A FRAUD, a liar and a charlatan: that is the general verdict on Woo Suk Hwang, South Korea鈥檚 disgraced 鈥渒ing of cloning鈥�. But the reactions to Hwang鈥檚 transgressions, which have focused on the fraud, are themselves deeply unsettling. His team didn鈥檛 just fabricate data. It also breached ethical guidelines designed to protect women from exploitation and medical harm. Yet these lapses have attracted less attention and outrage.
Hwang claimed to have created cloned stem cells matched to individual patients. For this he needed human eggs. In May 2004, after Science published the first of two landmark papers, Nature, where I worked at the time, queried the source of the eggs. A junior researcher in Hwang鈥檚 lab told one of our reporters that she and a colleague were among the egg donors. If so, that would have breached international guidelines designed to prevent people being coerced into participating in medical research. But the woman soon changed her story, and Hwang denied the accusation.
Then things went quiet, and there was little ethical fuss when Hwang published a second paper in May 2005, describing the creation of 11 lines of patient-specific stem cells. But in November, the Korean TV broadcaster MBC confirmed Nature鈥榮 allegation and revealed that other women had been paid to donate eggs, contrary to earlier assurances. Hwang apologised, claiming he had only found out about donations from lab members when Nature began its enquiries and had lied to protect their identities.
Advertisement
At that time, I contacted several stem cell biologists who were considering collaborating with Hwang. None condoned the ethical lapses, but they did not rule out working with his team in future if they could be satisfied that acceptable standards would be met. It was a different story a few weeks later, however, when news of the scientific fraud emerged. Today no reputable scientist would consider collaborating with Hwang. Data fabrication, it seems, is considered a worse crime than lax bioethics.
That was certainly the line taken by Scientific American when it stripped Hwang of its 鈥渞esearch leader of the year鈥� title. On 15 December 2005, the magazine鈥檚 editors stated: 鈥淓ven when [the ethical] charges were borne out, we respected that the ethics of accepted practice in this area of science were still somewhat murky, and we declined to judge him too quickly. However, scientific fraud is an unforgivable offense against the enterprise of research, and鈥ompletely invalidates the selection of Dr Hwang.鈥�
麻豆传媒, too, initially gave Hwang some benefit of the doubt, pointing out that in many Asian cultures the women who donated eggs would be seen as heroines rather than victims (麻豆传媒, 3 December 2005, p 3). But it soon became clear that Hwang had abused ethical standards by any cultural yardstick. In fact, he knew about the donations from his subordinates all along. According to the report from an investigating committee at Seoul National University (SNU) released on 10 January, he even accompanied one of the women to the hospital where the procedure was carried out.
The SNU report reveals that Hwang鈥檚 team obtained a staggering 2061 eggs from 129 women, nearly five times the number described in the two papers. This relentless procurement had serious consequences: South Korea鈥檚 National Bioethics Committee is investigating the matter, and in briefings to the Korean press has indicated that 15 to 20 per cent of the donors suffered ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, a reaction to the hormones used to promote ovulation that can cause abdominal pain, diarrhoea and vomiting. You won鈥檛 be surprised to learn that the donors say they weren鈥檛 adequately informed of this possibility.
鈥淪cientists like to talk about the sanctity of data, but human rights should be every bit as sacred鈥�
So has the scientific establishment now united in unambiguously condemning Hwang鈥檚 ethical lapses? Apparently not. On 20 January, Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science, spoke on the Hwang affair at a stem-cell ethics meeting at Stanford University in California. He focused on the data fabrication, so I asked about the allegation of egg donations by junior researchers. 鈥淚 would not have been bothered by that,鈥� Kennedy told the packed lecture hall.
I was sufficiently taken aback to follow this up by email. 鈥淥f course if one can show coercion that鈥檚 a problem,鈥� Kennedy replied. 鈥淏ut there鈥檚 a long history of experimenters wanting to take limited risks in participating personally.鈥� This attitude seems extraordinary. The whole point of the ethical standards ignored by Hwang is to remove the possibility of coercion.
Scientists like to talk about the sanctity of data, but human rights and welfare should be every bit as sacred. In publishing false data, Hwang betrayed the trust placed in him by his peers. But his cavalier disregard for the women he exploited, and for the patients whose hopes have been dashed, was far worse.
If stem cell research is ever to yield clinical benefits it will require willing volunteers, both to provide the cells to work with and to test experimental treatments. They need to know that their welfare is taken just as seriously as the veracity of a scientific paper.
