Slashdot Mirror


Stem Cell Fraudster May Have Actually Made Breakthrough

Otter writes "Woo Suk Hwang's career swung from fame over his lab's claim of the first stem cells from a cloned human embryo to humiliation when the results were found to be fake. Research at Harvard on Hwang's cells has found that they are actually parthenogenic lines derived from eggs -- perhaps a more important and difficult achievement than what he had been claiming! 'Researchers said that the distinct "genetic fingerprint" of the stem cells means they may be the first in the world to be extracted from embryos produced by the so-called "virgin birth" method, or parthenogenesis. This happens when eggs are stimulated into becoming embryos without ever being fertilised by sperm, and has been achieved in animals. However, before Hwang, no one had managed to produce a human embryo using parthenogenesis which lived long enough to allow the extraction of viable stem cells.'"

47 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Original paper by Otter · · Score: 5, Informative

    Link to the paper. I submitted this as a story and didn't want to bomb Cell's servers if it hit the main page...

    1. Re:Original paper by Otter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know, but even that should cut down on the avalanche at least somewhat.

  2. In a related story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I managed to achieve cold fusion while cooking my breakfast in the microwave this morning.

    1. Re:In a related story... by Floritard · · Score: 4, Funny

      Then why did you originally claim it was a time machine for cats? Fraudster!

  3. Re:ignorance in need of a cure by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

    What are parthogenic lines?
    Is there a way to derive them other than using eggs?
    Do they occur naturally somewhere?


    You mean parthenogenic. It means conception of an egg into an embryo without the male sperm (or any other male fertilization).

    Yes, in some species, this occurs in nature.

    (See? We men aren't useful for much except for fixing cars and hauling around heavy objects. ;)

    Why is this more important than stem cells from a cloned human embryo?


    Because it wasn't previously thought possible.
  4. Um, sorry to correct the writer but... by crossb0nez · · Score: 3, Funny

    This has been done Once before in history... :)

    --
    Rule of Acquisition #19: Satisfaction is Not guaranteed.
    1. Re:Um, sorry to correct the writer but... by aquabat · · Score: 4, Funny

      This has been done Once before in history... :) Jesus Christ! That's pretty amazing!
      --
      A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
    2. Re:Um, sorry to correct the writer but... by Aslan72 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      According to Christian theology, sin nature comes in through the man which was why Jesus was perfect and sinless. I'd be interested to see if a human could come from this sort of procedure and what they would be like; theologically they'd have no sin nature. Wow, there's something to wrap your head around.

    3. Re:Um, sorry to correct the writer but... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Jesus Christ! That's pretty amazing! To produce a male offspring by parthenogenesis, the mother would have to be a chimera formed between her and a fraternal twin, and somehow produced an egg from the male-chimeric half's cells, which then underwent parthenogenesis.

      Now the probabilities are approaching miraculous.

      Of course, that would mean that Jesus was genetically Mary's twin brother.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    4. Re:Um, sorry to correct the writer but... by andphi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Chimera? Are we talking about the upside-down head kind or the croco-lion-wolf kind?

      Sorry. You say Chimera and I think FMA.

      But seriously, that's a very interesting question. Would that I still had mod points for the day.

    5. Re:Um, sorry to correct the writer but... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um, no. When the Bible refers to "man", it means "mankind". Jesus was half-mankind, half-God. He still was tempted by the sinful nature of man (e.g. the devil tempting Jesus in the desert), but he was able to resist the temptation. So I'm afraid there's no theological dilemma looming here.

      From the perspective of science, parthenogenesis has long been known to be a possible physical explanation for a real-life virgin birth. It's just that up until now, there has been no solid proof that it could happen in humans.

      I've said it before and I'll say it again. You can find physical explanations for everything that happens in the universe. That's not the point. If you believe in God, then you must believe that it's his Universe that follows his Laws. Which means that everything that happens has an explanation inside the universe. The only question is, did it happen because an extra-universal God made it happen (some of these events have pretty freaky odds) or because it was simply a big coincidence? That's an answer that science can't provide (at least yet) and where theology comes into play.

    6. Re:Um, sorry to correct the writer but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Roman consulate: Your thoughts betray you. Your feelings for them are strong. Especially for...sister! So, you have a twin sister. Your feelings have now betrayed her, too. The Wise Men was wise to hide her from me. Now his failure is complete. If you will not turn to the roman high priests, then perhaps she will...

      (so obligatory)

    7. Re:Um, sorry to correct the writer but... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also I don't recall Jesus being sinless; there's at least one part that says he did sin.

      Eh? When did Jesus sin? He was tempted by sin, but never gave into it. The Bible is very clear on the fact that he was "a man without blame".
    8. Re:Um, sorry to correct the writer but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, no. When the Bible refers to "man", it means "mankind". Jesus was half-mankind, half-God.

      I'm afraid "half" is not well-defined at all in this context. Can you elaborate? Could you also define what you mean by "God" and how that relates to the concept of "half" that you have clarified for me above?

      I've said it before and I'll say it again. You can find physical explanations for everything that happens in the universe. That's not the point. If you believe in God, then you must believe that it's his Universe that follows his Laws. Which means that everything that happens has an explanation inside the universe.

      So where are we to get the knowledge of this god if everything has an explanation within the universe? Because you say so? Because someone a long time ago said so?


      The only question is, did it happen because an extra-universal God made it happen (some of these events have pretty freaky odds) or because it was simply a big coincidence?


      But these "freaky odds" are all by nature computed post-hoc. What were the odds that a car with the license plate VFD-111 just drove past me? Really low, right! Too low to be a coincidence? Post-hoc probability calculations are almost always worthless, so "freaky odds" don't really matter.

      That's an answer that science can't provide (at least yet) and where theology comes into play.

      So we realize we have a limited understanding of the universe, and therefore should explain things by magic instead of simply admitting our ignorance?

    9. Re:Um, sorry to correct the writer but... by NaugaHunter · · Score: 2, Funny

      To produce a male offspring by parthenogenesis, the mother would have to be a chimera formed between her and a fraternal twin, and somehow produced an egg from the male-chimeric half's cells, which then underwent parthenogenesis.
      So that's how Jesus' midi-chlorian level was so high!

      Of course, that would mean that Jesus was genetically Mary's twin brother.
      So hers were the same level? Now I'm confused.

      --
      R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
    10. Re:Um, sorry to correct the writer but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And Jesus, of course, was called Jesus -- and is not called Emmanuel in any verse in the New Testament.

      *cough*

      "Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel" (which being interpreted is, "God with us"). --Matthew 1:23 of the New Testament

    11. Re:Um, sorry to correct the writer but... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      some of these events have pretty freaky odds

      Precisely. Which is why it makes *far* more sense to believe the obvious: Mary got pregnant out of wedlock, then came up with a clever little tale so she wouldn't be ostracized.

      Honestly, why people turn to magic when simple human behaviour can explain such things, I'll never know.

    12. Re:Um, sorry to correct the writer but... by Kagura · · Score: 2, Funny

      Raven, is that you?

    13. Re:Um, sorry to correct the writer but... by Xtravar · · Score: 2, Funny

      What were the odds that a car with the license plate VFD-111 just drove past me? That's my license plate, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    14. Re:Um, sorry to correct the writer but... by obender · · Score: 2, Informative

      The King James Version mistranslates the Hebrew word "almah", which means "young woman" as "virgin".
      The Jewish scholars who translated and compiled the Hebrew scriptures into a Greek version of the Old Testament, translated almah in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, which almost always means "virgin". Since these Jewish scholars were well acquainted with the meaning of the old Hebrew words as well as the Greek, their interpretation (developed hundreds of years before Jesus) should be given special weight.

      You can read the full article here

    15. Re:Um, sorry to correct the writer but... by Peaker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I read Mary was mistranslated from a "young lady" to a "virgin", and that is the source of that entire silliness.

    16. Re:Um, sorry to correct the writer but... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I read Mary was mistranslated from a "young lady" to a "virgin", and that is the source of that entire silliness.

      I wouldn't be at all surprised. Either way, calling on parthogenesis as possible explanation, given the odds involved, is pretty ridiculous.

  5. Not a waste of research by ArcadeX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole lying about the accomplishment aside, I've always said that even if you don't find what you're looking for, humanity is better off for knowing all the other ways of not accomplishing that task vs. no research done at all.

    --
    An I.T. motto in the hands of an idiot is a dangerous thing...
    1. Re:Not a waste of research by russ1337 · · Score: 4, Funny

      >>> I've always said that even if you don't find what you're looking for, humanity is better off for knowing all the other ways of not accomplishing that task vs. no research done at all.

      Then I should publish the 7376528 pickup lines that I know don't work....

    2. Re:Not a waste of research by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Would any of them be these?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  6. basically by User+956 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Stem Cell Fraudster May Have Actually Made Breakthrough

    cl-0wned!

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  7. Woo Suk Hwang Haters... by monkeyboythom · · Score: 4, Funny

    have egg on their face now?

  8. Huh? by Aqua_boy17 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Woo Suk Hwang's career...

    Cruelest...Parents...Evar
    --
    What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
    1. Re:Huh? by king-manic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Woo Suk Hwang's career...

      Cruelest...Parents...Evar If you think thats bad my dads name comes out phenetically as chew gay wang.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  9. Those darn feminists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Soon they will not need men to reproduce, and will begin eliminating us.

    Then all those parallel parking spaces across the world will fall into disuse....wasted real estate....

    1. Re:Those darn feminists by trolltalk.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Soon they will not need men to reproduce, and will begin eliminating us."

      You can be sure that someone will try to patent it ... now that they've managed to get the original researcher out of the picture ...

  10. Re:ignorance in need of a cure by Belacgod · · Score: 5, Funny

    Parthenogenesis is how they built that temple in Athens.

  11. Re:ignorance in need of a cure by idontgno · · Score: 4, Funny

    (See? We men aren't useful for much except for fixing cars and hauling around heavy objects. ;)

    It's a standing joke between my Beloved and I.... "If only cucumbers could mow the grass...."

    I hope it's a joke, at least.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  12. Re:Jesus? by Reverend528 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is this another Jesus? I thought those xtians were a little freaky, but could they have been right all along?

    Maybe, but only if Mary had a Y chromosome.

  13. A Better Link by value_added · · Score: 2, Informative

    This was covered yesterday on NPR Radio.

  14. He was not the first one. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Funny

    All of us know, long time ago, in a galaxy far away, the mitochloreans engineered a parthenogenic birth in Tattoonie.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:He was not the first one. by WilliamSChips · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, since babies created by parthenogenesis are generally going to be female, this is much more likely to be the Orici.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  15. Quote from Woo Suk Hwang by gatkinso · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Um. Yeah. Well... I planned that. It's a feature."

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  16. Re:ignorance in need of a cure by everphilski · · Score: 4, Funny

    best be glad she knows nothing of astroturf :P

  17. Re:Jesus? by Reverend528 · · Score: 5, Funny

    or her "son" didn't.

    "He" did have awfully long hair.

  18. Re:ignorance in need of a cure by sYkSh0n3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    (See? We men aren't useful for much except for fixing cars and hauling around heavy objects. ;)


    Unfortunately, they dont even need us for cars or lifting anymore.

    And since us average slashdot readers weren't good for either anyway. what are we gonna do???

    AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

    But seriously. Am I to understand that this guy did something thats amazingly hard to do, and fraudulently claimed he did something else that was easier than what he really did. And if that's so, what is wrong with this guy? Does he even understand the field he claims to work in?
  19. Re:Jesus? by gbobeck · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is this another Jesus?

    Yes, now you too can have your own personal Jesus. Someone to hear your prayers, someone who cares, someone whos there...

    (Strangely, I now feel like I have a Depeche Mode beating in my immediate future)
    --
    Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
  20. Re:ignorance in need of a cure by Chemisor · · Score: 2, Funny

    > What are parthogenic lines?
    > Is there a way to derive them other than using eggs?

    As a Slashdot reader, I am sure that what you really want to ask is: "can we reproduce without women?". And Dr.Hwang's research has sadly failed to produce an answer to that question so far. Perhaps we should set up a donation site to prod him to research in that direction instead of trying to get women to conceive without men. I am sure that millions of Slashdot readers, and, of course, China, would be immensely grateful should such research be successful.

  21. Simple language version by SwiftOne · · Score: 5, Informative

    Disclaimer: I'm no scientist, and I only skimmed the paper, but I have an interest in genetics and an interest in seeing this better covered than the mass media is doing. Corrections most welcome.

    I'm shooting for the non-geneticist version:

    Basic Version:
    a normal human cell has 2 copies of 22 non-sex chromosomes, and 2 sex chromosomes. The "copies" are almost certainly NOT identical to one another, but basically similar. These cells are "diploid" (having 2 of each chromosome) and are considered "somatic cells".

    During normal reproduction, each person will contribute a "germline cell", an ova or a sperm, in which only 1 copy of each chromosome exists ("haploid"). These germline cells merge to create a "zygote" (which is diploid), which eventually becomes an embryo.

    Parthenogenetic reproduction takes a germline cell, and duplicates the genetic material, making a diploid out of a haploid. Such replication happens with normal cells during the process of cell division ("mitosis"), so the real trick is (1) convincing the cell to do this duplication outside the cell division process and (2) convincing the cell that it is no longer a differentiated (specialized) cell, but instead a stem cell.

    One interesting result here is that the parthenogenetic cell is NOT a clone of the parent cell - it will have two copies each of ONE of the copies of each chromosome from the parent, determined effectively at random. In some ways this means a parthenogenetic stem cell is less valuable than a cloned stem cell - it will not be a 100% match, though it will not contain any DNA foreign to the donor. In other ways it opens up all sorts of new areas of study.

    One particular result is that it opens the opportunity for recessives to be studied. (Chromosomes have genes, each that code various proteins that run the bodies mechanics. Most people will therefore have two copies of every gene (having two copies of the chromosomes). Those genes may not be identical. Some genes only have their effects seen ("express") if there isn't another, different, copy of the gene present, and are called recessives. (blue eyes are a common example: A blue-eyed person has both genes as expressing "blue". Two blue eyed parents, having only the "blue" gene (hah!) to pass on to a child, will have a blue-eyed child (barring mutation). (Of course, the body is a big nasty mess of self-referencing code with lots of gotos, so examples tend to be oversimplified). Anyway, most recessives tend to be fairly rare in expressing, since any dominant gene will cover them up. Many recessives are bad. (Cystic Fibrosis is the most common example: 1 bad gene, okay. 2 bad genes: You die) A parthenogenetic process would allow for the study of recessives because you can take ova from a carrier (someone who has 1 copy of the bad gene), find one with the defective gene, put it through the parthenogenesis process, and bam, able to study the effects free of the presence of any other (different) copy of the gene.

    Fun Fact: For 22 Chromosomes, people have two copies of most genes. Sex Chromosomes are not created equal. The X chromosome (every human has 1) has valuable and nifty genes. The Y chromosome (only in men) has very few genes (relatively). As a result, on Men X chromosomes express all recessives, and not on women. (The common example here is red-green colorblindness. Men with a defective gene are out of luck: Color-blind. Women with a defective gene get by if the other copy of the X chromosome has a functioning one. Result: Men are much more likely to be red-green color-blind.
    Some papers a few months ago got some press for exploring the possible effects of this. (Men can serve as a "testing ground" for new mutations on the X chromosome, while women can serve as a judge of whether they are valuable without taking on the extra risk. Practiced through natural selection.)

    Fun Fact #2: Women's cells don't just function with twice the number of X chromosomes though (We tend to react poorly to extra copies

  22. Re:Color-blindness by Peaker · · Score: 2, Informative

    If a woman is color-blind, all of her sons will also be color-blind.

    Her daughters will only carry a defective gene, but unless the father is also color-blind, the daughters will not be color-blind.

  23. Re:Hwang achieves parthogenesis... by Progman3K · · Score: 2, Funny


    >>Hwang achieves parthogenesis...
    >>There's a joke in there, but I just can't put my finger on it...

    I've got it! - Normally, you don't NEED a hwang to achieve parthenogenesis!

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  24. Re:Doom by megaditto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think men are safe so long as there are rodents or big scary spiders to be disposed of.

    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.