The pathetic state of many unscrupulous scientists and ignorant public
There are lessons to be taken by the public from one of the biggest science fraud cases in history, as the stem-cell research fiasco in South Korea that caused at least a day of national humiliation is becoming unraveled now.
Rising of the South Korean scientist, Hwang Woo Suk, 53, from being an obscure veterinarian to fame in February 2004, as he had claimed to be the first to clone a human embryo, inserting an adult cell's nucleus into a human egg, led politicians and patient groups to arguing that cures were around the corner, if scientists could get the needed support. In his 17 June 2005 paper in Science, he said he had done the same with 11 patients, brightening the prospects for medical application of the delicate procedure that involves squeezing the genetic material out of a human egg and replacing it with DNA from an adult cell.
In August 2005, he unveiled Snuppy, the world's first cloned dog, a feat that had long frustrated other scientists. The South Korean government showered him with rewards, including two research labs now under construction and a newly created title of Supreme Scientist, an honor that comes with $2.9 million, in annual research funds.
Allegations against Hwang's June paper, however, have raised doubts about the authenticity of his other accomplishments. Hwang has rejected the accusations, claiming that his team made additional breakthroughs and at least one significant paper was under review by an international journal.
Criticism of Hwang have started when MBC-TV in Korea began an investigation after getting complaints from his former team members. In November 2005, he had to apologize for using eggs obtained unethically for his 2004 experiments. Even then, most South Koreans supported him and considered him a national hero. Critics have been often considered unpatriotic in South Korea and the scientists and detractors had to use the Internet to spread their opinions anonymously. Some of those critics said—and Hwang's team was forced to admit—that some of the pictures of stem cell lines presented for the Science article were duplicates. Critics also said that some of the DNA traces of the cells appeared identical.
On 16 December 2005, Hwang admitted irrevocable mistakes in managing data as the reason to retract the Science paper published in June. Immediately after Hwang's news conference, Roh Sung Il, the head of Miz Medi and one of the 25 co-authors of the June paper, called his own televised news conference. He called Hwang a liar who “tries to beat truth with hypocrisy and cheap tricks,” and a national hero who “finds himself in a corner” and tries to find a scapegoat. He repeated his previous claim that nine of the 11 stem cells were not authentic. Roh's claim shocked the country, generating banner headlines and, some analysts say, contributed to a sharp fall in the South Korean stock market Friday morning.
On Friday, Roh said three of the nine colonies “only exist in fictional data.” Roh said he talked with a former Miz Medi researcher who worked for Hwang before going to the University of Pittsburgh. According to Roh, the junior scientist, Kim Seon Jong, said that he fabricated data allegedly on the orders of Hwang. Hwang rejected the allegation on Friday, but raised the possibility that someone from Miz Midi sabotaged his work intentionally or by mistake. In Kim's only interview with the media, broadcast on South Korean MBC-TV on Thursday evening, he said he did “something that should not be done,” and that his “career was over.”
Roh also accused Prof. Gerald P. Schatten at the University of Pittsburgh, formerly a close associate of Hwang, of being an accomplice in all the fabrications. He said that Hwang told him Schatten made the stem cell paper with a 'rough draft' provided by Hwang who may have offered fingerprinting and teratoma—a cellular cancer on embryonic stem cells—pictures while Schatten wrote the article. Roh contended Schatten is as dishonest as Hwang, since the U.S. biologist should know the patient-specific stem cells are not real considering the incredibly quick growth of the cells.
On 13 December 2005, in a desperate, last-minute, face-saving effort, Gerald Schatten had asked that his name be removed from their landmark scientific paper and questioned whether the work had been falsified. It was too little, too late. Science said it would not remove Schatten's name. “There is no method for retracting authorship,” Science said in a statement.
The Scientific American monthly on 15 December 2005 said it was striking geneticist Hwang from a list of the year’s top 50 scientists, reacting to news that Hwang submitted flawed data with his claim that he produced stem cells tailored to individual patients. The magazine in a message on its website summed up a series of recent revelations about flaws in Hwang’s research. “With considerable disappointment, the editors of Scientific American are immediately removing Dr. Hwang Woo-suk from his honored position as Research Leader of the Year on the 2005 Scientific American 50 list” in the special December issue already published on Nov. 23.
The editors said they tried to contact Hwang in vain, adding, “We are also deeply concerned about the lasting damage that this fraud may do to the reputation of stem cell research, which we continue to regard as a highly worthy endeavor generally pursued by scientists keeping to a far higher standard of honesty and ethics.”
Meanwhile, states poured money into stem cell programs, even though there was no beef nor cures. Hype and ambition have gotten ahead of the science thanks to many unscrupulous scientists who have their own agenda. There was no private money going into this research, because the business community, justifiably so, valued it at zero. The stem-cell proponents exaggerated the state of the science and misled the public about scientific accomplishments. They promised cures that, if they ever came, would not come any time soon.
This kind of deception has been happening in other areas of science, too. However, it does not directly involve sensitive human issues. This irrelevancy to the issues at the forefront leads to many scientists being able to get away with unjustified state grants, ultimately funded by taxpayers' money, that are being expended for no major breakthroughs, but for the scientists to satisfy their egos and make their ends meet. Still, the stem-cell meltdown we have been witnessing now will not waken up the ignorant public of what has been going on in science and how much of their money is being totally trashed.
____
Originally published in Science Express on 19 May 2005
Science 17 June 2005:
Vol. 308. no. 5729, pp. 1777 - 1783
Patient-Specific Embryonic Stem Cells Derived from Human SCNT Blastocysts
Woo Suk Hwang,1,2 Sung Il Roh,3 Byeong Chun Lee,1 Sung Keun Kang,1 Dae Kee Kwon,1 Sue Kim,1 Sun Jong Kim,3 Sun Woo Park,1 Hee Sun Kwon,1 Chang Kyu Lee,2 Jung Bok Lee,3 Jin Mee Kim,3 Curie Ahn,4 Sun Ha Paek,4 Sang Sik Chang,5 Jung Jin Koo,5 Hyun Soo Yoon,6 Jung Hye Hwang,6 Youn Young Hwang,6 Ye Soo Park,6 Sun Kyung Oh,4 Hee Sun Kim,4 Jong Hyuk Park,7 Shin Yong Moon,4 Gerald Schatten7
Patient-specific, immune-matched human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) are anticipated to be of great biomedical importance for studies of disease and development and to advance clinical deliberations regarding stem cell transplantation. Eleven hESC lines were established by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) of skin cells from patients with disease or injury into donated oocytes. These lines, nuclear transfer (NT)–hESCs, grown on human feeders from the same NT donor or from genetically unrelated individuals, were established at high rates, regardless of NT donor sex or age. NT-hESCs were pluripotent, chromosomally normal, and matched the NT patient's DNA. The major histocompatibility complex identity of each NT-hESC when compared to the patient's own showed immunological compatibility, which is important for eventual transplantation. With the generation of these NT-hESCs, evaluations of genetic and epigenetic stability can be made. Additional work remains to be done regarding the development of reliable directed differentiation and the elimination of remaining animal components. Before clinical use of these cells can occur, preclinical evidence is required to prove that transplantation of differentiated NT-hESCs can be safe, effective, and tolerated.
1 College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Korea.
2 School of Agricultural Biotechnology, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Korea.
3 Medical Research Center, MizMedi Hospital, Seoul 135-280, Korea.
4 College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul 110-744, Korea.
5 Hanna Women's Clinic, Seoul 137-872, Korea.
6 School of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul 471-701, Korea.
7 Pittsburgh Development Center, Magee-Womens Research Institute, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences and Department of Cell Biology and Physiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
Rising of the South Korean scientist, Hwang Woo Suk, 53, from being an obscure veterinarian to fame in February 2004, as he had claimed to be the first to clone a human embryo, inserting an adult cell's nucleus into a human egg, led politicians and patient groups to arguing that cures were around the corner, if scientists could get the needed support. In his 17 June 2005 paper in Science, he said he had done the same with 11 patients, brightening the prospects for medical application of the delicate procedure that involves squeezing the genetic material out of a human egg and replacing it with DNA from an adult cell.
In August 2005, he unveiled Snuppy, the world's first cloned dog, a feat that had long frustrated other scientists. The South Korean government showered him with rewards, including two research labs now under construction and a newly created title of Supreme Scientist, an honor that comes with $2.9 million, in annual research funds.
Allegations against Hwang's June paper, however, have raised doubts about the authenticity of his other accomplishments. Hwang has rejected the accusations, claiming that his team made additional breakthroughs and at least one significant paper was under review by an international journal.
Criticism of Hwang have started when MBC-TV in Korea began an investigation after getting complaints from his former team members. In November 2005, he had to apologize for using eggs obtained unethically for his 2004 experiments. Even then, most South Koreans supported him and considered him a national hero. Critics have been often considered unpatriotic in South Korea and the scientists and detractors had to use the Internet to spread their opinions anonymously. Some of those critics said—and Hwang's team was forced to admit—that some of the pictures of stem cell lines presented for the Science article were duplicates. Critics also said that some of the DNA traces of the cells appeared identical.
On 16 December 2005, Hwang admitted irrevocable mistakes in managing data as the reason to retract the Science paper published in June. Immediately after Hwang's news conference, Roh Sung Il, the head of Miz Medi and one of the 25 co-authors of the June paper, called his own televised news conference. He called Hwang a liar who “tries to beat truth with hypocrisy and cheap tricks,” and a national hero who “finds himself in a corner” and tries to find a scapegoat. He repeated his previous claim that nine of the 11 stem cells were not authentic. Roh's claim shocked the country, generating banner headlines and, some analysts say, contributed to a sharp fall in the South Korean stock market Friday morning.
On Friday, Roh said three of the nine colonies “only exist in fictional data.” Roh said he talked with a former Miz Medi researcher who worked for Hwang before going to the University of Pittsburgh. According to Roh, the junior scientist, Kim Seon Jong, said that he fabricated data allegedly on the orders of Hwang. Hwang rejected the allegation on Friday, but raised the possibility that someone from Miz Midi sabotaged his work intentionally or by mistake. In Kim's only interview with the media, broadcast on South Korean MBC-TV on Thursday evening, he said he did “something that should not be done,” and that his “career was over.”
Roh also accused Prof. Gerald P. Schatten at the University of Pittsburgh, formerly a close associate of Hwang, of being an accomplice in all the fabrications. He said that Hwang told him Schatten made the stem cell paper with a 'rough draft' provided by Hwang who may have offered fingerprinting and teratoma—a cellular cancer on embryonic stem cells—pictures while Schatten wrote the article. Roh contended Schatten is as dishonest as Hwang, since the U.S. biologist should know the patient-specific stem cells are not real considering the incredibly quick growth of the cells.
On 13 December 2005, in a desperate, last-minute, face-saving effort, Gerald Schatten had asked that his name be removed from their landmark scientific paper and questioned whether the work had been falsified. It was too little, too late. Science said it would not remove Schatten's name. “There is no method for retracting authorship,” Science said in a statement.
The Scientific American monthly on 15 December 2005 said it was striking geneticist Hwang from a list of the year’s top 50 scientists, reacting to news that Hwang submitted flawed data with his claim that he produced stem cells tailored to individual patients. The magazine in a message on its website summed up a series of recent revelations about flaws in Hwang’s research. “With considerable disappointment, the editors of Scientific American are immediately removing Dr. Hwang Woo-suk from his honored position as Research Leader of the Year on the 2005 Scientific American 50 list” in the special December issue already published on Nov. 23.
The editors said they tried to contact Hwang in vain, adding, “We are also deeply concerned about the lasting damage that this fraud may do to the reputation of stem cell research, which we continue to regard as a highly worthy endeavor generally pursued by scientists keeping to a far higher standard of honesty and ethics.”
Meanwhile, states poured money into stem cell programs, even though there was no beef nor cures. Hype and ambition have gotten ahead of the science thanks to many unscrupulous scientists who have their own agenda. There was no private money going into this research, because the business community, justifiably so, valued it at zero. The stem-cell proponents exaggerated the state of the science and misled the public about scientific accomplishments. They promised cures that, if they ever came, would not come any time soon.
This kind of deception has been happening in other areas of science, too. However, it does not directly involve sensitive human issues. This irrelevancy to the issues at the forefront leads to many scientists being able to get away with unjustified state grants, ultimately funded by taxpayers' money, that are being expended for no major breakthroughs, but for the scientists to satisfy their egos and make their ends meet. Still, the stem-cell meltdown we have been witnessing now will not waken up the ignorant public of what has been going on in science and how much of their money is being totally trashed.
____
Originally published in Science Express on 19 May 2005
Science 17 June 2005:
Vol. 308. no. 5729, pp. 1777 - 1783
Patient-Specific Embryonic Stem Cells Derived from Human SCNT Blastocysts
Woo Suk Hwang,1,2 Sung Il Roh,3 Byeong Chun Lee,1 Sung Keun Kang,1 Dae Kee Kwon,1 Sue Kim,1 Sun Jong Kim,3 Sun Woo Park,1 Hee Sun Kwon,1 Chang Kyu Lee,2 Jung Bok Lee,3 Jin Mee Kim,3 Curie Ahn,4 Sun Ha Paek,4 Sang Sik Chang,5 Jung Jin Koo,5 Hyun Soo Yoon,6 Jung Hye Hwang,6 Youn Young Hwang,6 Ye Soo Park,6 Sun Kyung Oh,4 Hee Sun Kim,4 Jong Hyuk Park,7 Shin Yong Moon,4 Gerald Schatten7
Patient-specific, immune-matched human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) are anticipated to be of great biomedical importance for studies of disease and development and to advance clinical deliberations regarding stem cell transplantation. Eleven hESC lines were established by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) of skin cells from patients with disease or injury into donated oocytes. These lines, nuclear transfer (NT)–hESCs, grown on human feeders from the same NT donor or from genetically unrelated individuals, were established at high rates, regardless of NT donor sex or age. NT-hESCs were pluripotent, chromosomally normal, and matched the NT patient's DNA. The major histocompatibility complex identity of each NT-hESC when compared to the patient's own showed immunological compatibility, which is important for eventual transplantation. With the generation of these NT-hESCs, evaluations of genetic and epigenetic stability can be made. Additional work remains to be done regarding the development of reliable directed differentiation and the elimination of remaining animal components. Before clinical use of these cells can occur, preclinical evidence is required to prove that transplantation of differentiated NT-hESCs can be safe, effective, and tolerated.
1 College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Korea.
2 School of Agricultural Biotechnology, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Korea.
3 Medical Research Center, MizMedi Hospital, Seoul 135-280, Korea.
4 College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul 110-744, Korea.
5 Hanna Women's Clinic, Seoul 137-872, Korea.
6 School of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul 471-701, Korea.
7 Pittsburgh Development Center, Magee-Womens Research Institute, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences and Department of Cell Biology and Physiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
posted by SiberTanrı | 10:54
|
0 comments
