The Legacy of the Hwang Case: Research Misconduct in Biosciences

Original Paper


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 Woo Suk Stem-cell research Research misconduct Fabrication Scientific integrity 


  1. 1.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hwang, W. S., et al. (2005). Dogs cloned from adult somatic cells. Nature, 436(7051), 641. doi:10.1038/436641a. PMID 16079832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Snyder, E. Z., & Loring, J. F. (2006). Beyond fraud—stem-cell research continues. NEJM, 354(4) January 26, p. 321.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Min, J. K. (2005). Stem cell researcher used more eggs than reported. Ohmy News, December 30. (
  6. 6.
    Morelle, R. (2007). Moving on from Hwang’s fall. BBC news ( Published: 2007/01/19 18:12:18 GMT.
  7. 7.
    Check, E. (2005). Where now for stem-cell cloners?—Researchers assess their field after Woo Suk Hwang’s revelations. Nature, 438, 1058–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zavos, P. (2006). Scientific fabrication at the highest level. January 16 (
  9. 9.
    Beardsley, S. (2006). Down in flames—Can stem cell research recover from Woo Suk Hwang? Scientific American, February 20.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaplan, K. (2006). Raising science’s bar against fraud. The Los Angeles Times. November 29.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wade, N. (2006). It may look authentic; Here’s how to tell it isn’t. The New York Times, January 24, 2006.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cho, M., & McKee, M. (2007). Authorship in biomedical research—realities and expectations. Science’s Next Wave. (
  13. 13.
    Wilson, E. B. (1952). An introduction to scientific research. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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. doi:10.1056/NEJM199309023291001.
  15. 15.
    Horton, R., & Smith, R. (1996). Time to redefine authorship. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed), 312, 723.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rennie, D., Flanagin, A., & Yank, V. (2000). The contributions of authors. JAMA, 284(1), 89–91. July 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kassirer, J. P. (1995). Authorship criteria. Science, 268, 785–786.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cho, M., & McKee, M. (2002). Authorship in biomedical research—realities and expectations. Science’s Next Wave (online)
  20. 20.
    Gøtzsche, P. C., et al. (2007). Ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomized trials. PLoS Medicine, 4, e19. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gottweis, H., & Triendl, R. (2006). South Korean policy failure and the Hwang debacle. Nature Biotechnology, 2, 141–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cho, M. K., Mcgee, M., & Magnus, D. (2006). Lessons of the stem cell scandal. Science, 3, 614–615. doi:10.1126/science.1124948.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim, T.-G. (2007). Science journals shuns korean papers. Korea Times, February 20, 2007. (
  24. 24.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dresser, R. (2001). Defining research misconduct: Will we know it when we see it? The Hastings Center Report (May–June), 32.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    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.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    NSF. (1991). Misconduct in science and engineering: Final rule. Federal Register, 56, 22287.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    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.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Commission on Research Integrity. (1996). Integrity and misconduct in research. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Office of Science Technology and Policy. (2000). Federal policy on research misconduct. Federal Register, 65, 76262.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smith, R. (2006). Research misconduct: The poisoning of the well. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 232–237, p. 233.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Smith, R. (2006). Research misconduct: The poisoning of the well. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 232–237, p. 234.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738. Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    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.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Behavioural Sciences, Medical and Health Sciences CentreUniversity of DebrecenDebrecenHungary
  2. 2.Center for Ethics and Law in BiomedicineCentral European UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations