the article.

    Below is the full text of the article from the "Wall Street Journal".

    U.S. Scientist Quits Stem-Cell Alliance
    By a WALL STREET JOURNAL Staff Reporter
    November 12, 2005; Page A5A

    A prominent U.S. scientist is withdrawing from an international collaboration to create human embryonic stem cells.

    Gerald Schatten, a cell biologist at the University of Pittsburgh, said he was severing all collaborations with the laboratory of Dr. Woo Suk Hwang of Seoul University.

    Dr. Hwang, a veterinarian, has drawn international applause for leading the first effort to clone human embryos and extract their stem cells. Last month, he announced the formation of the World Stem Cell Foundation, an international alliance aimed at spreading that technology.

    Dr. Schatten, who was to have led the organization's board of directors, says he is now severing collaboration with Dr. Hwang, due to questions over the source of human eggs used in a 2004 cloning project, and errors in a 2005 paper coauthored by the scientists.

    A 2004 news report in the journal Nature said at least one female laboratory worker had provided eggs for the project, an allegation that Dr. Hwang has denied on several occasions. Under U.S. rules, collecting eggs from women working on a cloning project would be considered unethical. In the original paper, published by the journal Science last year, the scientists said the eggs all came from anonymous donors.

    The above article does not state explicitly the matter of coercion, but the article strongly implies it. The pressure to produce results at Seoul University (and other Korean universities) is very intense, yet unfortunately, Korean society rejects the ethical standards that are routinely practiced and implemented in universities and laboratories in the West. Hence, American rules forbid workers on a research project from donating their own eggs for the research: the aim is to prevent any pressure from being applied to the workers. In Korea, the female lab worker most definitely felt pressure to "put out", and no one gave a damn.

    For the old timers in this forum, I encourage you to do a search for the original story of the "cloning breakthrough". SlashDot had started a thread about it in 2004 or early 2005.

    I will reiterate what I said in previous Slashdot threads about cloning. I salute the go-slow approach that the West (which includes Japan) has taken. Its people have repeatedly debated the ethics of the subject and enacted laws ensuring an ethical approach to the matter.

    Such is not the case in Korea and, especially, China (which includes Taiwan province and Hong Kong). No national debate on the subject ever arose in Korea or China. The Koreans and the Chinese view cloning humans as merely another bland step in science. Hence, last year, the Chinese created a human-rabbit embryo but destroyed it after a couple of days.

  68. Re:North or South by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The U.S. is not in a state of absolute capitalism. Absolute capitalism is anarcho-capitalism. The U.S. was not anarcho-capitalistic in the 1800's, and it has become much more authoritarian since the "New Deal". The policies of the New Deal actually started with Hoover, and FDR added even more policies, making the disaster worse. Without those policies, we would have simply had another "Panic of 1929", but FDR managed to drag out the massive unemployment for at least a decade. Of course, we wouldn't have panics at all if the government had not been using the banks to inflate the money supply since 1814 (in 1814, the government allowed banks to suspend specie payments, which caused the first panic in 1819). Clearly, the U.S. is not an example of anarcho-capitalism.

    Somalia is a good example of a population that is trying to establish control over each other, rather than simply law and order, and that is why the fighting continues. Whether or not violence will happen in a given country has more to do with general culture than government, although government often makes things worse. For an example of a population who fought against government (rather than trying to establish control over each other), see early Pennsylvania. There was plenty of law, order, and prosperity in that region, but virtually no government.

  69. Re:North or South by I_Human · · Score: 1

    BTW absolute Capitalism doesnt work either. See USA for details

    Nice attempt at sounding intelligent.

    --
    -JP
  70. What's that sound? by ToasterofDOOM · · Score: 1

    ...oh yeah. WHOOSH!

    --
    I am Spartacus
  71. Re:North or South by TummyX · · Score: 1

    The communist economic system requires total government control over distribution and value which is evil.

  72. Re:North or South by dbrutus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The fundamental purpose of economics is to allocate goods and services efficiently by pricing their value correctly. Communism, of virtually all varieties, swear that they can do this pricing function better than capitalism. They never have. After so many decades, the default communist response to such a request is a quick change of subject or juvenile assertions that economics is not about efficient allocation.

    Before the gulags and the death camps come along, there is the fundamental fact that communism can't set a price. All the subsequent violence stems from power mad people who won't make way when, once again, this fact is proven in the real world. There have been communist societies that didn't turn violent, the pre-marxian utopian experiments are a good example. Instead, they all shut themselves down when they figured out after a year or two that it was never going to work.

    Only the ignorant and/or evil are communists these days.

    As far as capitalism goes, it's funny how the closer to capitalism you get, the better your economic results get (compare economic growth rates and unemployment between France and the US). The closer you get to communism, the worse things become. The US is a capitalist state the same way that the USSR was a communist state. Both states followed their models imperfectly but where the US strays from principles, it performs worse economically, where the USSR strayed from principles (NEP period, for example) it performed much better.

  73. Re:North or South by dbrutus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Generally it's done via a comparative body count. You can't beat the Khmer Rouge in the % sweepstakes. They offed about a third of their population. Now that's revolutionary commitment!

    Jesus wept.

  74. Re:North or South by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes, just like every American dreams to be a Christian fundamentalist movie star.

    Your silly post is shallow, baseless and plain rude if not quite racist.

  75. Re:North or South by starman97 · · Score: 1

    As opposed to total Corporate control?

    At least the voters can have some influence in a democratic system.

    Getting any control over a privately held corporation is pretty much impossible

    --
    Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
  76. Re:North or South by ClamIAm · · Score: 1

    Would you care to back up your assertion with a reasoned argument? If the goal of this post was just to increase the noise level of this discussion (which is likely, considering the unfounded accusation and judgment in it), I suggest others ignore it. I'm not passing judgment either way on Communism, I'm passing judgment on the parent post, which is void of any real content.

  77. Re:North or South by gameboyguy13 · · Score: 1

    Want to explain? I've got time to listen... (/me is curious)

  78. Communism was successful in the USA by jimbro2k · · Score: 1

    Agree with the Parent:
    In many utopian communities founded in the USA: the Amana, Oneida, Shakers, etc... A pure form of communism was successfully practiced for several generations.

    What did all of these communities have in common?

    1. They were all relatively small and agrarian. 2. They were all united by a strong common religion.

    --
    There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
  79. Re:Prostitute? In Korea? I can't imagine. . . by Floody · · Score: 2, Informative

    prostitute? in korea? U can't imagine. . . me want you long time! nuther words, nuthin but there.

    This oft sampled quote (me so horny, me love you long time) is originally from Kubrick's (rip) classic Full Metal Jacket, a film which brilliantly and disturbingly explores a dichotomy (perhaps even the dichotomy) inherent in human nature. It's set during the Vietnam "conflict" (heh) era. The plot events take place in a marine boot camp preparing infantry for deployment to Vietnam and shortly after, in the country itself. It has absolutely nothing to do with Korea or the US-Korean involvement of the 50s.

    But please, don't let such trivial details stop your asian generalizations.

  80. Re:North or South by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excellent rebuttal. Thanks for taking time from teaching advanced tactics in your debate class to offer this insight.

  81. on the languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in russian "Eggs" means "Balls". That is odd!

  82. Re:North or South by koreaman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Well it's not that long. I just didn't feel like explaining it.

    I used to be a lot less mature than I am now, and also very bored. The two were a volatile combination, and they made me want to troll slashdot. I set up this account to post lame "In Korea..." jokes. I forget how exactly it became my main account.

    Cheers,
    koreaman

  83. Re:North or South by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
    North Korea doesn't have the money, the technology, or the support necessary for stem cell research.

    At least until the Great Leader gets blown up and all they have left is his nose, and then you can bet some idiot time traveller will chuck it in front of a steam roller while escaping from the cops...and then...

  84. Re:I'm sure the right-wing will be glad to hear th by dbrutus · · Score: 1

    I remember when interferon was going to cure cancer. Huge amounts of money got dumped into interferon research. It largely ended up a dry hole. Embryonic stem cell research could end up being a dry hole too. If the adult stem cell guys end up doing it better, cheaper ESC is doomed even if it does work.

    So far, the ASC researchers are many years ahead of their ESC competitors. We have actual ASC therapies with many more in human trials. How many ESC therapies are in human trials? The last I heard, the number was zero. By the current state of the science ESC is a loser. So why is the government pouring billions into backing this loser instead of extending the already successful ASC methods further?

  85. Re:North or South by koreaman · · Score: 1

    Your argument was very valid until it got to the "which is evil" part. You fail to explain why it's evil.

    So, why is it evil?

  86. Re:North or South by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't feed the troll. He's just another lazy european who's anti-capitalist because they don't want to have to work.

  87. Re:North or South by Moose6912 · · Score: 1

    What are you talking about?Seoul is in South Korea.

  88. Re:I'm sure the right-wing will be glad to hear th by BassZlat · · Score: 2, Informative

    Thank you for providing me with a good example of the right-wing propaganda I mentioned in my previous post.

    If you quit buying what fauxnews sells you and do your homework, you will see that therapies using ESCs are practiced all over the world with stunning results. The most amazing progress is made in regenerating heart tissue and there's also some stunning progress in spinal cord injuries.

    --
    Don't go silently into that peaceful night
  89. Egg donation is painful and risky... by bstarrfield · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For all the slashdot crowd here comparing egg donation to sperm donation or, heaven forbid, having to work long hours, a basic interjection of reality (though IANAMD)

    1) Egg donation is a surgical procedure. A painful surgical procedure. A single egg is not magically transported from the woman's body - essentially a surgical procedure akin to a biopsy is peformed. Yes, modern surgical methods are better, but the pain is real, the risk of surgery is real, which leads to:

    2) Egg donation potentially impacts fertility. This is a delicate procedure, and things can go wrong.

    Donating one's eggs to scientific research is a noble action, and I deeply respect the person who does so. But it's a serious matter, and the merest appearnace that outside pressure was applied to influence a worker to donate her eggs calls into question the ethics of the project team itself.

    --
    /* Dang, I can't type that well. */
    1. Re:Egg donation is painful and risky... by zzz1357 · · Score: 0

      3) Egg donation does make the donor orgasm. (But then again, neither does having to work long hours.)

      --
      You can't add pianos and telephones.
    2. Re:Egg donation is painful and risky... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rubbish. I know a woman who had egg donation done to her and she said it did no hurt at all. The above article is rubbish obviously put forward by some femonazi with an axe to grind.

      Donating an egg involves insertion of a large metal probe up the vagina. Before you start thinking this sounds painful, remember that they warm it up first and apply plenty of lube. Most women find it pleasurable (my friend certainly did, she would not shut up about it).

      The only reason this woman who donated her eggs for that cloning guy has any reason for complaint is because she complained about it in the first place.

    3. Re:Egg donation is painful and risky... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The current arguement that conventional egg donation is either painless or painful is off target. The procedure used by the Korean research team was not conventional; in fact, a co-author of the scientific paper says the procedure cannot even be performed in the United States due to the health hazards to subjects. The egg donation procedure is described in the original 2004 article in the journal Nature which raised the question of ethics regarding this project.
      But cloning is very inefficient. To derive a single line of embryonic stem cells, the Korean team used 242 eggs obtained from 16 volunteers (W. S. Hwang et al. Science 303, 1669-1674; 2004). Each woman was given hormone injections to force her ovaries to superovulate, producing 12-20 eggs per menstrual cycle instead of one.

      Other researchers were surprised that so many women were prepared to undergo this procedure for a research project. Side effects of the treatment can range from general discomfort and emotional stress to clotting of the veins or stroke. "It's a painful procedure and there is risk involved," says Jose Cibelli, a co-author on the paper who studies cloning at Michigan State University in East Lansing. "It would never fly in the United States."
      http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040503/pf/429003a_ pf.html

      This also begs the question, if Dr. Gerald Schatten is severing his ties to the Korean research over ethical questions of candidness or the appearance of coercion, why did he not object to the use of this risky egg donation procedure? Is it ethical for US researchers to export research procedures which pose health hazards to subjects to foreign countries where they have fewer qualms about injuring subjects? Are US researchers co-authoring papers with figurative "Nazi" scientists because NIH won't allow US researchers to engage in harmful research on US soil?
  90. Re:It's the definition of sexual harrassment, folk by zzz1357 · · Score: 1
    I think by "implicit coercion" you mean "capacitance."

    ...if there's a power gradient, there's capacitance...

    Much better!

    --
    You can't add pianos and telephones.
  91. Do you have any evidence of force? by MichaelPenne · · Score: 1

    Does anyone? I'm just asking, ok? I mean it's easy enough in this controversial field to start a rumor about coercion, force, pressure, obviously there are people who want to see this research fail or be discredited for their own religious or philosophical reasons. Or maybe there is some truth, but we've seen plenty of people attacking strawmen (and CIA wives) lately in all sorts of fields. Is it too much to ask that if you are going to make claims of pressure, much less force, you have some actual evidence you can point to? If the best you can do for evidence is vaugue allusions about cultural stereotypes and searching slashdot, I call FUD.

  92. this is the by michaelbuddy · · Score: 0

    This is the most stupid article I've ever read on Slashdot. Who really cares if some coordinator thinks it is unethical.

    He's probably trying to play some politics game for one, and secondly, the deadlines that everyone has put on any project, one should assume people are going to be going to whatever lengths they want to pull it off.

    Who cares anyway. I'm sure there would have been an article if the technician was really coerced. I just don't think that happened.

    --

    ...::----::...

    I am in no way affiliated with this sig.

  93. Re:North or South by jadavis · · Score: 1

    The problem is that communism doesn't scale.
     
    ...just like any other hierarchy.

    Large systems need to rely on much more independence of individual units. For example, cells in an organism are somewhat independent; I don't think a mammal would work if the brain tried to micromanage every task a cell performed.

    --
    Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
  94. Re:North or South by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually communism worked pretty well... in small hunter gatherer tribes where every member of the community realised that his/her existence depended on the welfare of the other members. Therefore sharing resources, in that context, is the most obvious way to do things. In larger societies, it's more difficult to relate the welfare of Joe I Don't Dnow and Don't Wanna Know Who, to one's own best interest is much more difficult. And swindling is easy in any big structure, whatever type of government or private interest it resprents. Similarly capitalism works when the population is small enough that the accumulation of resources by a few does not significantly deplete the globally available resources. But since resources are finite, when the increase of welfare of a few signifies a significant drop of survival odds of a significant fraction of the population... things change and usually in bloodshed, since the established elite is not likely to be willing to forfeit its priviledges for the benefit of mere "commoners". Capitalism is the economic system of choice when rsources (and thereofore opportunity) seem plentiful, while communism is the system ofchoice of desperate people who think of survival, when resources appear very limited. The failure of the first is the the system itself whic acts as a positive feedback pump which causes resources to become ever scarcer for the greater number. The failure of the second is that as soon as survival seems assured, people start wishing to improve their personal lot with respect to their fellow humans. Their respective success is their downfall in the end.

    --
    I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
  95. Hahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gotta love surrealism.

  96. Re:Damn Commies! Oh, and don't bring your dog the by sydres · · Score: 1

    I think that might be a movie qoute but I don't really know for sure I am just surprised that people waste the mod points on an AC that seems a waste to me

  97. Re:North or South by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    typical comment of average american. most of the americans think that everything non american is communist, and everything communist and therefore non-american is bad, even though they don't understand communism or socialism, or whatever else, or even democracy for that fact.

    good example is health care in canada. its socialist and it kicks ass. but we hate it because its socialist. here in US we get rapped all the time for health insurance that doesn't cover anything. we pay high fees, we get shitty coverage that has high deductables, and most of us cannot even afford medical help that we need. and we love it because its "democratic!" and why do we hate canadian? because its communist. because rich people such are doctors don't want the government to sponsor our health insurance, because then they wouldn't be able to charge arm and a leg for their service. you don't think this is true? pay attention to your bill next time you go to dentist. you get rapped in the ass. why is that insurance communist and bad? because rich people tell us that. and most people just repeat after them because they are too fucking stupid to have their own opinion.

    rich people control the government. they give our senators and congressmen donations, they elect them. (PLSC 101)
    that is why government officials do whatever rich people want them to do. rarely do you see government doing something good for an average man (like spliting up Bell). look at microsoft for example. they rape people with their high prices and they force all the manufactures to only support their products (windows etc). ordinary people have to buy windows products if they want everything to work right (e.g. my grandma doesn't run linux, she's too old to learn it). so there was an antitrust suit against it? and what happened, microsoft paid pocket change to some other corporation, and they keep rapping whomever they please.

    i love my country, just like everyone else. only difference is that i realize that US is not perfect in any way. matter of fact it sucks donkey balls and average american gets rapped every day, its just that all the rest of the world is fucked even worse.

    if you don't see these problems, there are only two reasons for that:
    a) you are fucking blind
    b) you are ignorant as fuck

    another good example of this shit is oil war. all the big car manufactuers invested a lot of money into fuel cells few years ago. just recently they all one after other stopped or slowed down research in that field. why you ask?
    well, the oil industry is fucking huge in this country. everything runs on oil. oil industry 0wnz us. if they say prices are going to be $20/gal, then they are going to be that. we can't do shit about it. they pretty much forced automotive industry to stop investing into fuel cells, because if somebody made a car that was economical, clean, and quickly rechargable, they would be millioners and oil industry would suck cocks. they obiviously don't want to suck cocks so they will do anything to stop that shit from happening. remember, this country is run by money, and average american is blind to wtf is going on.

    belive it or not, we are getting rapped every fucking day. no wonder there is such a high hemoroid problem here in the states. money runs this country and we are all fucked by it. corruption is everywhere. yes, our government too.

    US is run by money. its not a democracy, its a republic. they tell you that you have freedom of whatver, but you actually don't. its just like communism or any other government for that reason. only difference is that people think they are free, yet they get rapped just like everyone else. big fish eats little fish. welcome to the real world.
    fuck. fbi is on my door, bbl.

  98. Re:North or South by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 1

    Communism is not the same thing as fascism, "

    The only difference between communism and fascism is that the fascists have nicer uniforms.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
  99. Re:North or South by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    His name is "Suk Hwang" -- which makes him phonetically gay, and therefore a communist agent.

  100. deskofreporter by pikine · · Score: 1

    You must be gravely misinformed about Taiwan. You make some blanket statement but didn't show the evidence to back yourself up, so I'd like to request you do that. In particular:

    1. I know about Taiwanese government hiring Cassidy and Associates, but you said the "that type of legislation [they persuade] is detrimental to American interests." What exactly in Taiwan Security Enhancement Act is detrimental to American interest?
    2. What are the sources indicating Eugene Hsu and David Yang were born in Taiwan?
    3. Peter H. Lee might be pressured to plea guilty by the FBI. It is not clear from the source you cited that they have sufficient evidence against him. I find him receiving "compensation for the information he provided to the Chinese in the form of travel and hotel accommodations" hard to swallow. When you invite someone important don't you arrange their travel plans? I agree that, being in a sensitive position, he should be more careful accepting invitations. Can you show his intention is to leak information to China?
    4. Wen Ho Lee plead guilty on mishandling of information (and his guilt is shared by many other Los Alamos scientists but he somehow became a scapegoat); the court dropped all other charges against him. You have to update your information.
    5. Weapons of Mass Destruction is a joke. On what basis are they listing a Taiwanese company, Ecoma Enterprise Company, for giving technology and services to the Iranians?
    6. "The Taiwanese have invested more than $100 billion into more than 50,000 businesses in mainland China." Nowadays everyone invests in China, even U.S. companies. If you have kids, their light up shoes are made in China as well.
    7. Your take on Senkaku Islands is just wrong. Taiwan says it's theirs, not Japan's, not China's. In addition, the article you referenced (from BBC) does not mention "one China" at all. Where did you get that?
    8. Your interpretation of the Taiwan referendum (which took place in March 20 this year) is also wrong. It merely reflects that most people prefer the status quo and are reluctant for radical changes, with fear of disruption of their lives, due to that fact that China has stationed long and short range missiles along the coast so any signs of Taiwan independence will cause these to fire. Yes, we Taiwanese people live with no national security at all, unlike you Americans who can joke about Cubans.
    9. The Constitution of Taiwan comes from the days of Republic of China before World War II, and political reforms to revise that Constitution is only starting to take place recently. This is due to the fact that KMT (Kuo Ming Tang), which has its roots from Republic of China before World War II, had been in power until 5 years ago. I think you have to get some historic facts straight before you cite it to support your arguments.
    10. Taiwanese schools are still teaching students pre-WW2 geography of China, so naturally Tibet and Mongolia are still part of it. To tell you the truth, nobody freaking cares!
    11. That Nazi restaurant and the Hitler billboard are examples of poor taste and illustrate unfortunately how some people in Taiwan are ill-informed about the world outside. However, I fail to see the connection you're trying to make, alluding that Taiwanese are generally Hitler supporters. Most Taiwanese are just amused by his ludicrous moustache, and have no idea what he did.

    The other day someone accused me of reading between the lines of what Aaron said about Frank on OSWD, and that I have bad English. I guess someone has even worse reading comprehension skills than I do.

    You need to upgrade your tin foil hat to gold, and make sure your gold foil is not made in Taiwan nor China.

    --
    I once had a signature.
    1. Re:deskofreporter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "unfortunately how some people in Taiwan are ill-informed about the world outside"

      I know Taiwanese and I know Americans and I feel that there are more ill-informed American than Taiwanese. For a start, the Amercian culture DOES NOT applies to the world.

  101. Emphasis on the Shakers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know a good amount on the Shakers. It is said that the Quakers were related to Shakers, but lost their common relation as they were pressed to modern ideals and dwellings. The one accurate trait of the Shakers is they didn't self-sustain their population; much of the Shakers were orphans, peacfully congregating and assembling for a common benefit to help one another. Unusually, the "leaders" among the shakers strictly abstained from sexual encounters. That is what I've read partly on the Wikipedia article, and not actually seen. It is said there are less than 5,000 shakers in the USA, whereas before their growth surged from small isolated gatherings then instantly disappear, then reappear, etc. It looks as a hearty bunch of people, and I can't say I've seen one communist society in the works closer than the Shakers because all the others are actually fasist and dictator and authoritarian movements guised behind the image and color of progress and consolidating wealth. Shaker furniture is high quality, next to Amish products in terms of respects.

  102. Leave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about you leave the project? Nobody's forcing you to work there.

  103. Hindsight is 20/20 by Y-Crate · · Score: 1

    In a perfect world, she would have just yelled "Leggo, my Eggo!" and that would have been the end of it.

  104. Unethical postings @ /. by msbsod · · Score: 3, Informative

    6 hours past, in the meantime two more BS postings from ScuttleMonkey, but neither an update nor an apology by ScuttleMonkey and the author of the article! Posting false accusations and playing with a researcher's reputation is the only unethical misdeed here.

  105. Re:North or South by TummyX · · Score: 1

    So you think it makes sense for the government to decide how much shoes cost or how worthy one job is compared to another?

    As opposed to total Corporate control?

    Total corporate control is anti-free market.


    At least the voters can have some influence in a democratic system.
    Getting any control over a privately held corporation is pretty much impossible


    Vote by not buying their products and services and please don't tell other people how to spend their own money.

  106. Re:North or South by ghoul · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The only difference between you and a piece of shit is that you stink more

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
  107. Re:North or South by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why is it that people are so obsessed with "economy"?

    surely the point of government is to try to make life as good for its citizens
    as is possible? i realise the economy plays no small part in this, but the US
    seems to not realise the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

    i simply cannot understand how it is possible that health inspectors must give
    meat companies notice in advance of an inspection. what is the point?
    to somehow mollify the population that the government gives a damn if their children die
    from E.coli poisoning?

    how is it possible for people to be working full time jobs yet be living below the poverty line
    in a country that is supposed to be the most advanced in the world?

    economy is not for economies sake, it is merely a tool that should be used to make the
    populations' lives better, not a few thousand obsenely wealthy oil barons

  108. Re:North or South by ghoul · · Score: 1

    Communism says we are all basically good people who care for the welfare of each other and we should share with the less fortunate.
    Capitalism says I want my XBox and screw u if you cant afford food.

    Guess which is more cloer to human nature ? Communism is an ideal which can never work because humans are basically selfish.

    The US is not a true capitalistic state as there is a strong influence of the Chrisitan church which is a communist organization. As the church says we are all good people(children of god) and should share with the less fortunate.

    The US works because the capitalism of the economic system is balanced by the communism of the church system.

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
  109. Supply and demand? by shbazjinkens · · Score: 1

    Before sperm donations could be paid for, the men working at the clinics would often donate their own sperm in order for there to be enough supply of sperm, because demand was so great and there simply wasn't enough unafilliated men donating to meet the demand there was for sperm.

    Were they really trying to meet market demand or was that huge supply of free pr0n just too irresistable in the pre-internet age?

  110. Re:North or South by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Absolute capitalism is anarcho-capitalism [wikipedia.org].

    Wikipedia is an interesting tool. It is not an authority, so please don't quote it as gospel here.

  111. Re:North or South by ghoul · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How about American settlers? THey offed 90% of the native american population. Also the west was settled using the homestead act- the worst kind of capitalism where the federal governement would give a parcel of land and supplies to any family which would grab some land from the natives and kill all the natives in the area. Also if the rich in the US had not been shit scared of a communist revolution no new deal would have happened, no labor reforms , no social security. You would still be working 12 hour days 6 days a week in life threatening conditions with no job security or hope for retirement. I dont think communism works but we need to have a few communist countries around to keep the fear of god in the rich so they dont become too greedy

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
  112. Re:North or South by luna69 · · Score: 1

    > as there is a strong influence of the
    > Chrisitan church which is a communist
    > organization.

    ??????????

    Tell that to W.

    Please .

    --
    No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
  113. hmmm... by JimiSpier · · Score: 0

    I wonder how far stem cell research would have gone if stem cells where only harvested from a mans testicles..

    Lord know many of the slashdot crowd are not using theirs...

    --
    Jimi Spier
    www.jimispier.com - My tunes
  114. Re:It's the definition of sexual harrassment, folk by Dwonis · · Score: 1
    if there's a power gradient

    *groan*

  115. Flash required ??? by wtarreau · · Score: 1

    I can't read TFA, I only have the choice to download and install the flash plugin. Nothing to see there, go away.

  116. Other people's ethics... by mi · · Score: 0

    Gerald Schatten's qualms about the donated eggs may seem as bizarre to Woo Suk Hwang, as some Americans' qualms about stem-cell research appears to an average slashdotter...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  117. Different health standards for men / women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Looks a little "extreme", but I googled this "interesting" link about the differences in government health policies for men & women.

    1. Re:Different health standards for men / women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ, that page is atrocious from a scientific point of view. It's almost as bad as some of the arguments I've heard about "the jews taking over" or some such.

      Amazing, man have a lower life expectancy and have had one for CENTURIES. I guess there has been a conspiracy for quite a while against men, you know the ones who kill themselves 4 times as much during puberty as woman through recklessness.

      Or the lovely gem of because men don't use medical services as much they are somehow getting worse treatment. I'm sure that between pregnancy and the general male ego it's nothing amazing. Heck, it could mean that man are healthier than woman since they don't need to go to the doctor as much.

      Then there is that bit about how if men got better health education they wouldn't drink, smoke or eat as much. Please see my above comment about how many men die during puberty from stupidity I'm sure a similar stupidity leads to those addictions. Obesity is probably due to the social view that being fat is worse for woman than man, although that just means woman become anorexic instead of overweight.

      Then there is this moron's utter lack of journalistic ability: "It is difficult to find statistics on the precise funding allocated annually to men's and women's health; most likely such information is suppressed." - How about doing some research other than using google you imbecile. You know, like going outside into that evil sunlight and requesting information from the appropriate government agency. Or maybe going to the library, looking through some scholarly journals and so on.

    2. Re:Different health standards for men / women by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Amazing, man have a lower life expectancy and have had one for CENTURIES.

      And your point is...what exactly? That page is in no way blaming the shorter life span of men on funding inequalities. What they *are* disparaging is the fact that women's health is vastly more well funded than men's health despite the fact that women live, on average, over five years longer than men.

      In the U.S., prostate cancer kills about as many men as breast cancer kills women. Yet breast cancer research recieves 3 times as much money. The NIS had at one point (this might have changed) 9 sex-specific publications for women suffering from heart disease, but none for men. This despite the fact that more men than women suffer from it. There are many Offices or Commissions for Women's Health around this country, yet only one state has one for men. We have several Violence Against Women Act's, ignoring the fact that by far the #1 victum of violence is men, and that women commit half of all domestic violence.

    3. Re:Different health standards for men / women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You did not address the fact that the government agencies do not promote cancer screening in men in either education or advertising campaigns.

  118. Re:North or South by koreaman · · Score: 1

    Put down the pipe now...

  119. Re:North or South by koreaman · · Score: 1

    Raped only has one 'p'

    Other than that, nice post.

  120. Re:North or South by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the new .sig

  121. Slander? by AaronLawrence · · Score: 0

    This slashdot article seems to be edging dangerously close to slander. Sure, Slashdot is not like the WSJ or a major newspaper, but it does get regularly linked and read in some circles.

    There might be some evidence for this claim of "forcing", but not in that article. And it doesn't make it OK to say "the WSJ said"... in fact you might get sued by them as well.

    You can't just make crap up about a person and post it on a hugely popular website, without thinking about the consequences.

    --
    For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    1. Re:Slander? by vonoech · · Score: 1

      Well said!

      The WSJ article dosn't say anything about a lab worker being "forced". The WSJ said says that a news report in Nature claims that at least one lab worker "donated".

      This item is a bad submission made worse by bad editing.

      --
      "I'll be better when I'm older"
    2. Re:Slander? by Script_God · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see them try to sue /. for slander for this. In fact, I'd die of laughter.

      Now, being sued for libel is something I'd be worried about.

  122. Re:Oh great. Just what we needed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Let's go burn down the observatory so this will never happen again!"

  123. again from Korea? by dermusikman · · Score: 1

    it seems that Korea is having a lot of issues with human eggs. they constitute a black market in Asia:

    the crackdown might be why the scientist had to seek an egg donation. bioethical questions aside, this all seems very odd.

  124. Re:North or South by Timothy+Dang · · Score: 1

    "Dr. Woo Suk Hwang of Seoul University.

    I'm glad we made that spelling of Seoul clear. Cause if anyone ever saw a Korean try to sing or dance, they'd know that they have no soul.

  125. Re:North or South by stunt_penguin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I agree that a totally captitalist system will in 99.99% of cases create the strongest economy, which would be fine if the economy was the be-all and end-all of creating a society that works.

    Equally important to a society's success are law & order, social equality, healthcare and education. In a totally capitalist state, everyone pays their own way whether they can afford to or not. This creates a situation where the rich get richer, healthier and more powerful (see lobbyists for details. The Pharma. industry couldnt get their way in govornment if they hadn't so much money, nor could the food industry). The poor of society loose out, become disaffected, angry and ultimately someone pays the price. The French govornment are finding that out the hard way, and the collectve tragedy of New Orleans stripped bare the inequality of American society. The poor people of N.O had less say in what happens in the court than one lobbying group in Washington

    No country is immune. I'm Irish, and proud of it. We have one of the strongest economies in the world, it's easily outperforming the USA at the moment (in terms of percentages, not overall size) but I see ways in which money is starting to sway govornment decisions here, such as the decision to allow a butt-ugly & potentially unsafe Natural Gas pipeline and processing plant to be built in one of the most picturesque parts of our west coast. The company responsible is Shell, and they're f**king the Irish people over for govornment backhanders (probably). The gap between the rich and the poor is growing here, and i'ts a sad thing to see.

    The best way to maintain relative equality is to provide a (hopefully positive) feedback loop between the higher echelons of economic success and the poorest in society, through good, affordable healthcare, free(ish) education and laws & tax systems that let people who work hard earn good money (and therefore strengthen the economy). It's a big chunk of capitalism mixed with a small dose of socialism.

    All of these things, if implemented by smart, forward thinking politicians who are chosen in free & fair elections, will in themselves bolster the economy and look after the interests of the people of that country, which is basically what Govornments are there for. No country is perfect.

    --
    When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
  126. Re:North or South by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Vote by not buying their products and services"

    Works great if its a monopoly which takes out any competitor instantly doesn't it? Or as the factory owners used to do to some extent, if you are forced to buy everything from your employer or risk being fired?

    "and please don't tell other people how to spend their own money."

    So you want to get rid of freedom fo speech then?

  127. YASJ (Yet Another Soviet Joke) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, Hwang Suk WOO!!

  128. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is why women should have no rights.

    Death To women's Rights.

  129. Re:North or South by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

    Well, okay sorry I exaggerated slightly, but he did manage to kill about 70 million people (as a conservative estimate) mostly through starvation, torture and ambition-motivated war (i.e the Korean war- which would never have happened without him and his lust for American blood).

    His policy of supporting other budding so-called 'Communist' states and of paying the Soviets to supply him with arms factories (which were useless) caused the worst famine in history. He exported hundreds of millions of tonnes of grain, every ounce of which which was forcibly taken from rural families who were already leading a harsh existance.

    As for Stalin, I think on one level he believed in Communism, and wanted to make it work whatever the cost, even if that meant being an evil, manipulative bastard. Mao never believed in communism, he just used the party to rise to power. He was even ejected from the top echelons of the party twice, and from the party once if i remember correctly, but he had enough dirt on everyone to claw his way back all the way to the top.

    Oh no. I'm about to run into Goodwin's law (wiki it) here, but this is justified. Can I just say that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot et. al had nothing on Mao?

    --
    When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
  130. Re:North or South by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

    Yup, thats the thing about the scale of things. I think Socialism is to a degree an inherent facet of human nature- we've evolved this way because at the tribe (or sub-100 person-ish) level where everyone knows everyone, a little Communism means that when somone gets sick, or when their home floods or slides down the side of the mountain, everyone pulls together, lends them the medicines or some shelter and the society is the better for it.

    The failure of the second is that as soon as survival seems assured, people start wishing to improve their personal lot with respect to their fellow humans.

    Exactly. Someone has to run the show in a larger economy, otherwise things become more and more confused and inefficient. However, this power corrupts, and abuse of this power results in the kind of system created by the Soviets and the CCCP. Human nature works for us in our traditional everyone-knows-everyone system which has existed for the critical bits of our evolutionary progression (while we learned to sow crops, domesticate animals and the social human made more babies). However it works against us when, as you put it very well 'people start wishing to improve their personal lot'

    Evoltion's a bitch, don't you think?

    --
    When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
  131. Idiot. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Just a word: Mengele.

    Get lost.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe they're talking about dead bodies, not experimentation on live people. Congratulations, you've totally missed the point.

  132. Demystifying egg donation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The egg retrieval procedure is neither painful nor pleasant. It is exactly the same procedure that is followed for in-vitro fertilization. Most of the times is performed under mild general anesthesia and might take about 20 min. The greater risks after the procedure are infection and ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome (due to the drugs used to hyper-stimulate the ovaries before egg collection). But with the proper medication (antibiotics, antiinflamatories) and rest, this chances are minimized.

  133. Re:North or South by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wikipedia is an interesting tool. It is not an authority, so please don't quote it as gospel here.

    Nice response. I was not quoting it as gospel. If I were, I would have wrote:

    "Absolute capitalism is anarcho-capitalism [wikipedia.org] (this source is the gospel)."

    Since I did not say any such thing, the "please don't quote it as gospel" comment is just your poor interpretation of what I said. You could have just as easily said, "Please don't quote Wikipedia as though it's an interesting tool that can act as a starting place for learning about a given topic", but then you would have really looked like a dumbass.

  134. American (legal) prostitution by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Well, it does pay extremely good money to them.

    The whole idea is that there's nobody threatening to cause phsyical harm to them or others if they don't do it. That there's no more motivation to do this job than it pays $$$$, versus a McJob paying $, or even strip club paying $$, or going out and getting an education to earn $$$-$$$$$.

    Would you say that porn stars would get another job if they could?

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  135. Re:It's the definition of sexual harrassment, folk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When have you not had a relationship with someone who wasn't more/less smart, rich, pretty or confident? By your definition all sex is rape.

  136. Re:People may not agree on where the line is. by 2008 · · Score: 1

    "You can't take a chunk of someone's liver by force to save someone else"

    Oh, yeah? I like a challenge :)

    --
    I quit!
  137. You mean LIBEL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean LIBEL. SLANDER is like LIBEL but different. I AM A Lawyer.

  138. don't miss the chicken for the eggs by mbius · · Score: 1

    Under U.S. rules, collecting eggs from women working on a cloning project would be considered unethical.

    Under US law, collecting eggs from anyone to work on a cloning project is "unethical." At the risk of spreading FUD, I believe we have a no-tolerance policy towards human cloning.

    (If I'm wrong, the propaganda has worked).

    So perhaps the egg had to come from an interested party. While I completely understand the potential for abuse if that party is an employee, it is entirely conceivable nothing improper occurred. It's her cell to sell.

    If the head scientist used her own egg, would that be more ethical? Family members' eggs? Bought them on the black market? I can't believe we're talking about job security as the salient ethical detail in this context. There is a goddamn baleen whale in the foyer.

    Do I believe anyone would relinquish precious bodily fluids to keep a job? No. Assuming it is ethical to buy and sell these for the express purpose of cloning research--as Dr. Schatten has--I don't see why we need to abridge the right to contract. Barring the event that your employer is Dracula, it might be considered a privilege to contribute to a historic experiment.


    For once, the debate has everything to do with the price of eggs in China.

    [1] "Which Came First, the Breach of Ethics, or the Egg?", Nature, August 2005

    [2] "Why'd the Korean lab worker cross the road?", New York Times, 4/1/2003

    --
    you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
    Prime UID Club
  139. google turns up relevant trivia: by mbius · · Score: 1

    http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/200508/kt200508042 0430510440.htm

    Prof. Hwang Woo-suk at Seoul National University, South Korea's stem cell pioneer, is under fire for giving too much credit for his strides in cloning research to a foreign scientist. -- 8/4/05

    Good old-fashioned nationalist dick-waving.

    --
    you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
    Prime UID Club
    1. Re:google turns up relevant trivia: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is... just... disgusting. Koreans are all care about Nobel prize of him, and kicking everyone else out.

        Why is Hwang silent now?

        MOST LIKELY HE REALIZED HE'VE LOST HIS OPPOTUNITY TO GET THE PRIZE!

      Not ethic which silence him. Koreans are immoral, he's the one of many proof of it.

  140. Re:It's the definition of sexual harrassment, folk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I rape my wife nightly (really, I force her).

    Say no to women's rights.

  141. Re:North or South by TummyX · · Score: 1


    Works great if its a monopoly which takes out any competitor instantly doesn't it?


    Total corporate control is anti-freemarket.


    Or as the factory owners used to do to some extent, if you are forced to buy everything from your employer or risk being fired?


    That is illegal.


    So you want to get rid of freedom fo speech then?


    Were you born totally fucking retarded or did /. do that to you?

  142. Re:North or South by dbrutus · · Score: 1

    People are obsessed with the economy because where the rubber hits the road, it determines whether your baby is going to die or there's going to be enough medicine available to treat the fever/runs/infection that would otherwise kill your child. Proper resource allocation is ultimately about life and death issues.

    Government mandated health inspections are not a feature of an ideal capitalist society. They are a government intrusion on the economy (the free market solution is independent, competitive private inspectors). This isn't a commentary on whether government inspection of meat is good or bad, merely that complaining about how government inspection is done badly in the US is not an indictment of the US' capitalist aspects, but rather its socialist ones. Like every modern economy, the US has both systems working in parrallel. It's named a capitalist society in that the capitalist aspects predominate.

  143. Re:North or South by dbrutus · · Score: 1

    Capitalism features a government that acts as an honest referee. Government is pure coercive force and should not be for sale under either system. It's a system failure under both capitalist and communist governance when this happens. The real world use cases tend to be a bit more benign on the capitalism side. That doesn't make it right or a planned feature of the system.

    Now men are not angels and systems will fail in the real world sometimes. The key is in honestly comparing how often they fail and what are the consequences as well as how bad are the recovery modes from those failures. In all those, I think that capitalism is much better than its competitors both in theory and real world practice.

  144. Re:North or South by dbrutus · · Score: 1

    A huge chunk of the decrease in native american population was accidental disease spread in an era when disease transmission was largely terra incognito. This is not quite the same as piling up skulls in a campaign of genocide against your own people.

    The homestead act gave you the land if you could bring in three crops in five years. Whoever taught you that killing natives was part of the bargain really miseducated you. If you paid for that, demand a refund.

    People went with 12 hour days 6 days a week because the pay and conditions were improvements over the alternatives. Agriculture was harder work for less money, try 12+ hours seven days a week. As those farmers dried up, conditions would have improved regardless of communism's existence.

  145. I Should've Known From the Word "nest" by KodeJockey · · Score: 1

    The other day I went to the local Vietnamese/Chinese restaurant and got a bird's nest. I guess where I grew up they did things different because when I got home and looked at the goods I was like "hmm...they put little potatoes in them here." Then my better instincts kicked in and I poked the so-called potato AND THEY WERE QUAIL EGGS!!! Now, every time I drive by the place all I can think about is those poor quails.

    My on-topic comment is if they eat the fruit of the quail on a regular basis, how can our eurocentrism judge their ovariocentricity?

    Why can't we just all get along?

    --
    i got ball this is my adress 108 20 37 av corona come n do it iam give u the sidekick so I can hit you wit it
  146. Re:North or South by famebait · · Score: 1

    The US works

    Only if you're rich (in a global sense) and healthy.

    --
    sudo ergo sum
  147. Re:People may not agree on where the line is. by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 1

    Oooh, I called that.

    --
    All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
  148. Re:North or South by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

    Hmmm okay yea sorry I was going a bit off the scent with that :o/ You're right, in the definitions of capitalist and communist, neither system has at its center a govornment that is for sale. And yea don't get me wrong, capitalism works much better in the real world, it helps to keep everyone honest.

    Its just that the system needs to have a leftish feesback loop that means everyone has 'enough', whatever that amount may be.

    --
    When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
  149. Re:I'm sure the right-wing will be glad to hear th by dbrutus · · Score: 1

    Please provide a link or a cite to an approved human therapy for ESCs involving heart regeneration. Here's one for ASCs

    B.E. Strauer et al., "Myocardial regeneration after intracoronary transplantation of human autologous stem cells following acute myocardial infarction," Dtsch Med Wochenschr 126, 932-938; Aug. 24, 2001.

    Human autologous stem cells are adult stem cells, ASCs.

    If you can't find actual human trials (successful ones that is) or therapies that aren't adult related, maybe you're the one who's promoting propaganda, but it isn't the religious, right-wing kind. If that's the case, maybe you might ask what interests would want to take credit for ASC progress and shine up the reputation of ESC methods?

    Awaiting those cites/links...

  150. Re:North or South by dbrutus · · Score: 1

    I think that it would be more productive to say that the system needs a negative feedback loop to rein it in when it goes too far. Whether that feedback loop can be found on the political left or elsewhere is an open question in my mind.

    Capitalism has, as an advantage, the feature that it is an incomplete system. It's somewhat like a Unix utility. It does one thing (wealth creation and efficient allocation) really well and formally doesn't have anything to say about politics, social structures and habits, etc. You can have a capitalist system and vary in your political habits, much as the US and UK differ in their political arrangements but both are capitalist nations and get along with each other pretty well.

    I perfectly understand the temptations of the buy, buy, buy consumer culture and how empty it leaves you spiritually. I have developed the ability to just stand up and chuck my TV in the basement when I think that my family has started wasting too much time at the tube (we did it for a few weeks last month because my 6 year old was getting too immersed in certain cartoons). This is very unusual behavior for a US middle class mid-west family. I actually lost the chance to be a Nielsen family because we didn't own a TV at the time.

    My personal answer is being serious about my Eastern Catholic faith. YMMV.

  151. *blink* My God... where do you live? by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    In some countries (notably my own) it is not considered rape should a 16 year old have sex with a willing 15 year + 11 month old.
    You not only allow 16 year olds to have sex with 15 year olds, but simultaneously also have sex with 11 month olds? That's just sick, man...

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  152. Re:North or South by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an aside to this excellent post, those of you who believe that there is any real 'democratic' choice of insurance supplied by an employer needs a checkup themselves. I can either get crappy health insurance - or for a little less expense to me, really crappy insurance.

    No matter what, I am stuck with the 'choice' that my employeer gives me - even if I can find a better plan with another group for the same amount of money that the company and I am spending together.

  153. Re:North or South by cyberwave · · Score: 1

    TummyX--I'm not sure if calling somebody "totally fucking retarded" is exactly conducive to anything productive. I'd suggest perhaps taking the dick out of your ass and growing up, you fucking loser.

  154. Re:North or South by TummyX · · Score: 1


    TummyX--I'm not sure if calling somebody "totally fucking retarded" is exactly conducive to anything productive. I'd suggest perhaps taking the dick out of your ass and growing up, you fucking loser


    Were you born totally fucking retarded or did /. do that to you?

  155. Re:North or South by cyberwave · · Score: 1

    hahahaha.... think hard now...when was the last time you got laid? thiiiiink.

  156. Re:North or South by TummyX · · Score: 1

    hahahaha.... think hard now...when was the last time you got laid? thiiiiink.

    Were you born totally fucking retarded or did /. do that to you?

  157. Re:North or South by cyberwave · · Score: 1

    ... ./ did it to me.

  158. Re:North or South by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but you're wrong. It should read: "This sounds like something I could easily expect from a captalist regime where not much is sacred except the progression of wealth FOR THE VERY FEW."

    Isn't that much better?!

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  159. stem cell ethics in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    11-25-05: Dr. Hwang resigns top stem cell job in South Korea after lying about where he got his eggs; head of California's ICOC still in office after blatantly lying about pre-election claims (California Politics Today(TM) #478)

    http://etopiamedia.net/empnn/pages/cpt-emnn/cpt-em nn478-5551212.html