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."

26 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. i guess we can safely say he has got... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...egg on his face.

    sorry, but i will be here all week.

  2. I for one ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I for one welcome our secretly cloned female Korean researcher overlords.

    Sorry.

    1. Re:I for one ... by Vengeance · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now now, it seems you forgot to mention that in Korea, only old people donate their eggs.

      --
      It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
  3. Maybe I'm confused ... by rkcallaghan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But what exactly was unethical about lab workers also being donors in the first place?

    ~Rebecca

    1. Re:Maybe I'm confused ... by dbolger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am not a scientist, so I'm not sure, but I think the fact that they used false names brings the ethics of the researchers into some disrepute. The chap tried to cover it up to protect their reputations, and in doing so brought himself into disrepute. Its a horrible little circle :(

    2. Re:Maybe I'm confused ... by tgv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Any relation between an employer and employee is a minefield, but in this case ethics demands that the eggs were donated voluntarily. That can be easily doubted in the case of subordinates in a strict hierarchy.

      And, IMHO, it should be, but that's (as I said) my opinion.

    3. Re:Maybe I'm confused ... by elgatozorbas · · Score: 4, Interesting
      But what exactly was unethical about lab workers also being donors in the first place?

      The line between voluntary and reluctant donation is very vague because it can be assumed that lab workers can easily be put under pressure to donate their eggs. Afterwards it is hard to prove that they did it (in)voluntarily. To avoid this discussion their genetic material should not be used alltogether.

    4. Re:Maybe I'm confused ... by jcaren · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whats the big deal?

      How do we know he did not know about it? In such
      situations you shoiuld assume the worst.

      A similar example is nuclear reprocessing facility workers
      taking off thier RAD badges, to ensure that they can
      do overtime without exceeding thier safe legal dose.

      When health and safety found out (as usual, via the
      natiaonal newspapers), the employer said that it did not
      notice employees in the hazmat areas without badges and
      because of this they were never prosecuted.

      Moral of the story: ignorance is a good excuse - if you
      can get away with it.

    5. Re:Maybe I'm confused ... by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can't do good science if your personal emotions and ego are wrapped up too tightly with the experiment.

      Whoah! That would rule out just about any scientist. Or anybody else doing any kind of work they care about.

      Which leaves the work for dispassionate drones and the mediocre, I suppose.

      --
      resigned
    6. Re:Maybe I'm confused ... by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      But in this case Dr Hwang was unaware of this, so it does make me ask - "whats the big deal?"

      He says he was unaware of it. However, Hwang also paid for the eggs- about 1,400 dollars per donor, from his own pocket- but claimed in his _Nature_ paper that the eggs were from volunteers. So he's already been caught lying about how he conducts his research, why should we believe him now?

      Furthermore, at least one of the women he took eggs from was one of his graduate students. Now, as a grad student you basically depend on your advisor for everything: funding, office space, research opportunities, help with your PhD, a successful defense of your PhD, letters of recommendation for jobs and scholarships. No academic relationship is as open to abuse as the relationship between a graduate student and supervisor, because the advisor has so much power and the student, so little. Asking Jane Doe off the street for her ova is one thing- she can say "no", and what can you do about it? Asking your graduate student is another thing entirely: she knows you can do any number of things to crush her career, so she's pressured to say yes. It's a disgusting abuse of power and this creep should never work again. Sure, innocent until proven guilty and all... but the fact that he's resigning and his collaborator is rushing to distance himself is pretty telling.

      Finally I find his defense pretty ludicrous. He said they went behind his back to donate eggs? That's not much of a defense, to say that you ran such a sloppy operation and did such a piss-poor job of conducting your research that you didn't even realize your own students were donating their ova. That, and it's just a little hard to swallow.

    7. Re:Maybe I'm confused ... by rxmd · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Whoah! That would rule out just about any scientist. Or anybody else doing any kind of work they care about.
      I guess there's still a difference between a scientist doing research that he cares about (most of us do) and a biologist working with a cell culture that is technically his or her daughter.
      --
      As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
    8. Re:Maybe I'm confused ... by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The line between voluntary and reluctant donation is very vague because it can be assumed that lab workers can easily be put under pressure

      I hate to break it to you, but outside the hard physical sciences, at least 90% of research involves freshmen and sophmores (and mostly female at that) "pressured" into "volunteering", usually for a significant part of their grade in an "intro to experimental methodology" (or comparable) class.

      The problem here involves pure and unadulterated BS politics. The professor "lied" to protect his staff, the info got out anyway, so his affiliation panicked over the nature of his work and requested he take a hike. Nothing more, nothing less.

      And the real pity here? Not just his career - He'll get another non-research academic job within a few years. No, instead, we should feel bad about the invalidation of his findings just because of a combination of unfortunate circumstances, with his area of study not the least of which.

  4. It's Not Over... by gowen · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  5. Resigned? by Darlantan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 _ _ _ _ _.
  6. I don't get it by Tx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  7. Vacancy by D-Cypell · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  8. Re:What exactly is the problem? by geoffrobinson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  9. unfair by penguin-collective · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. The difference being... by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  11. One thing still needs to be cleared up by TVmisGuided · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  12. It was slashdot submitter's spin by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative
    The last story was submitted as "lab worker forced to donate eggs" when the WSJ article it linked said nothing at all about coercion. The submitter completely misstated the article.

    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.

  13. She did such good work.. by Exluddite · · Score: 4, Funny

    "You do such an excellent job, I wish I had ten of you around here. Hey, wait a minute!...."

    --
    What does this button do...
  14. The BBC article is incomplete by toxfox · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  15. Re:Maybe I'm confused ... [OT] by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 4, Funny
    For some reason,
    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.
  16. Great now we have a mad scientist... by Cesaro · · Score: 5, Funny

    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....

  17. Voluntary? Probably...in a Korean context by Simonetta · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.