The Legacy of the Hwang Case: Research Misconduct in Biosciences
- 947 Downloads
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”.
KeywordsHwang Woo Suk Stem-cell research Research misconduct Fabrication Scientific integrity
- 4.Snyder, E. Z., & Loring, J. F. (2006). Beyond fraud—stem-cell research continues. NEJM, 354(4) January 26, p. 321.Google Scholar
- 5.Min, J. K. (2005). Stem cell researcher used more eggs than reported. Ohmy News, December 30. (http://.english.ohmynews.com).
- 6.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.
- 8.Zavos, P. (2006). Scientific fabrication at the highest level. January 16 (http://www.zavos.org).
- 9.Beardsley, S. (2006). Down in flames—Can stem cell research recover from Woo Suk Hwang? Scientific American, February 20.Google Scholar
- 10.Kaplan, K. (2006). Raising science’s bar against fraud. The Los Angeles Times. November 29.Google Scholar
- 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.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/).
- 13.Wilson, E. B. (1952). An introduction to scientific research. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
- 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. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/329/10/673. doi:10.1056/NEJM199309023291001.
- 15.Horton, R., & Smith, R. (1996). Time to redefine authorship. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed), 312, 723.Google Scholar
- 18.Kassirer, J. P. (1995). Authorship criteria. Science, 268, 785–786.Google Scholar
- 19.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
- 23.Kim, T.-G. (2007). Science journals shuns korean papers. Korea Times, February 20, 2007. (http://times.hankooki.com/).
- 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.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.NSF. (1991). Misconduct in science and engineering: Final rule. Federal Register, 56, 22287.Google Scholar
- 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.Commission on Research Integrity. (1996). Integrity and misconduct in research. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
- 30.Office of Science Technology and Policy. (2000). Federal policy on research misconduct. Federal Register, 65, 76262.Google Scholar
- 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.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.Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738. Google Scholar
- 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