Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Science

Stem Cell Fraudster May Have Actually Made Breakthrough 206

Posted by Zonk
from the a-little-comeuppance dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stem Cell Fraudster May Have Actually Made Breakthrough

Comments Filter:
  • by ArcadeX (866171) on Friday August 03, 2007 @04:17PM (#20106487)
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03, 2007 @04:22PM (#20106577)
    I fucking hate this stupid joke
  • 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.
  • by trolltalk.com (1108067) on Friday August 03, 2007 @04:44PM (#20106897) Homepage Journal

    "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 ...

  • by sYkSh0n3 (722238) on Friday August 03, 2007 @04:44PM (#20106905) Journal

    (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 [beyondhollywood.com] or lifting [canalblog.com] anymore.

    And since us average slashdot readers [jeffpidgeon.com] 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?
  • Re:Original paper (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Otter (3800) on Friday August 03, 2007 @04:50PM (#20106961) Journal
    I know, but even that should cut down on the avalanche at least somewhat.
  • 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".
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03, 2007 @05:02PM (#20107107)
    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?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03, 2007 @05:18PM (#20107339)
    Anyone who thinks that Jesus didn't exist is as far removed from science as the Christians they're railing against.

    There is little to no argument that a historical figure named Jesus existed. Whether everything said about him in the New Testament is true or not *is* strongly debated.
  • Re:Doom (Score:4, Insightful)

    by megaditto (982598) on Friday August 03, 2007 @07:41PM (#20108817)
    I think men are safe so long as there are rodents or big scary spiders to be disposed of.
  • by Abcd1234 (188840) on Friday August 03, 2007 @07:59PM (#20108993) Homepage
    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.

It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome Klapka Jerome

Working...