Slashdot Mirror
Panel To Investigate Scientist For Cloning Claims
collegetoad writes "A panel of scientists from the Seoul National University will investigate scientist Hwang Woo-suk on whether he committed fraud in claiming he had developed tailored embryonic stem cells. From the article: 'Hwang also said in a paper published in 2004 in the journal Nature, that he had cloned, for the first time, a human cell to provide a source of embryonic stem cells -- master cells that can provide a source of any type of tissue or cell in the body.'" We've reported on this previously.
Why bother investigating?
Anything this guy has ever written should be trashed.
Is this the Enron of Biomed research? Do we need better accounting (of data and methods) like Sarbanes-Oxley? Just a thought.
7h3$3 4r3n'7 7h3 Ðr01Ð$ ¥0 4r3 £00|{1n9 f0r. M0v3 4£0n9. --OB1
Hopefully the panel will go out and actually try to reproduce his results rather than having a political debate of whether not it is.
His business ethics are questionable, but if there is some truth to this then they should be able to follow a scientific method in order to prove or disprove the falsification of the findings.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Anti-intellectualism is seeing a renaissance, and this will only serve as "evidence" for those who decry science, deny logic, and advocate flim-flam. Despite the fact that I see this as proof that the scientific method works (they've rooted out phony research), those with other agendas will cling to it as proof that "those scientists in their ivory towers" are wrong.
Homeopaths, naturalists, new-age healers, dowsers, reflexologists, chiropractors, feng shui "experts," et all: they use any slip of a scientist to bolster their support from those who don't know better. It saddens me, but such is the nature of the game.
Real scientists need to stand up and denounce frauds loudly and strongly whenever they appear. Too many otherwise learned men stand idly by while charlatans ply their wares to the unsuspecting.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
I can believe that a third-rate paper published in a third-rate journal will not get much scrutiny from other researchers. However, these guys reported major results that many other labs were trying to achieve. What were they thinking?
A few weeks ago I posted a question on slashdot regarding scientists and ethics and was completely chewed out for it. It was NOT meant to be a troll, it was an honest question.
I've had some time to rethink the question and instead of finding answers (via Google as well as talking to scientists via e-mail who read my initial question), I have more questions.
I'm a free market guy -- I truly believe that everyone performs actions that help themselves first (and others, secondly, if they want to continue doing what they do). I believe we take jobs in order to pay our bills, and we do our jobs with the consideration of what will keep us employed, and what will give us bigger financial opportunities in the future. I believe that employers are the customers of employees, and that is how I judge employer-employee relations.
Scientists are starting to scare me. Many scientists find funding through government or taxpayer-funded programs and grants. Are we dealing with the same quality of people who review and allow frivolous patents and lawsuits to be enforced? Will we start seeing more scientists under review for doing what we all do in our jobs -- try and find ways to increase our pay while keeping our work the same (or lower).
In the past there was peer review, but when we involve public funds, I fear what I saw in my consulting business: many consultants bidding on public jobs in a "boat race" -- 5 or 6 state-licensed consultants allowing each other to win a bid in a round robin fashion. I don't do any state jobs because of the collusion I saw in my industries.
When I decry public funding of science, I'm blasted because people say that the free market won't pay for certain research. Now I see a more evil side of it -- and I fear that we'll see more investigations like this if I'm right. What can we do to combat humanity's deep need for self preservation in a scientist having the same human drives, especially when it is funded straight out of our pocket involuntarily?
Hopefully the panel will go out and actually try to reproduce his results rather than having a political debate of whether not it is.
... doubt they are going to raise stem cell lines from human tissue in a week...
No. FTA: it would issue its final findings next week
-everphilski-
Are you saying that you want the Legislature to get involved? The most science illiterate group on the planet?! Or, President Bush? Mr. Global Warming isn't fact guy?
Female members of his team also said Hwang coerced them to donate their own eggs for his research.
I can see him now..."Give me your eggs so I can scramble the data and we can all go down in disgrace."
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
They'll take runs at sophistry, but in the scheme of things they are short lived. Once upon a time, Christianity was not just against surgery (partly because of a dubious success rate) but against healing. Not only was it a violation of the body, the sacred vessel of the soul, but it was a contrivance interfering with God's plan. Notice how they changed their tune when success for even audacious medical, man-made, miricales became almost routine? Even the Popes artificially extend their lives through the might of Man's contrivances.
Recent advances are hinting at a new future, perhaps at the end of my life time, where most serious diseases are well in hand. If you're fortunate enough to live in an industrialized country and have a sufficent fortune, of course. As much as they profess a desire to witness The Rapture, leaving their cares and clothes behind for the naked party in the sky, they will find the reality of rotting, slowling, painfully, avoidibly, away as distasteful as any other organism compelled to even mild opportunism. When it comes to push or shove, the occasional pious individuals who have more faith than hypocirsy seem to us as unimaginable monsters. So rare are the committed anti-intellectuals. The apathetic are more numerous, and they are the true threat.
I'm not an academic, so I don't know. I'd be interested how professors are reviewed on the "publish or perish" rule.
Health Insurance Quotes
When I decry public funding of science, I'm blasted because people say that the free market won't pay for certain research. Now I see a more evil side of it -- and I fear that we'll see more investigations like this if I'm right. What can we do to combat humanity's deep need for self preservation in a scientist having the same human drives, especially when it is funded straight out of our pocket involuntarily?
There can be two sides to this issue.
1. If the research is funded with government money, it can be influenced by politics.
2. If the research is funded with private money, it can be influenced by its investors.
Think of it like a global warming research sponsored by a congressman who is lobbied by an oil company vs a TCO of Windows vs Linux research sponsored by Microsoft.
Both could have potential bias and complications.
Personally, I believe both private and public research can be beneficial. Take DARPA for example. I for one believe DARPA is the shining example of public research gone right. It is backed by public money, but often uses the private sector as a major part of its research. Take the recent Grand Challenge for example.
So I think there is a place for public funding at least to get the ground work. After all, the Manhattan and Apollo Project were publicly funded.
However, if you believe government funded projects are a waste of your tax money, then you can do what I do... Donate to a private non-profit research group that is tax deductible. I realized if I donate enough money to either Wikipedia or the Singularity Institute I could just write off all my taxes next year. Even though I don't get more money than I would have not donating, it means the IRS will have to give me a larger refund, hence putting my money where I want it to go and not where a congressman does.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Great post, but one caveat for readers of the free market variety: DARPA is no winning public research wing.
DARPA was the branch behind the TIA -- Total Information Awareness campaign. The "D" in DARPA standards for defense.
DARPA's was recently run by Poindexter, the guy behind the Iran-Contra conspiracy.
DARPA's in involved with spying of US citizens in programs such as "Combat Zones That See" and other "analyzers."
DAPRA works with private industry to bring us such wonderful programs as Project Genoa.
I wouldn't call DAPRA a success for freedom and prosperity.
You don't deduct donations to non-profits from your taxes owed, but from your total income. Unless your donations put you into the "Earned Income" tax bracket, it's unlikely you are doing your taxes correctly.
Lets be gentle here, lets say that these authoritative journals
missinformed us "a little" this time. Not a big deal, it happens, we understand. Nobody could be right all the time.
-----bottom line=>
MUHAHAHAHAHA MUHAHAHAHAHAHA
MUHAHAHAAHA
MUHAHAHAHAHA MUHAHAHAHAHAHA
NUTS
Damn man. The co-authors of the paper have already come forth saying the guy fabricated the research. The one guy from the University of Pittsburgh said the guy just used his name on the paper - without any consultation!
Woo...It's gonna Suk Huang to be in his shoes. Okay bad puns , Juvenile. (But on slashdot those get positive mod points!)
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
It is easy to point out the one or two frauds that exist, and then draw conclusions from your own personal experiance. But the system works (I know ... I live in it)
Its called peer review. You do work. You publish to a credible journal (emphasis on credible). Editors read your submission and assuming you haven't done something stupid (depending on the journal - some excellent journals will deny good papers) your paper will probably get past them. If you f*ed up, you get caught - someone reads your paper and discovers you did it wrong, gravity vector pointing in the wrong direction for instance, the results were too good, etc.
For example the UAH Propulsion Research Center gets over a million a year from NASA and other government/corporate sources for research work. Results get published and reviewed. That research keeps a lot of students in grad school and gets a lot of work done for NASA. (Hint: grad students work cheaper than professional engineers). Not to mention there are few private citizens/small companies that truly want to innovate propulsion. Including the new space startups. They are mostly re-hashing old ideas.
I do research for UAH - same principles apply. I've published two papers (only one citation available online at the moment) and have spoken at two conferences attended by my peers. I also publish reports to the army - since they are the primary customer. People can attend those conferences and pay attention to speakers to review their results, and read papers in journals to critique their analysis. If they have further questions you generally have contact information on the paper (at least in my field).
That's the way the system works. And it works pretty well, except when you fake results in a controversial topic of study. Then you become a hot topic.
-everphilski-
Whooa... for a sec I thought some panel WANTED the CLAIMS cloned...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
The "publish or perish" rule itself doesn't get directly reviewed by a university. It's more of a matter of how much research that's being published and, in turn, how much grant money they're bringing into the university. If you're sitting on the same work for 10 years without any journal articles or anything to show for it, you're probably not bringing in too many grants. However, a lab that's publishing a lot is generally always working on a grant proposal for the next followup piece of work. Thus, it's bringing in a lot more money than one who's not publishing much. Labs and professors live and die by the amount of money they have to fund their research, so that's really the heart of the "publish or perish" rule.
You don't deduct donations to non-profits from your taxes owed, but from your total income. Unless your donations put you into the "Earned Income" tax bracket, it's unlikely you are doing your taxes correctly.
Oh I know that, and I can't avoid my city or state taxes via this method either nor can I avoid paying social security, medicare, or the original amount taxed, but it does put me in a lower income bracket which means less money to the government and hence a larger refund check from the money that I have already paid the IRS.
Technically, I still end up with the same amount of money, its just that its put into things I support directly.
BUT . . . if the fraud was perpetrated intentionally, one is obliged to wonder if verification of the financial practices might not be a good idea (to go along with the scientific review of the lab's "data"). After all, it's a damn sight cheaper to invent scientific data than it is to gain it by hard work and diligence.
First of all, peer review functions in many places besides vetting articles for publication. Indeed, it's much more important in reviewing grant applications and in how and whether your colleagues direct good students and post-docs your way, since while publications are nice, it's successfully attracting research money and recruiting good employees that really counts. This guy is getting that kind of peer review now -- and greatly to his harm. So indeed the system is functioning as designed.
More importantly, if you're saying the system is busted because it must sometimes punish fraud after it's published, instead of preventing its publication entirely -- well, then perhaps something needs to be clarified about the nature of scientific publication. A scientific journal is not a textbook. Stuff published there is current research, not accepted wisdom. It's not meant to be archival quality, things that folks will stake a reputation on. It's meant to be the "bleeding edge" of knowledge, so to speak, the latest and (necessarily) shakiest bit of possible insight. Reasonable people expect much that is published in a journal to turn out to be wrong, or incomplete. They don't ordinarily expect it to be a fraud, but it does happen on occasion, and reasonable people keep that in the back of their minds, too.
In fact, one of the main reasons for scientific publication is to present new ideas and data to the widest possible audience, so that people who don't know, fund, or work for the original researcher have a chance to consider the merits and drawbacks of the idea, test it, challenge it, and prove or disprove it. You might reasonably think of scientific publication as more or less a "debugging" step of a new scientific idea, the process by which you submit some newfangled notion to the rigours of a bunch of "beta testers" (other scientists) who will bang on the idea, make sure it's sound.
You would not, I hope, conclude that because spectacular bugs are sometimes found in software at the "beta" stage this means that the authors were wrong to release it at all. Having a large community of interested expert users cooperate in beta testing your software -- think open-source software -- can speed up the process of producing quality products greatly. That's exactly how scientific publication works.
Self-correction would have entailed either the peer reviewers of Science noticing such "small" things as duplicated picutures (which, when pointed out, the editors of Science claimed was a production error, when in fact it was a purposeful fraud conducted by a junior researcher at the direction of Hwang) or the co-author of the paper (who, being on a separate continent and at a different university, cannot be seriously excused as being intimidated by Hwang) doing more than rubber stamping Hwang's "work". There were no prominent stories of biologists who were questioning the results prior to the exposure of the fraud. As the each piece of the fraud unravelled, the editors of Science engaged in a series of "yes, buts..." that would acknowledge now indisputable problems while categorically stating that the remainder of the article stood. After all, it had been peer-reviewed!
It was largely Korean television and newspapers that "corrected" the science involved here. They uncovered the ethical problems first of paying for eggs, then eggs "willingly" harvested from younger female subordinates of Hwang, then the coercive nature of those "willing" donations, the duplicated photos and the rest of the sordid mess. It wasn't until more junior researchers started to confess to reporters the scale of the fraud that the scientific community really started to get in front of this - and that largely in an ass-covering way by the University.
What fascinates me about all this is the "shock, shock" that Hwang could have done this. I think most people, regardless of where they stand on the ethics or morality of embryonic stem cell research, understand that there are at least some ethical dilemmas posed by the research (if only at the "where are they going to get all those eggs" level). The only people I've seen who are adamant that there are no such ethical issues to consider have been some of the scientists performing these experiments. Why, then, is it such a shock that people who are seemingly unconcerned about the ethical issues involved in their work might be similarly ethically challenged in the work itself? Certainly, the vast majority of such researchers are honest and decent. You are also going to attract some more unsavory characters like Hwang who broke every ethical rule he came into contact with in order to achieve prestige and national glory.
Politicized science (and it is politicized on both sides) requires even more scrutiny than normal. Unfortunately, when the scientific establishment (including journals) are nearly uniformly on one side of the debate, most of the policing of that side is going to come from outside the scientific community. The process of science will not in these cases be self-correcting. Hopefully, in the end, the science itself will be correct.
...my first reaction upon hearing this was a sense of indignation rather than shame. Although my field is physics rather than biology, we have had out own high-profile fraudsters recently. The actions of this clown reflect poorly on all scientists, but, even worse, he has wasted the time and resources of researchers who are trying to build upon his results.
Many people will say that this was a failure of the scientific review system, but the unfortunate truth is that peer review can do very little to defend against malicious scientific fraud. When I review a paper for a journal, I have to assume that the original data is correct and truthful. I don't have access to the author's work samples for testing, and wouldn't have the time or equipment to perform the appropriate experiments even if I did. A reviewer may question data that looks unusual (e.g. great signal-to-noise or an odd feature in a time-varying signal), but otherwise the data itself will likely go unchallenged.
A reviewer's job is largely to ensure that there is sufficient data to support the conclusions that are drawn and that the methodology used to derive the underlying data is sound. They also weed out the whackos who think they have a warp drive design or perpetual motion machine, but that's less common.
Hwang Woo-Suk? Are they forreal?
I'm a biologist working at a university currently as a postdoc. I don't work on stem cells directly, but have an interest in many topics in biomedical research. This situation went down exactly as it should have -- a fradulent scientist was methodically investigated and censured (officially and unofficially). Scientific fraud (and more often, inaccuracy) are generally fished out and prosecuted by the greater scientific community. There is a vested interest for all scientists to maintain the integrity of research in their labs as well as other labs -- much of biology research is interdependent and self-correcting. The main reason why this is elevated to "scandal" level is because of the topic -- stem cells. This man has done great harm to the stem cell field, which is struggling to gain acceptance in this increasingly anti-scientific culture. Some of the comments here have highlighted this alarming trend. It frightens me when people start claiming that scientists need more policing from the outside (re: dada21's post). Although external review is critical for government organization, science is a decentralized, distributed organism dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge. As scientists we attempt to conduct our research and lead our lives, but we also strive to educate the general public (and indeed are excited when the public takes interest in our work). It's not "many" scientists that are publicly funded, it's MOST scientists. There are very valid reasons for that, and yet this year NIH has seen a cut in funding unheard of since the 70s. Please consider this next time you think about DNA testing, the quality of the food you eat, your health care, and something as simple as taking an aspirin. Please don't be deluled into thinking of science and scientists as scary. It attack on science is truly what is frightening.
Who cares if someone clones clams?
DARPA also played a pivotal role in the early formation of what we now know as the internet. Many features that we consider hallmarks of the internet (decentralisation, routing around damage) are due to the military nature of DARPA's specs.
Just saying.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
...that smells this as the perfect begining of the world's first super-villan? Seriously, from the first stories about this guy till now I keep getting this mental image of some underground base twenty years from now filled with loyal "research assistants" (henchmen) and this guy saying something like, "so, they thought I was a fraud! HA! I will show them! THEY WILL ALL PAY! Release the clones!"
Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
No witty italicized afterthought?
What's wrong with cloning clams?
I, for one, welcome our new, cloned mollusc overloar...
Oh, wait, I didn't read that title properly. Never mind...
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
By that same train of thought, government should have no role in funding technology. Engineering research at the universities should be funded by companies, not the government. The reason is that the fruits of engineering research match the timelines of company budgets. Results, if they are attainable, will appear within 5 years or so.
In short, government should fund science, not technology.
I don't think so. Let me tell you from 15 years of publishing in scientific journals, and reviewing the proposed publications of others, that there is no clear and sharp division between an "honest" mistake and a mistake into which you are led by bias, preconceived notions, or your personal feelings for another scientist whose work you are challenging or confirming. Scientists are human beings as much as the next person. Very few will deliberately and with malice aforethought falsify data. But plenty will talk themselves into believing that a certain dubious "correction" of the data makes sense.
It's a lot like high-school chemistry lab, in which (if you were decently smart), you knew what the results of the lab should be. Does that affect the way in which you write down the data? You bet. You do the experiment once, and you get a result you "know" is crazy. So you say: "That can't be right, something must have gone wrong..." and you do it again. If you get the result you expect, then you tend to just write it down uncritically.
Just expand that typical human behaviour to much more complex experiments, and you'll see what I mean. Grown-up scientists do an experiment, and they get a result that "can't be right," so they do it again until they get a result that "seems right," or they talk themselves into some kind of data analysis that "corrects" the raw data. Have a look here (warning: PDF link) for an interesting discussion of the case or Robert Millikan, who "framed a guilty man", in the phrase made immortal by the LAPD, by falsely presenting experiments that led to a correct scientific conclusion.
The long and short of it is that the question of the "honesty" of the author of a publication is very much a gray area, and anyone who seriously just assumes that all the data from an experiment have been presented, and all the data analysis has been done in completely neutral way, without any influence of preconceived notions, is a fool. You must assume that the personal predispositions of the scientist doing the work had some influence on the experimental data reported. This isn't meant to be pejorative -- I'm not saying you assume other scientists are routinely dishonest. You just assume they're human, and may have fooled themselves or have a bit of an agenda when they present their data, and you take that into account. Healthy skepticism is the order of the day. That's why we like to see even experiments that seem completely unexceptional and from scientists of unimpeachable reputations repeated several times by a broad range of other workers before we accept them.
I certainly agree deliberate fraud is way out of any "gray area" about the motivations of the scientist submitting articles for publication. (And that's why the punishment for doing so is far, far harsher than for simply making an "honest" mistake, or even a mistake into which you are led by bias or incompetence.) But there is no way one can, or should, draw a sharp line between completely unconscious error and semi-conscious half-deliberate fudge, and it would be a great error for anyone to blindly assume that the data in any scientific publication is beyond question.
Quackwatch
Professor Protests
Warning Signs of Chiropractic foolery
Wikipedia Article
Chiropractic is pseudoscientific horseshit. While it's true that some chiropractors are merely back massagers, the majority believe in the strange teachings of their school. Some excerpts:
"Chiropractic was founded in 1895 by Daniel David Palmer, a grocer and "magnetic healer" who believed that all diseases are the result of misplaced spinal bones. According to his theory, "subluxations" (misalignment) of spinal vertebrae cause disease by interfering with the flow of "nerve energy" from the brain to the body's tissue cells. Spinal "adjustments," by restoring vertebrae to their "proper places," allow brain energy to heal the diseased condition."
"Nerve conduction studies of human spinal nerves identified as being subluxed by chiropractors were shown to be normal by conventional scientific measures. Studies involving X-ray and CT scanning of the human spine before and after chiropractic manipulation show no changes in joint position as identified by radiologists."
"Aside from placebo effect chiropractic therapy has never been shown to treat any condition other than musculoskeletal problems."
Chiropractic has never been shown to have ANY verifiable effect on ANY condition. Not only is it useless, it can often be dangerous. In fact, if you can find a chiropractor who can provide actual evidence of the practice's efficacy, or even of a simple "subluxation," you'll be eligible for the JREF's One Million Dollar award.
Penn and Teller did a succinct expose on the dangers of chiropractic on their show "Bullshit."
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
"But as an odd aside related to dowsing."
If you actually believe you have the power of "dowsing," take the JREF's One Million Dollar Challenge. Thousands of "dowsers" have tried and failed to show ANY results in real, controlled conditions.
Dowsing is a combination of statistical random chance and the ideomotor effect, nothing more. Prove otherwise, and the million dollars is yours.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
You may have been rated "off topic" but I also, or actually (if you were being funny), misread and thought that the article was about cloning clams... and was very very confused.
Wait a minute....
nevermind.
Being a Gen-Xer is tough, having to deal with these Force Five / Gaiking flashbacks.
I heard that there is some kind of a conspiracy against Dr. Hwang, and that it's all about power, money, and politics.
To paraphrase the conspiracy theory:
--- START PARAPHRASE ---
It is still not proven that his technique of nuclear transfer is a fraud, which are published in 2004 and prior, including the cloning of a dog, and his assistants helping clone a primate in Dr. Schatten's lab.
The only part that is proven fake is the generation (and photos) of stem cell lines that can only be done by the collaborator's (2nd author) medical facility not controlled by Dr. Hwang.
Since the cell lines are returned back to Dr. Hwang to grow, Dr. Hwang unwittingly brooded wrong stem lines without him knowing it. Dr Hwang is made the culprit since he is the first author, even though the problem stems from the second stage done by the medical facility.
It is also known that the University Medical School didn't like a Veterinary School professor taking all the spotlight to what should have been their field of study. The investigative body consists mainly of members of the Medical School, so they are fast in condemning him based on the proof of fake photos and generated stem lines without actually going through months of trial and experiment to see if the whole process (first stage of nuclear transfer by Dr. Hwang and the second stage stem line generation done by the collaborator's lab) can really be done.
It is also posted that Dr. Schatten was a ghost writer who wanted a 50% piece of the pie, including his own scientists taking 50% of the board for the stem research center the government of Korea setup for Dr. Hwang.
The powers-to-be may also have an influence with the major media to dishonor Dr. Hwang.
The end result? Destroy Dr. Hwang, take all his assistants who already mastered the technique of nuclear transfer. End of game.
--- END PARAPHRASE ---
I don't know if any of these are true or not, but it is quite compelling given the situation Dr. Hwang is in. He was already a full professor, no need for "publish or perish", spent hours doing research rather than making money, may be too smart to make such fake photos or stem lines if he really wanted to make up a fraud, and he has too much to lose by doing fake research compared to not doing anything.
Sounds like history repeats itself. Look at Gutenberg, who died penniless after someone who invested money in his printing press sued Gutenberg and took all his technology and equiment for printing and made money off of it, while leaving Gutenberg with nothing.
Gutenberg is left only with a name in history.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/575 7/22