Slashdot Mirror
Prime Human Cloning Researcher Humiliated
Starker_Kull writes "Today, the first scientist to clone human egg cells, Dr. Hwang Woo-suk, was forced to resign from his post for 'breaches of ethics'. It appears that the ethical breaches consisted of overzealous assistants who volunteered their own eggs for use. After Dr. Hwang declined the offer, the assistants secretly donated their eggs under false names. After Dr. Hwang discovered the deception, he tried to cover it up to protect his researchers - but the news eventually leaked out."
...egg on his face.
sorry, but i will be here all week.
I for one welcome our secretly cloned female Korean researcher overlords.
Sorry.
But what exactly was unethical about lab workers also being donors in the first place?
~Rebecca
...this is a breach of eggthics, not ethics?
That's what he says, but you know how important it can be to save your face. More important than telling the truth, I would say...
Although he has resigned, the 17 identical copies of Prof. Hwang will continue to do his research for him.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I really fail to see how this is something worth resigning over. So, his assistants were a bit overzealous, and he didn't know about it until it was too late. Yes, he tried to cover it up, but did he try to fudge any of the research? Does this make his science bad in any way? Seems pretty silly to me.
Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.
Last time this story came around, it wasn't clear to me that this guy did not know his researchers had donated their eggs. If he'd been a cold bastard and put all the blame on the researchers in question as soon as he found out, he'd probably have got away with it. Instead he tried to protect them, and this is what he gets for it.
Ah well, no good deed goes unpunished, as the saying goes.
Oh no... it's the future.
So what you are saying is that there is a senior scientific position vacant where one of the perks could be described as "Research assistants keen to donate their eggs to the successful applicant".
Please form an orderly line... behind me.
It looks like there were some ethical violations -- where the current ethical system means no possibility of coercion (e.g. no eggs from within the team) and no payment for eggs.
Here is something on the ethics of donations (from some free market fans).
One thing seems obvious: if they'd had been able to easily buy eggs, it wouldn't have been a hassle: they'd never have gotten eggs from staff, and the problem would have been solved. The lack of trading in eggs prevented these guys from doing the research and complying with the ethical restrictions.
Here's a nice piece from the sadly discredited NY Times author, Martin Finkel (he lied a story and got fired), talking about a Kidney market in pre-GWII Iraq.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
I think the good Dr has been a rather unfortunate here, by the sounds of it his researchers are entirely to blame. However he is ultimately responsible for the actions of his staff and this is why he has taken the decision to resign from his public appointments.
I wish more public figures acted with this level of integrity. We are seeing situations arise increasingly frequently where it turns out that no blame at all attaches it's self to public figures no matter what they or there staff/departments may have been engaged in and I hope the actions of this Dr can be a lesson to the next government minister who discovers his department has been acting illegally and realises that the excuse they didn't really bother to keep up to date with what their department was doing is not good enough.
Point in fact, it was originally alleged that he pressured the women into giving their eggs. By pressured, it was "your eggs or your job".
It's always the coverup that gets you, not the original crime. Martha Stewart, Richard Nixon...
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I don't know which version is correct, but the first time I saw this story reported the relevant facts were not that assistants had surreptitiously donated eggs, but that the primary researcher himself had compelled one or more assistants to donate their eggs.
Looks like a little further digging is in order to clear this up.
From the BBC story, this sounds grossly unfair to Dr. Hwang.
According to the BBC, Dr. Hwang did not attempt to violate the policy, he did not even know about the fact that the women donated, and it is clear that he wasn't trying to circumvent the policy either. It sounds to me like he did nothing wrong.
Yes, he did lie to Nature about it, but I find his justification acceptable. While there are some ethical considerations that go into publishing a journal, Nature has no business conducting ethics investigations, and this particular aspect of the experiment had no bearing on the scientific validity of the results.
To me, this story mostly reflects poorly on Nature--attempting to pry into areas that really are none of their business--and the Korean research establishment.
Hats off to Dr. Hwang for being willing to take the blame for something he didn't do. I suspect that his motivation is to keep human cloning research going, and he knows that the media and politicans would continue a feeding frenzy over this as long as he stays in his job.
that these researchers used their own, rather than an assitant's cells.
When this story broke, the first instance of it was that the assistant was forced. Now, we have that she donated. Which is right? Did she change the version so that she could keep her job? We will never know the truth.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The ehtics rules are their because it's an area ripe for abuse. Junior researchers could be pressured and thus "voluntary" might not really be voluntary. As the story goes, the donations were properly refused and then given anonymously. It might seem that there was no pressure and therefore legit. Even here it's a tad dicey. First because it puts pressures for unethical behaviour on competing scientist who lack such "enthusastic" assistants. Second because the story is perhaps too pat and one could imagine this story is a rule dodge to conspire to permit "voluntary" donations. E.g. if you can pressure someone to donate an egg it's not a stretch to pressure them to donate it anonymously as well. And third there's all sort of ways an avuncular senior research might hint and cajole a naive adoring junior researcher to act in this manner without actually telling her what to do.
So the point is it's ripe for abuse and the fact that a cover-up happened is what changed this from a grey area to a black and white one. One the otherhand there have been famous examples on medical researchers using their own selves to supply stuff. For example. craig ventor the human genome researcher turned out also to be one of the 5 test subjects whose DNA was sequences first.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Woo-Suk, Hwang
Adding insult to injury ...
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I'm puzzled over something. How, exactly, does a woman donate an egg without anyone else knowing about it?
Sperm donations are easy to figure out (I'll leave the visuals to the reader's deranged imagination). But women? Unless I'm sorely mistaken, the extraction of a viable egg is a surgical procedure, and no matter how good Waldos have gotten over the years, I haven't heard of one sophisticated enough yet to allow a woman to perform that procedure on herself. So the question is, who performed the procedure, and who assisted?
"Three can keep a secret if two are dead." So goes the cliche. It's been proven accurate with this minor scandal. Unfortunately for the researcher, the gory details got out before he was able to either bring them forward himself or develop a solid-enough cover. But rather than looking to the surreptitious donors, I'd be looking for whoever did the egg extractions, and asking why they outed the mess. No publication credit? Money? Personality clash? Something I haven't thought of?
We now return to our regularly-scheduled slashdotting intellectual discussion, already in progress...
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
Same thing is going on with this submission. The linked BBC story says nothing about Dr. Hwang being forced to resign. In fact, it sounds like he resigned voluntarily. The submitter added the "forced" and "humiliated" part himself.
It's almost as if some slashdot submitters don't like what this guy is doing and are making up whatever spin and hyperbole they can to discredit him. Shame on the editors for not reading the linked articles to check if the submission description is accurate.
"You do such an excellent job, I wish I had ten of you around here. Hey, wait a minute!...."
What does this button do...
I know. I know.
You hate puns and I should stop calling you Surely.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
The BBC article only discusses the egg donations made by his research assistants. Here are some excerpts from a longer piece in the New York Times (reg req) which describe a different problem:
"His world reputation is now expected to suffer a major dent over his admissions that he lied to an international scientific journal over eggs obtained in what many see as an ethically murky manner. [...] Roh Sung Il, the administrator of MizMedi Hospital in Seoul, disclosed at a news conference on Monday that during 2002 and 2003, he made payments of $1,400 to each woman who donated eggs. Egg donation is an unpleasant procedure that involves a week of daily hormone shots, culminating with the extraction of eggs through a hollow needle. "For those who go through discomfort and sacrifice, it seemed natural to give some money as compensation," Dr. Roh told reporters. [...] Dr. Hwang said he had wondered why the hospital had become a regular source of eggs, while other hospitals were having difficulties. "I raised the matter, but Roh Sung Il, the administrator of MizMedi Hospital in Seoul, said that there were no problems in the procurement process and I did not raise the issue afterwards," he told reporters. After the ethical scandal flared this week, dozens of women in Dr. Hwang's Internet fan club have sent e-mail messages volunteering their eggs.
Confirming the other longstanding rumor, South Korea's Health Ministry said Thursday that an ethics investigation at Seoul National University had found that the two junior scientists had given their own eggs for research. But it said those donations had not violated ethics guidelines because they were voluntary.
As the scientists' egg donations were neither "coerced or coaxed" nor "aimed at making profit," there has been "no violation of ethics guidelines," Choi Hee Joo, a Health Ministry spokesman, told reporters before Dr. Hwang's announcement.
In May 2004, Nature raised ethical questions concerning the origin of Dr. Hwang's eggs. At the time, Dr. Hwang denied that researchers in his team had donated their own eggs to his research.
In an interview last May, he said all eggs had been harvested from volunteers without payment.
Don't mix up two facts. No, the researchers who donated their eggs didn't get paid for it. Some others were paid, though.
One thing to consider is that it was before any code of ethics was established even in US, let alone Korea. It wasn't illegal, and wasn't breach of any known code ethics. I'm not saying that it's OK just because there was no regulation. But, it's also not something you can simply blame them for the lack of ethics, either (not that the op did that, but in general).
whenever I see
a post like this
with very short lines,
it reminds me of bad
poetry
or perhaps,
the halting speech patterns
of William
Shatner
or Donald
Rumsfeld
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Media talk about ethics in research, etc. but completely hide the main point: Cloning of human embryos. This is unethical but they try to do it, not only Korea but in the US too.
What's so unethical about it? It's not like human life is precious or anything. It is THE cheapest thing on planet Earth.
Cloning is not so much unethical as completely useless. Nature developed sexual reproduction as a superior alternative to cloning billions of years ago, but some scientist wants to turn back the clock so he can run the media circuit or something. Big TIME magazine cover in lab jacket with crossed arms and something about God's domain or some such rubbish. Meanwhile the misfortunate subject gets X years wiped off their lifespan by default that to this bozos incompetance.
And all on the taxpayers money
May the Maths Be with you!
Not even the usual "medical ethics boards", that too often seem to be wholly staffed by "Leave well enough alone" people and ardent Christians, agree on this matter.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I mean, seriously. Am I alone in thinking that this sounds MORE like the morality police casting about desperately for a reason to discredit the man and his work?
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Top human cloning expert gets "humiliated." Great. Now this guy is going to go bat-shit insane, move to some small island and start wreaking havoc.
Next article is going to be "Humiliated cloning experts buys thousands of linen suits, panama hats, and a cane then moves to small tropical island."
Great....
Cloning is not a direct stem cell research problem. Fetal stem cells are harvested from fetuses: there's no shortage of such tissue, from abortions or potentially from cultured embryos otherwise discarded from in-vitro fertilization attempts, so cloning is an unnecessary expense and complication in such work.
But your friend may be in better luck than you realize. There is some fascinating work going on, involving the use of adult stem cells which naturally transform into specific tissues when the system needs them. This doesn't seem to require fetal cells from donors, but has been done for successful treatment of diabetes in some lab animals. If it turns out to be possible to get nerve cells to reform with stem cells at all, it may be possible to use adult stem cells from your friend to help create new nerve tissue.
The ability to coerce subordinates into giving time, money, or even body parts is high in the scientific research fields because there are so few good quality job openings and much pressure to produce results. Therefore the need to establish an ethical boundary against having lab workers or other subordinates contribute anything but paid (often, but not always) labor to the project.
However, this happened in Korea where there is overwhelming pressure on people (applied since they are born) to self-sacrifice and give more and more to a group cause. There is also enormous pressure to serve without question the next higher figure in the chain of authority.
The director of the project was most likely right in claiming that there was no pressure to actually placed or implied on the lab workers to give up their body parts. However the social pressure was overwhelming, and all the director had to do was mention that 'donors' were needed and the lab workers would comply.
This is the type of situation that the ethical guideline was established to prevent. The director would have realized that his subordinants would have delivered the eggs and should have taken stronger measures to prevent this from happening. However, given the cultural context, it is unlikely that the director felt that he should abide by the ethical constricture.
Sort of like American rock star mentioning that he enjoys fellatio to couple of backstage groupies. No pressure, no insinuations, but the need is serviced without question.
Modded as flamebait and troll... Sorry but my post was very serious (but maybe not expressed correctly). I'm quite proud that this kind of research is forbidden in France. Not definitively, just for a few years until a consensus can be reached. Until the whole society agrees/disagrees about it. This exact story shows that some scientists won't follow ethics but you let them free to do human cloning. IMHO, this is a very dangerous step.
Million Dollar Screenshot
The eggs were donated voluntary with absolutely no pressure and no solicitation. Dr. Hwang Woo-suk did nothing wrong but has to be apologetic because of the oppressive governments.
Hey oppressive governments, if you're so concerned about ethics, why don't you make torture illegal for real and enforce anti-torturing laws by prosecuting soldiers, police, and government officials who engage in torture, cover up torture, or obstruct investigations of torture? Or would that be to ETHICAL for you? (And yes, this includes you, America)
Whenever a politician or news reporter talks about ethics, it's complete B.S. They act all high-and-mighty about stem cell research but evidently have absolutely no outrage against torturing people. I call B.S. on anyone who emanates fake outrage over stem cell research.
This "I for one welcome..." thing is used many times a day, and stopped being funny a long, long time ago. Look, I accept the fact that an original joke is difficult to assemble, but please, people... exercise a little discretion. Stop modding this up.
I sincerely doubt very much anyone would give a rat's *ss if instead of human eggs for clonning research, his lab worked with human hair for cosmetic research.
Which is quite ironic, since one of the main points in his whole field of research is that both things are to be approached with the same ethical guidelines.
Friend of the Wise, Brother of the Brave.
These eggs were donated without his knowledge. They were donated before a law against such things was even passed. He attempts to cover for the researchers and his lab in the face of a rather silly law that might be used after the fact. As a result one of the most brilliant and important researchers in the world is forced to resign. I suspect extreme pressure from the US fundies somewhere in this. On the face of it these events make no sense. There must be some very serious factors behind the surface story. What are we not seeing in the news?