The report is sure to be a crushing blow to Korean pride, as Hwang had been designated the nation's "supreme scientist". With his 365- day-a-year working habits, he was held up as a role model for Korean children. More than 10 cartoon biographies for children were published after he announced in May that he had created 11 embryonic stem cell lines.
Most despondent could be the 14,000 people who had registered themselves or their children with the Hub in the hope of cures. "I had pinned all my hopes on Dr Hwang after I heard that he had cured a dog with a spinal cord injury through stem cell treatment," paraplegic Park Seung-yoo told the Joong Ahn Daily. "I think about how I'm never going to walk again and I just want to die." ~ Joong Ahn Daily, Jan 9
The audacious fraud has raised questions about government involvement in research, the celebrity status of scientists, the viability and regulation of human embryonic stem cell research and public understanding of therapeutic cloning. But the peer-review system for vetting articles is at the centre of the controversy. Science, the journal which published Hwang's landmark paper in which he claimed to have created 11 stem cell lines, has acknowledged that the paper was reviewed quickly -- in 58 days, far less than the average 81 days. However, its editor, Donald Kennedy, says "peer review cannot detect [fraud] if it is artfully done". The journal may adopt some reforms already used by other journals like requiring each contributor to detail his contribution or performing independent analyses of images. Some critics of stem cell research contend that Science gave Hwang's research an easy run because it supported embryo research in the face of the restrictive US policy.
Where peer review failed, journalists and bloggers succeeded. A Korean investigative TV news program, PD Notebook, followed up anonymous tips and aggressively interviewed Hwang's co-workers. They very nearly failed to get the story out, though, because all sponsors cancelled their ads, the switchboard was flooded with threatening calls and on December 7 the network suspended the show. Hwang was just so popular with ordinary Koreans and so trusted by researchers around the world that none of the mud seemed to stick. Around that time, however, scientist bloggers began to post their comments on faked photographs of the stem cell lines and DNA fingerprints. Eventually Seoul National University launched an investigation and a few days later PD Notebook was back on air with more revelations.
As science writer Tabitha M. Powledge, an official blogger on The Scientist magazine, commented, "Yes, this monumental scientific fraud was not initially disclosed by the journals that published Hwang's cloning and stem cell papers, or the reviewers, or regulators, or ethics committees -- all those scientific institutions that should be bulwarks against fraud of this magnitude. Disclosure happened because reporters for the South Korean TV network MBC got a tip and pursued it vigorously." ~ Science, Jan 6; The Scientist, Jan 5
KASS LASHES HWANG'S BOOSTERS
In an interview in the online edition of the Wall Street Journal, Dr Leon Kass, the former chairman of President Bush's Council on Bioethics, expressed his scorn for the legion of Dr Hwang's former supporters.
"Scientific fraud is always revolting, but it is fortunately rare and, in the end, truth will out. But in this case, American scientists and the American media have been complicit in the fraud, because of their zeal in the politics of stem-cell and cloning research and their hostility to the Bush funding policy. Concerted efforts have been made these past five years to hype therapeutic cloning, including irresponsible promises of cures around the corner and 'personalised repair kits' for every degenerative disease. The need to support these wild claims and the desire to embarrass cloning opponents led to the accelerated publication of Dr Hwang's 'findings'... We even made him Exhibit A for the false claim that our moral scruples are causing American science to fall behind." ~ Opinion Journal, Jan 7
AUSTRALIAN EUTHANASIA ACTIVIST MOVES TO NEW ZEALAND
After a new law banning the use of phones, faxes, email or internet to give instructions about how to commit suicide, euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke has shifted his website to New Zealand. From now on he will commute between Darwin and Auckland and may even settle there. "New Zealand is like a shining ray of liberalism over the Tasman," he says. "We are thrilled to be able to move at least the electronic side of our communication out of Australia."
It was not long before Dr Nitschke was the focus of controversy in his new abode. The New Zealand Veterinary Association attacked his suggestion at a suicide workshop that one option for suicide was to approach a "friendly vet" who would supply the lethal barbiturate Nembutol. "I'm disappointed to hear a medical professional making light of it," said CEO Murray Gibb. "If a veterinarian were to dispense these products they would be hung out to dry very, very quickly." ~ New Zealand Herald, Jan 7
RESEARCHERS DISCOVER BREAST STEM CELL
It may be possible to grow replacement breast tissue from breast stem cells, say researchers from Vancouver and Melbourne in an article in Nature. The discovery may also help to understand the mechanism of breast cancer and to identify drugs which can target cancer-causing cells.
The identification of a breast stem cell in mice is a breakthrough but it could be a long time before it will be helpful in medicine. We expect there will be differences between human and mouse breast tissue that may make rapid translation of our findings to human problems a significant challenge," says Dr Connie Eaves, of Terry Fox Laboratory, in Vancouver. ~ London Telegraph, Jan 5
DEMENTED CONSENT
As more and more people are diagnosed with dementia in ageing populations, the need for research has become acute. But how can demented people give informed consent to potentially risky procedures? Few people make advance directives for instructions on their participation in clinical trials in the event of a decline into dementia. So surrogates have to make a decision for them. What kind of risks would these surrogates consent to for their spouse or parent?
This was a question posed by doctors from the University of Michigan in the journal Neurology recently. They interviewed 229 people who were at risk of Alzheimer's and found 90% acceptance for the lowest risk studies such as scientists making observations, conducting interviews or taking blood. And even for the riskiest procedures, such as inserting new genes into the brain, about half approved.
However, doctors warn that it will still not be easy to recruit people for dementia research. The figures in the Michigan survey may be unrealistically high, because people are normally more willing to accept risks for themselves than for someone else. Furthermore, the demented patients have to cooperate. "If I'm doing a brain scan, I can't tie down a person and put them in a scanner against their will," says Dr William Jagust, of University of California at Berkeley. "It's not ethical." ~ Sacramento Bee, Jan 1
US GOVT EYEING RESEARCH ON PRISONERS
The US government is studying whether to relax its restrictions on the participation of prisoners in medical research. Under the existing rules, prisoners may only participate in studies which could benefit them directly or in which they are disproportionately involved, such as AIDS. "The current regulations are very, very protective of prisoners," says a policy analyst for the Office of Human Research Protections. "Some voices in the community have argued they are an inappropriate disincentive to researchers."
Opening prison gates to more researchers is a controversial topic. I've seen too many cases where good people can do some very damaging things," says Allen Hornblum, a medical ethicist at Temple University. In fact, the current regulations, adopted in 1978, were a response to abuses such as burning prisoners to mimic the effects of atomic explosions, injections with live cancer cells, and behaviour- modification techniques such as castration and electric shock. On the other hand, prisoners might want to participate in experiments to relieve boredom, get extra privileges or repay society. As well, some argue that prisoners have a positive right to participate in research. This is the case in Europe.
In the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, however, Harvard bioethicist Dan Wikler feels that it is not a good time to change the status quo. "Prisons are closed institutions and no one knows what's going on inside," he says. Expecting that all researchers will behave ethically is unrealistic. "We have not reached a state of enlightenment." A report on the issue for the Department of Health and Human Services will be presented in March. ~ Nature Medicine, Jan 1
IN BRIEF: euthanasia
Euthanasia poll: A survey by the Pew Research Centre has found that Americans are split almost evenly on legalising doctor-assisted suicide: 46% approve and 45% are opposed. About 60% feel that people have a right to take their own lives if they are in great pain from a terminal illness, but only 30% believe that they should if they feel that they are a burden to their family. ~ Pew Research Center, Jan 5
France: A government prosecutor has dropped charges in the controversial Humbert mercy killing case. Vincent Humbert was left paralysed, mute and almost totally blind after a car accident in 2000. His mother and doctor killed him in 2003 after unsuccessfully lobbying the government for a change in the law. Madame Marie Humbert was disappointed: she was hoping to argue her case in an open trial. "It was difficult for me to agree to breaking the law and I did it for my son. But now it's as if I did nothing," she said. ~ London Telegraph, Jan 4
History lesson: A pro-euthanasia bioethicist has claimed that the death of two of America's first three presidents on the 50th anniversary of Independence Day, is evidence that they may have committed suicide. Margaret Pabst Battin, author of the recent book Ending Life: Ethics and the Way We Die, suggests that their deaths may have been somehow orchestrated. A reviewer in the National Review Online dismissed her theory as "irresponsible conjectures based on the flimsiest of evidence". ~ NRO, Jan 5
Seoul National University is due to release the results of its investigation into the Hwang Woo-suk stem cell debacle today. At the moment, all of his achievements are under suspicion, even the cows he cloned in 1999 which first made him famous in Korea. Government funding for the World Stem Cell Hub, which was to have made Korea a world biotech leader, has been withdrawn.