S. Korea Cloning Success Faked? 199
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."
How do you know? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How do you know? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How do you know? (Score:3, Funny)
More importantly (Score:2)
At this point, I would question wether it happened or not.
Re:How do you know? (Score:2)
Anyway, the point is that the paper (link [sciencemag.org] for those with access) claimed to have produced 11 different clones, with DNA fingerprinting and photos of their morphology. Whether through error or fraud, and it looks more and more like fraud, both of those lines of evidence seem to be badly screwed up.
By the way -- anyone still believing that ridiculous claim from a few weeks ago about the Korean team curing spinal cord breakage with stem cells.
Re:How do you know? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How do you know? (Score:2)
Re:How do you know? (Score:2)
More informative link (Score:5, Informative)
I don't beleive anything anymore (Score:5, Funny)
Oh the (cloned) humanity of it all..
Re:I don't beleive anything anymore (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't beleive anything anymore (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I don't beleive anything anymore (Score:2)
Re:I don't beleive anything anymore (Score:2)
Hang on (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally I see no real moral problems with stem cell research, but then I am a complete amoral bastard.
Re:Hang on (Score:3, Informative)
But one of the participants in the project claims that 11 colonies from the set on which the paper was based on were fake [iht.com]. Which is likely to put the credibility of whole thing in a rather negative light in the scientific community, to put it mildly.
Re:Hang on (Score:1)
Above all, the collaborators are at fault too for not reviewing the paper that was being submitted (they all had the opportunity to, but were perhaps blinded by the dazzling results). IMO, the US collaborator wh
Re:Hang on (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Hang on (Score:1)
Research is not 'innocent until proven guilty' - it's 'erroneous unless otherwise demonstrated'.
Re:Hang on (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hang on (Score:2)
More then Just Morality (Score:2)
The much larger issue that isn't just a morality issue is that it looks like he faked much of his evidence. This part has nothing to do with the morality. It looks like a bunch of the evidence presented was faked and the author has since withdraw his paper. While the study hasn't been disproved, it seems pretty clear that there were either grievous errors or it wa
Re:More then Just Morality (Score:2)
I'm sorry to inform everyone that our grant may not be renewed because we don't have access to enough eggs to demonstrate progress on our research. As a result, some positions may not be funded next year.
BTW, anyone here want to donate some eggs?
Re:Hang on (Score:2)
True, the BBC used an incorrect headline and Slashdot copied it. It gives an impression similar to "United States Moon Landing Successes Faked". Most people would consider that to mean that the BBC is saying that the moon landings were fake.
sorry, dude, the upstart has to prove themself (Score:2)
once other researchers duplicate the claims, and prove the experiments are repeatable and the claims justifyable, then the real debate on some nutty new theory can begin.
until then, "it's a startling new clai
Re:Then, Give me urs. (Score:2)
Dear New England Journal of Medicine,
I never believed it could happen to me...
Faked how? (Score:2)
I assume the controvercy is that they didn't have the degree of success they claimed (plus dishonesty in scientific study is generally frowned upon).
Re:Faked how? (Score:2, Informative)
]{
Re:Faked how? (Score:1)
And the sad thing this is the link posted on fark.com [fark.com] a full day before
"Slashdot.org : News for non-inquisitive Nerds"
Re:Faked how? (Score:1)
Irresponsible reporting. (Score:3, Insightful)
They're going to go and redo all the experiments. All the stem-cell researchers want this, they don't want idiotic media speculation deciding the outcome.
Re:Irresponsible reporting. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, if you RTA, you'll see that the subject line here uses the same wording as the BBC's subject line. It's extremely common for all mainstream news organizations to use imprecise headlines because those headlines often have to fit in a small area in print or on-screen for television.
Slashdot is not mainstream and can have longer subject lines so I do feel that "possibly" should have been added to it.
Re:Irresponsible reporting. (Score:2)
Admittedly, the headline was technically true--the bags were exploded after the air marshal killed the pas
Re:Irresponsible reporting. (Score:2)
Getting caught blatantly doctoring experiments is career-ending, whether or not the claims turn out to be true.
Architecture of the World Wide Web - Post gone (Score:2, Interesting)
http://slashdot.org/articles/05/12/15/1437218.sht
Re:Architecture of the World Wide Web - Post gone (Score:2)
Re:Architecture of the World Wide Web - Post gone (Score:2)
Zonk: "Tell them there are limits to even my power!"
Re:Architecture of the World Wide Web - Post gone (Score:2)
Apparently the "dupe" tradition Slashdot has enjoyed for generations, is slowly falling apart
Looks as though ... (Score:5, Funny)
Isaac Asimov's dream must wait a while longer (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Isaac Asimov's dream must wait a while longer (Score:1)
Re:Isaac Asimov's dream must wait a while longer (Score:2)
Re:Isaac Asimov's dream must wait a while longer (Score:2)
Re:Isaac Asimov's dream must wait a while longer (Score:2)
"and because, don't you see,
since we're both of us me,
when we're having sex I'm alone!"
Is this a dupe? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Is this a dupe? (Score:1)
Re:Is this a dupe? (Score:2)
Donation of eggs by staff = bad? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Donation of eggs by staff = bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Donation of eggs by staff = bad? (Score:2)
If you don't draw attention to a problem you can't directly fix, then the problem will likely not be fixed. It's important that the egg source issue is publicized.
It's kind of ironic, though -- you complain about how the egg source issue will distract everyone from the study, in response to an article not about the egg issue.
Re:Donation of eggs by staff = bad? (Score:2)
You read the article?!??
Re:Donation of eggs by staff = bad? (Score:2)
I'm just glad I guessed right this time.
Re:Donation of eggs by staff = bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like rules about conflicts of interest. An individual may be perfectly able to set aside his emotional or financial stake and make city zoning decisions that affect his own property, or preside as judge over the trial of someone who used to beat him up in the elementary school playground. But when that happens, it's all too easy for someone else to claim bias, so guidelines are in place to keep people out of those situations.
Re:Donation of eggs by staff = bad? (Score:2, Insightful)
Plus, egg donation is a painful procedure from what I understand.
The Amoral Part... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Donation of eggs by staff = bad? (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, this is very bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Standards (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Standards (Score:2)
I suspect even if the two other results are valid, most researchers are going to want to start over with an "untainted" line of cells. This of course sets the research back, because even if you can duplicate the process they used, you still have to take the time to carry out the procedure -- whereas before allegations started surfacing, you could have some groups trying to repeat the process and others building on what had already been done.
Re:Standards (Score:3, Insightful)
Why 9 out of 11? (Score:4, Funny)
Sensational but not factual yet (Score:3, Interesting)
They (Science) had already had the submission paper with lower res photos that were (supposedly) clearly different from each other. So while the version of the paper that was printed in Science clearly had duplicate photos representing different colonies, the original version of the paper/photos that Science had was not that way.
I think this is just more sensationalizm to further smear an already hurting scientist.
Re:Sensational but not factual yet (Score:2)
A blow for science (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A blow for science (Score:1)
While it is lamentable that a (likely) fake paper will be a setback for stem cell research, I can't help but see it as a blow for all of the sciences. There have been other instances where top science publications released falsified or outright bogus papers, but I believe that this one stands out by virtue of its controversial subject.
This is how self-regulation in science works, regardless of the subject of research. The controversy in the lay community is irrlevant. Fake your reasearch, lose your car
Re:A blow for science (Score:1)
Bullshit. The public influences the politicians, who in turn create the laws allowing or restricting research and set the budget for the groups that fund research. In addition, voters can choose whether to endorse or reject government-funded research. See Proposition 71 in California [smartvoter.org]. Public consent is essential for something like stem cell research.
Re:A blow for science (Score:5, Insightful)
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:A blow for science (Score:2)
As always, the few ruining it for the many. It does suck, you're right.
"In addition, the entire body of work done on stem cell research will be targeted"
That is potentially a problem, kind of what has happened with cold fusion -- a ton of people think that cold fusion researchers are charlatans, and that it's a waste of money to continue funding them.
All in all, though, I'm in favor of greater scrutiny in general, of
Wow... (Score:4, Funny)
this really suks big hwang (Score:2)
Towards the End of the BBC Article... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Towards the End of the BBC Article... (Score:1)
Advocate of truth is relative, because truth in itself is relative to what you believe the truth to be because truth is mearly interpetation of facts. Facts themselves don't change however.
Secondly, if the work does indeed lead to a better life for most of humanity then perhaps it should be given a bit mo
Re:Towards the End of the BBC Article... (Score:2)
Uh, you're arguing semantics (and using a definition of truth and facts that most probably wouldn't accept). So, just s/truth/fact/ if it makes you happier.
I find it interesting that an IT-oriented newgroup has such odd notions on the concept of truth. Half of computer software is Boolean logic!
If a statement reflects r
Re:Towards the End of the BBC Article... (Score:2)
At the risk of being offtopic. Let me put forth a statment about reality...
"The sky is blue? True or false?"
Any logical person would say it is true.
But if I look out my window it is pitch black in the night sky. Is the statement not true? If I say, "The sky is black! Not blue!" but tomorrow morning I go outside and find that I mistaken.
The physical universe works in analog as far as I can tell rather than Boolean. We mearly process it in digita
Re:Towards the End of the BBC Article... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Towards the End of the BBC Article... (Score:3, Interesting)
So while we know now that Hwang had violated research ethics, so too did the journalists violate their own ethics.
Nationalism in Korea is pretty rampant, but it has not overwhelmed logic here quite as you put it.
Google fo
Re:Towards the End of the BBC Article... (Score:2)
Hmm, he does work for a rival firm...
Creativity (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're talking about theft of intellectual property, people everywhere are guilty of that, not just those in Asia. Just look at the popularity of technologies like BitTorrent, where some people "liberate" content. Furthermore, isn't the free flow of ideas something that /.-ers generally prefer to see? Technical innovation can consist of both inspiration and perspiration. Developing technology isn't strictly a pure brute-force process, I'd guess that clever researchers in all parts of the world have been
Re:Towards the End of the BBC Article... (Score:2)
He's proven himself a liar once, (Score:1)
Last month, Hwang admitted that some of the human eggs used in his experiments had come from junior researchers in his lab - an ethical lapse he had previously denied
This man's moral actions are debatable, but the fact that he lied about it doesn't help either.
And while I believe that rival cloning firms/research teams are out for blood, if their stuff is so real, why would the good doctor's own team give silly excuses for questions raise on the resear
Questions... (Score:1, Informative)
Didn't pesky concerns like peer review, and other scientists attempting to repeat his success bother him?
Fake studies always gets exposed given time, so what benefit did he think he was getting out of this?
Re:Questions... (Score:2, Insightful)
Good questions, but maybe the fact they'd even be asked sheds some light on the (possible) answers?
An AP article, Allegations of fake research hit new high [boston.com], circulated this summer detailing the misconduct of Dr. Andrew Friedman (and attributing it to stress). In late October, Luk Van Parijs was fired [slashdot.org] over research fraud. More doubts raised on fired MIT professor [boston.com]:
Scientific American: Hwang researcher of the year (Score:4, Informative)
If the allegations about fabricating and faking the data are true, then I'm curious what the editors at SciAm will do? Rename him to "Fraud Leader of the Year"?
Re:Scientific American: Hwang researcher of the ye (Score:2)
If the allegations about fabricating and faking the data are true, then I'm curious what the editors at SciAm will do? Rename him to "Fraud Leader of the Year"?
No, "Re-Research Leader Of The Year".
scientific method would eventually find out (Score:3, Informative)
A classic case was immunopsupression of skin grafts. One guy was painting mouse fur to appear like it came from a different result. People couldnt reproduce what he said he was supposed to be doing.
Don't shield your eyes... (Score:2)
PEER REVIEW WORKS! (Score:2)
Given time, peer review and demand for experimental evidence will uncover fraud and untruth. It's the scientific way.
The scientific process does not guarantee 100% accuracy at any
Re:PEER REVIEW WORKS! (Score:2)
Possiby the most spectacular scientific fraud ever (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing to point out is that scientific fraud at this level of the scientific game, while not unprecedented, is quire rare. And a big part of this is simply due to the fact that anything truly important is worth replicating and extending, and a result that was faked is often impossible to replicate because it is the wrong result. I like to think that scientists are more honest than average, but surely to some extent it is the fear and shame of being caught doing this that keeps them more honest than that.
So I was trying to think of frauds that even come close to competing with the high profile that this case could assume, and it hasn't been easy. The Piltdown Hoax was very different in spirit. The faking of data in the report of element 118 might be close, but the original report got nothing like press attention that the Korean cloning breakthrough did. Can anybody else think of anything that really would compete?
J. Hendrik Schon all over again! (Score:3, Interesting)
The similarities are incredibly striking, including (according to the New Scientist [newscientist.com]) duplicated figures within papers and between papers claiming to be different samples.
What motivates someone to (apparently) fake results like this, when they're almost sure to be caught?
Validated (Score:2, Funny)
Scientific American (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Foreign policy implications (Score:1)
Hopefully the farmboy won't be paying attention to the follow-up stories, and the momentum to get funding for US researchers will continue. Good luck with your research!
Re:Foreign policy implications (Score:3, Insightful)
You are not a stem cell researcher, or else you would know that stem cell research is not banned. You need to get your multibillion dollar corporation to pony up some cash instead of sucking on the Federal tit.
But hey, anything to get your troll modded up, huh?
Wouldn't Worry (Score:2)
I doubt most people are going to be able to connect the two. Even if they did connect the two, if stem cell research is as hopefull as it appears, the constant drum beat of advances in the field will drowned out this one set back.
Further, the only real issue at hand is federal funding of stem cell research. State and private funding have never been at issue. Sure, Alabama and Mississippi might struggle with whether or not to fund stem cell research, California and Massachusetts on t
Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice little bullshit story.
And he's a dishonest one at best (Score:2)
Masking the intents of what research money will be used for? Misappropriating funds? Having a grant to do something and then not working on it? Please. That goes against how grants are given and the whole grant proposal process. He's full of shit.
Re:Foreign policy implications (Score:2)
Re:Boy I'm glad.. (Score:2)