S. Korea Cloning Success Faked?

minus_273 writes "The BBC is reporting that it appears that the human cloning in Korea might have been faked." From the article: "At least nine of 11 stem cell colonies used in a landmark research paper by Dr Hwang Woo-suk were faked, said Roh Sung-il, who collaborated on the paper. Dr Hwang has agreed to ask the US journal Science to withdraw his paper on stem cell cloning, Mr Roh said ... Last month, Dr Hwang resigned from his main post as head of the World Stem Cell Hub, after it emerged that some of the eggs used in his research were donated by his staff - in contravention of international guidelines. Now it is some of the research itself which is being called into question."

Comments

How do you know?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you tell the FAKE clones apart from the REAL clones? Dont they all look alike???

Re:How do you know?

[Anonymous Coward]

The evil one has scratches on its face. That, or a goatee.

Re:How do you know?

[damsa]

The clone doesn't have a belly button.

More informative link

[Sockatume]

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8461

But questions over his data only surfaced last week, when Hwang told Science that the 2005 paper contains four instances in which the same photographs were mistakenly used to represent cells cloned from different patients.

In one case, one of two duplicated photographs is enlarged relative to the other.

In a second, one of two duplicated pictures is distorted by being enlarged to different extents along its horizontal and vertical axes, Science has confirmed. "This is a level of error beyond sending the wrong file," says Robert Lanza, who leads a rival cloning group at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Massachusetts.

Now questions are also being asked about DNA fingerprint plots in the paper. The plots were presented to demonstrate a match between nuclear DNA from the donors and the cells cloned from them. So they should look similar, with peaks at the same points. But a South Korean blog pointed out last week that in at least five of the matched plots, the peaks are also strikingly similar in shape and size - more so than would usually be expected if they came from different cells.

I don't beleive anything anymore

[abes]

I'm beginning to question whether Korea even really exists..

Oh the (cloned) humanity of it all..

Re:I don't beleive anything anymore

[Radres]

In Korea, only old people exist.

Looks as though ...

[paulxnuke]

when someone asks "Woo-suk" in Korea, the answer is going to be "Dr Hwang"

Isaac Asimov's dream must wait a while longer

[StefanJ]

"Oh give me a clone
  Of my own flesh and bone
  With the Y chromosome changed to X.

  And when I'm alone
  With my own little clone
  We'll think of nothing but sex."

Re:Isaac Asimov's dream must wait a while longer

[winkydink]

Makes hearing the words, "go fuck yourself" take on a whole new meaning

Re:Hang on

[Red Flayer]

" The cloning has not been proven 'fake' yet"

You're right. That's why TFA and TFS don't say that the the results have been proven a fake. But not proven != not true.

" I think it is only some of the 'morality' of the experiment that could be called into question so far."

No. RTFA. At the minimum, read TFS, since TFA is /.ed. There are pretty credible allegations of doctoring results, and the paper has been withdrawn.

Towards the End of the BBC Article...

[ndansmith]

Here is a very interesting portion of the article:

The BBC's Charles Scanlon in Seoul says the revelations have sparked a furious debate in the South Korean media.

Leading companies have pulled their advertisements from the television station that first revealed the reported problems with Dr Hwang's work.

Many commentators said it was unpatriotic to challenge someone who had given the country a lead in such a promising new area.

That is just scary. It is sad that a whistleblower, an advocate of truth, can be branded as "unpatriotic" for exposing a fraud. Once again nationalism and patriotism have overwealmed logic and common sense.

Re:A blow for science

[Red Flayer]

"Even if the paper was not faked, criticism will come from all sides, with questions ranging from the ethical standards/morality of scientists to the usefulness of the peer review process."

Why is this a bad thing?

Asking questions and challenging the status quo are the very foundations of science.

And if those ethical questions come up, why is that a problem? Or do you think ethical concerns should be swept under the rug?

Re: the peer review process, this is exactly what peer review is intended to do. Under peer review, the study results are not holding up. This is just an example of peer review working exactly as it should.

The problem, IMO, is that too many people take as truth that which hasn't been confirmed.

Re:Donation of eggs by staff = bad?

[ed__]

yes, it is bad and discouraging it isn't exactly an onerous condition. the whole point is to avoid situations where pressure might be brought to bear on people who don't have a lot of power to refuse, regardless of whether there was coercion in any particular case. and you have to treat ethical lapses seriously, or else people get the idea that they don't matter if they don't do any "real" harm. the PI is responsible for making sure everyone understands the rules and plays by them.

in medical research it's of paramount importance to dot all the i's and cross all the t's and work methodically. even then there are lapses, but they are often easier to identify. plenty of really horrifying and morally repugnant things have occured in research history to warrant such hard-assed-ness.

Re:Hang on

[DeepHurtn!]

With reference to this particular project, the moral questions have nothing to do with the morality of stem cell research itself. It has to do with the source of the material they were working with -- the head researcher's lab assistants. This is considered immoral for the same reason that teachers are not allowed to have sex with their students, even if the student is above the age of consent: someone in a subordinate position cannot make a truly free choice.