The Legacy of the Hwang Case: Research Misconduct in Biosciences
- Péter Kakuk
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
This paper focuses on the infamous case of Hwang Woo Suk, the South-Korean national hero and once celebrated pioneer of stem cell research. After briefly discussing the evolution of his publication and research scandal in Science, I will attempt to outline the main reactions that emerged within scientific and bioethical discourses on the problem of research misconduct in contemporary biosciences. What were the ethical lapses in his research? What kind of research misconduct has been identified? How this kind of misconduct affects scientific integrity? How to avoid it? Focusing on these questions, the paper interprets the Hwang’s case as a case study that might shed light on the worst aspects of highstakes global science. This case presents a group of problems that might endanger scientific integrity and public trust. Regulatory oversight, ethical requirements and institutional safeguards are often viewed by the scientific community as merely decelerating scientific progress and causing delays in the application of treatments. The Hwang’s case represents how unimpeded progress works in contemporary science. Thus, the case might shed light on the often neglected benefits of “the social control of science”.
- Hwang, W. S., et al. (2004). Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. Science, 303(5664), 1669–1674. doi:10.1126/science.1094515. PMID 14963337. CrossRef
- Hwang, W. S., et al. (2005). Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts. Science, 308(5729), 1777–1783. doi:10.1126/science.1112286. PMID 15905366. CrossRef
- Hwang, W. S., et al. (2005). Dogs cloned from adult somatic cells. Nature, 436(7051), 641. doi:10.1038/436641a. PMID 16079832. CrossRef
- Snyder, E. Z., & Loring, J. F. (2006). Beyond fraud—stem-cell research continues. NEJM, 354(4) January 26, p. 321.
- Min, J. K. (2005). Stem cell researcher used more eggs than reported. Ohmy News, December 30. (http://.english.ohmynews.com).
- Morelle, R. (2007). Moving on from Hwang’s fall. BBC news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6280491.stm) Published: 2007/01/19 18:12:18 GMT.
- Check, E. (2005). Where now for stem-cell cloners?—Researchers assess their field after Woo Suk Hwang’s revelations. Nature, 438, 1058–1059. CrossRef
- Zavos, P. (2006). Scientific fabrication at the highest level. January 16 (http://www.zavos.org).
- Beardsley, S. (2006). Down in flames—Can stem cell research recover from Woo Suk Hwang? Scientific American, February 20.
- Kaplan, K. (2006). Raising science’s bar against fraud. The Los Angeles Times. November 29.
- Wade, N. (2006). It may look authentic; Here’s how to tell it isn’t. The New York Times, January 24, 2006.
- Cho, M., & McKee, M. (2007). Authorship in biomedical research—realities and expectations. Science’s Next Wave. (http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/1470/authorship_in_biomedical_research_realities_and_expectations/).
- Wilson, E. B. (1952). An introduction to scientific research. New York: McGraw Hill.
- The GUSTO Investigators. (1993). An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. The New England Journal of Medicine, 329(10), 673–682. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/329/10/673. doi:10.1056/NEJM199309023291001.
- Horton, R., & Smith, R. (1996). Time to redefine authorship. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed), 312, 723.
- Rennie, D., Flanagin, A., & Yank, V. (2000). The contributions of authors. JAMA, 284(1), 89–91. July 5. CrossRef
- Rennie, D., Yank, V., & Emanuel, L. (1997). When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 579–585. doi:10.1001/jama.278.7.579. CrossRef
- Kassirer, J. P. (1995). Authorship criteria. Science, 268, 785–786.
- Cho, M., & McKee, M. (2002). Authorship in biomedical research—realities and expectations. Science’s Next Wave (online) http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2002/01/27/6
- Gøtzsche, P. C., et al. (2007). Ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomized trials. PLoS Medicine, 4, e19. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040019. CrossRef
- Gottweis, H., & Triendl, R. (2006). South Korean policy failure and the Hwang debacle. Nature Biotechnology, 2, 141–143. CrossRef
- Cho, M. K., Mcgee, M., & Magnus, D. (2006). Lessons of the stem cell scandal. Science, 3, 614–615. doi:10.1126/science.1124948.
- Kim, T.-G. (2007). Science journals shuns korean papers. Korea Times, February 20, 2007. (http://times.hankooki.com/).
- Smith, R. (2006). Research misconduct: The poisoning of the well. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 232–237. doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.5.232. CrossRef
- Dresser, R. (2001). Defining research misconduct: Will we know it when we see it? The Hastings Center Report (May–June), 32.
- Public Health Service. (1989). Responsibilities of awardee and applicant institutions for dealing with and reporting possible misconduct in science: Final rule. Federal Register, 54, 32449.
- NSF. (1991). Misconduct in science and engineering: Final rule. Federal Register, 56, 22287.
- Panel on Scientific Responsibility and Conduct of Research. (1992). Responsible science: Ensuring the integrity of the research process. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, p. 5.
- Commission on Research Integrity. (1996). Integrity and misconduct in research. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
- Office of Science Technology and Policy. (2000). Federal policy on research misconduct. Federal Register, 65, 76262.
- Nylenna, M., Andersen, D., Dahlquist, G., National Committees on Scientific Dishonesty in the Nordic Countries., et al. (1999). Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries. Lancet, 354, 57–61. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07133-5. CrossRef
- Smith, R. (2006). Research misconduct: The poisoning of the well. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 232–237, p. 233.
- Smith, R. (2006). Research misconduct: The poisoning of the well. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 232–237, p. 234.
- Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738.
- De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 43–50.
- Anderson, M. S. (2007). Collective openness and other recommendations for the promotion of research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 387–394. doi:10.1007/s11948-007-9047-0. CrossRef
- Hafferty, F. W., & Franks, R. (1994). The hidden curriculum, ethics teaching and the structure of medical education. Academic Medicine, 69, 861–871. doi:10.1097/00001888-199411000-00001. CrossRef
- The Legacy of the Hwang Case: Research Misconduct in Biosciences
Science and Engineering Ethics
Volume 15, Issue 4 , pp 545-562
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Hwang Woo Suk
- Stem-cell research
- Research misconduct
- Scientific integrity
- Péter Kakuk (1) (2)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Behavioural Sciences, Medical and Health Sciences Centre, University of Debrecen, Nagyerdei krt. 98, P.O. Box 45, 4032, Debrecen, Hungary
- 2. Center for Ethics and Law in Biomedicine, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary