Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

S. Korea Cloning Success Faked?

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the i-don't-think-he'll-get-a-bonus-this-year dept.

Biotech 199

minus_273 writes "The BBC is reporting that it appears that the human cloning in Korea might have been faked." From the article: "At least nine of 11 stem cell colonies used in a landmark research paper by Dr Hwang Woo-suk were faked, said Roh Sung-il, who collaborated on the paper. Dr Hwang has agreed to ask the US journal Science to withdraw his paper on stem cell cloning, Mr Roh said ... Last month, Dr Hwang resigned from his main post as head of the World Stem Cell Hub, after it emerged that some of the eggs used in his research were donated by his staff - in contravention of international guidelines. Now it is some of the research itself which is being called into question."

cancel ×

199 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FUCK CHRISTMAS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14265284)

Oh man, fuck Christmas.

Seriously - are you kidding me with this "There's a war on Christmas [salon.com] " bullshit? FOX News wasn't raking in enough cash already from all the Christmas commercials for Kill 'em All Barbie [commondreams.org] and Girls Gone Wild Brand Toddler Gear [www.cbc.ca] ? They had to start publishing books about some bogus attack on Christianity [washingtonpost.com] ? And who did they pick to lead this particular charge?

John fucking Gibson [foxnews.com] . This guy has wiener written all over him.

Bill O'Reilly gets all the credit as the biggest nutcase in FOXville, but Gibson really deserves his own special wing in the happy house. This motherfucker's embedded assignment reads "Up Karl Rove's ass."

What makes him such a dick? I mean, besides making a fortune by screaming hysterically about how oppressed Christians [mediamatters.org] are by the other twenty percent [wikipedia.org] ? How about advocating bombing countries that don't vote the way we want in their own elections [newshounds.us] ? Way to encourage democracy, fuckhead. And maybe he was kidding when he wished, on air, that the French had gotten the 2012 Olympics instead of the Brits so the terrorists would "blow up Paris [blogcritics.org] ," but it might have been just a touch over the top to call for it again [mediamatters.org] on the day of the London train bombings. Classy move, asshole.

And really? That's just scratching the fucking surface. Anyone remember who was responsible for the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City? John does: Iraq [foxnews.com] . And speaking of Iraq, Gibson thinks Rove deserves a fucking medal for outing that CIA agent [foxnews.com] . And, like any good reporter, he wanted to burn the Florida ballots after his buddy Bush got "elected [fair.org] " rather than, I don't know, count them? "Is this a case where knowing the facts actually would be worse than not knowing? [fair.org] " That right there is why sometimes it's useful for journalists to go to, what do you call that fucking place? Oh yeah, journalism school [nndb.com] .

And now he's all worked up about Christmas being stolen [nytimes.com] . What is this, the fucking Fairytale Network [salon.com] ? It's a national fucking holiday and we're spending gobs of our hard-earned tax dollars on wreaths and lights for your special Santa day. But these bastards are all "But they call them Holiday [mediamatters.org] trees!" Here's a clue: no, they fucking don't [senate.gov] . Ok, maybe in a couple places [foxnews.com] , like on FOXNews.com [mediamatters.org] and at the White House [cbsnews.com] , but if Christmas is under attack, I'm Kris fucking Kringle.

And guess who's stealing Christmas, according to Gibson. Go on -- guess. "A cabal of secularists, so-called humanists, trial lawyers, cultural relativists, and liberal, guilt-wracked Christians -- not just Jewish people [thinkprogress.org] ." (Emphasis mine. Pure, unadulterated anti-semitism, his.) A cabal? Are you fucking kidding me? Could we try to be a little more fucking original with our Jew-hating [annefrank.org] ?

Speaking of Jew-hating, Pat Buchanan [fair.org] has joined the hype-a-thon of the supposed Attack on Christmas, too. Or, as he put it, "What we're witnessing here are hate crimes against Christianity. [sentinelan...rprise.com] " Sorry? We're not so hot on paying for an inflatable camel for your goddamn nativity scene and suddenly we're Slobodan fucking Milosevic? Fuck you. Get some goddamn perspective, you little prick. When they start hunting Christians in the streets, it'll be time to start yelling "Hate crime." And no, it won't count when they start chasing you with the torches. That'll be called "The Most Wonderful Time of the Year."

And Bill O'Reilly, Gibson's cellmate in the silly shack, is doing his part to save Christmas, [mediamatters.org] too. He's been going after New York's Mayor Bloomberg (that Commie) because he says the Christmas Tree at Rockefeller Center has been renamed [foxnews.com] a "Holiday Tree," and "No Christian Christmas symbols are allowed in the public schools." The only problem? Neither of those things is even remotely fucking true [mediamatters.org] .

It takes some super-sized balls for O'Reilly to get all lathered up about sinners and their fictional anti-Christian crusade. Every fucking person on the planet has hard and fast evidence that Bill is a world-class pervert [thesmokinggun.com] , but still he feels totally justified lecturing the rest of us on our moral inferiority.

How fucked up is Bill O'Reilly? Pretty fucked up [jimgilliam.com] . Everyone got so crazyfaced about him confusing a sponge and a Middle Eastern snackcake [falaphilia.com] (pretty fucking funny, mind you), that they missed the scary bit: what he meant to say. Old Bill wanted to get all funky on his intern like this: (you'll excuse my foul language, I'm quoting an award-winning [fair.org] newscaster here) "I'd take the other hand with the [loofah] thing and put it on your pussy."

loofah (l'f) noun. A natural exfoliating sponge.

exfoliate (ks-f'l-t') verb. To remove (a layer of bark or skin, for example) in flakes or scales; peel.

That's right. Bill O'Reilly, fount of morals, is super familiar with the female anatomy. So much so, that he knows how good it feels to have one's pussy exfoliated. We're talking h - o - t, Hot. That's exactly who I'm going to for my life lessons [cbsnews.com] .

Sorry, where were we? Oh yeah, fuck Christmas.

Can we back up just a couple steps here? At what point did a basic understanding of the separation of church and state become a fucking war on religion? And how did we get to the point where you can call an organization set up to defend our civil liberties "Terrorists [mediamatters.org] " on national television and no one fires your ass? Enough. Fuck all of you lying little shitheads who wish the world was out to get you so you could play the poor oppressed victims [newshounds.us] . Wake up assholes -- you're the cowboys, not the fucking Indians [mediamatters.org] .

"But we want to display our Christmas tree on city property!" You can, go right ahead. "They're stopping us from praying in school!" They're not [aclu.org] , so fuck off. "We're not allowed to say 'Merry Christmas' anymore!" Are you fucking kidding me [aclu.org] ? Knock yourself out. Say it at work, scream it in your high school lunch room [aclu.org] , hell, tattoo it on your fucking forehead [aclu.org] for all we care. Guess who's gonna be there defending your right [aclu.org] to do every one of those things? The fucking ACLU [aclu.com] . One of these days you bastards are going to drive those fuckers out of business, and then you'll see some actual attacks on your religious liberties. I thought conservatives were supposed to be all proud and independent? When did they turn into a bunch of fucking crybabies?

Let's back up even fucking further, shall we? Can anyone tell me how old Christmas is? Anyone? Two thousand years, give or take, right? Gee, who's been reading their No Child Left Behind [chronicle.com] History Textbooks? Try fucking four thousand [oldandsold.com] years. Huh. Twice as fucking long as your little baby king has been around. How could that possibly be, unless. . . waitaminute. . .

Christmas isn't fucking Christian. Ok, now we're talking.

That's right, that Yuletide cheer you're spreading? What exactly do you think Yule [wikipedia.org] is? It's the fucking Pagan celebration of solstice. And those "Christmas" traditions? They're not just like Pagan rituals, they fucking are Pagan rituals. Way before your Jesus got all magical with the bread and fishes, the Romans were celebrating the birth of Mithra [truthbeknown.com] on . . . guess? Go on - guess. December fucking twenty fifth [vetssweatshop.net] . What a weird coincidence. Practically the whole thing is ripped off from the fucking Druids and the Romans. Twelve days [webcom.com] ? Check. Exchanging gifts [zenzibar.com] ? Check. Mistletoe [nobleknights.com] ? Check. And you'd better fucking believe that those decorated trees that Gibson and Co. are so bent out of shape over are as Pagan as the Rune and Crystal Shack at Pentagramfest 2005. You might as well be building miniature fucking Stonehenges in your den.

And don't you read your own goddamn Bibles? Jesus was born when? In the middle of winter? Lot of Shepherds out watching their flocks around that time of year in Bethlehem? No, because they'd be freezing their fucking asses off [new-life.net] . Tell you what - y'all go figure out which one of the different Bible stories [freeuk.net] about the birth of Baby Jesus® you want to believe, and then we'll argue about whether it fucking happened like that or not.

Christians just stole a bunch of traditions from other cultures, slapped them together, stuck a fucking tinfoil star on top and called it the Most Important Holiday of the Year. Modern American Christmas makes Michael Jackson look positively organic.

But you boys at FOX still freak out every year [mediamatters.org] about how everyone's out to get your special trees. This is really the most important thing you have to talk about? Whether Target [mediamatters.org] says Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas? Here's a brainstorm: there's a fucking war on. Our soldiers are out there dying while you guys do your 14th live feed of the day from WalMart to show us what good little consumers we are. What Would Jesus Do? He'd jump over that newsdesk and kick your ass for that shit. Are you sure you want to hang your journalism credentials on a story about what some guy [schwarzenegger.com] calls a tree?

Well we've fucking had it. You want to play bullshit games and scream about how God's fucking judgment is gonna come raining down on us if we don't start watching our vocabulary? Go right the fuck ahead. But let me clue you in on something: fire and brimstone ain't no deterrent for us. We're not going to hell, assholes, we're fucking in hell. We live with you.

And fuck Easter too, you fertility-rite-celebrating, whiny, self-righteous, don't-know-the- history-of-your-own-religion assholes. Fuck off.


Re:FUCK CHRISTMAS (0, Offtopic)

nfgaida (68606) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265358)

If you had a non-profanity laced version of this, I'd love to send it to my religious relatives.

Re:FUCK CHRISTMAS (0, Offtopic)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265367)

Put together by an automatic script, unfortunately. Good ranting is hard to come by, it seems. I reccomend Maddox.

Re:FUCK CHRISTMAS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14265441)

Even if you had a no-profanity rewrite, they'd stop reading at the first statement that contradicted their prejudices, Tom said bigotedly.

And no, this is not a generated by a script, it's a actual heartfelt rant with links to researched references from www.fuckchristmas.org [fuckchristmas.org] (plz note .org , not .com -- they're not the same thing, heh heh heh.)

K Curtis Cloning Success Faked! (1)

Keith Curtis (923118) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265296)


There can be only one, you fuckin drunk Irish cocks.

How do you know? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14265299)

How do you tell the FAKE clones apart from the REAL clones? Dont they all look alike???

Re:How do you know? (0)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265403)

How do you tell the FAKE clones apart from the REAL clones? Dont they all look alike???

Silly AC, the Real Clones look like the Fake Clones, but the Fake Clones only look like Real Clones and the Originals only look like the Real Clones, but not the Fake Clones.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a Google Search Appliance TCO white paper to write, now that Steve's check has cleared.

and multiply by ten, but deduct for broken chairs...

Re:How do you know? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14265422)

The evil one has scratches on its face. That, or a goatee.

Re:How do you know? (3, Funny)

ChocoBean (890202) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265489)

Goatee? But I thought Flexo was the good one =D

More importantly (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265502)

At this point, I suspect that enough hassle has gone into this issue, that perhaps, real research is now being said to be faked. Of course, I find it amazing that an individual would try to fake this. That would be very difficult as you have to show proof of what you have. Afterall, this is not a minor accomplishment.

At this point, I would question wether it happened or not.

Re:How do you know? (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265554)

This is getting "Funny" although I don't think it was intended to...

Anyway, the point is that the paper (link [sciencemag.org] for those with access) claimed to have produced 11 different clones, with DNA fingerprinting and photos of their morphology. Whether through error or fraud, and it looks more and more like fraud, both of those lines of evidence seem to be badly screwed up.

By the way -- anyone still believing that ridiculous claim from a few weeks ago about the Korean team curing spinal cord breakage with stem cells...?

Re:How do you know? (5, Funny)

damsa (840364) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265588)

The clone doesn't have a belly button.

Re:How do you know? (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265872)

The clone doesn't have a belly button.
Did you check the back of the neck ?

Re:How do you know? (1)

chooks (71012) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265795)

One looks like the Terminator, the other one looks like the governor of California.

Re:How do you know? (1)

cacepi (100373) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265813)

How do you tell the FAKE clones apart from the REAL clones? Dont they all look alike???
No, silly.

Everyone knows REAL clones are always evil; they invariably wear glue-on beards or extra short miniskirts to distinguish themselves from all those fake, exact genetic copy goody-two-shoes clones out there.

Haven't you learned anything from watching TV?

JEWS DID REICHSTAG!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14265303)

teh crafty yids did it.

More informative link (5, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265309)

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8461 [newscientist.com]

But questions over his data only surfaced last week, when Hwang told Science that the 2005 paper contains four instances in which the same photographs were mistakenly used to represent cells cloned from different patients.

In one case, one of two duplicated photographs is enlarged relative to the other.

In a second, one of two duplicated pictures is distorted by being enlarged to different extents along its horizontal and vertical axes, Science has confirmed. "This is a level of error beyond sending the wrong file," says Robert Lanza, who leads a rival cloning group at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Massachusetts.

Now questions are also being asked about DNA fingerprint plots in the paper. The plots were presented to demonstrate a match between nuclear DNA from the donors and the cells cloned from them. So they should look similar, with peaks at the same points. But a South Korean blog pointed out last week that in at least five of the matched plots, the peaks are also strikingly similar in shape and size - more so than would usually be expected if they came from different cells.

I don't beleive anything anymore (5, Funny)

abes (82351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265310)

I'm beginning to question whether Korea even really exists..

Oh the (cloned) humanity of it all..

Re:I don't beleive anything anymore (4, Funny)

Radres (776901) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265331)

In Korea, only old people exist.

Re:I don't beleive anything anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14265474)

In Soviet Russia, Korea doubts whether YOU exist!

Re:I don't beleive anything anymore (2, Funny)

Anonymous Monkey (795756) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265530)

You mean it's just a conspiracy of cartographers?

Re:I don't beleive anything anymore (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265579)

Yea I think Korea is a conspericie cooked up by battle.net and blizzard to piss off gamers.

Re:I don't beleive anything anymore (1)

Zerbs (898056) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265761)

Actually both of them exist, it's just that one doesn't like to play nice with all the other kids in the neighborhood.

Hang on (2, Insightful)

Hey Pope Felcher . . (921019) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265311)

The cloning has not been proven 'fake' yet. I think it is only some of the 'morality' of the experiment that could be called into question so far.

Personally I see no real moral problems with stem cell research, but then I am a complete amoral bastard.

Re:Hang on (2, Informative)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265339)

The cloning has not been proven 'fake' yet.

But one of the participants in the project claims that 11 colonies from the set on which the paper was based on were fake [iht.com] . Which is likely to put the credibility of whole thing in a rather negative light in the scientific community, to put it mildly.

Re:Hang on (1)

caffeinemessiah (918089) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265381)

I agree...it's not a complete 'fake' yet. If you read the article at Time about this, it mentions that the US collaborator who was so quick to distance himself had made a claim to be chairman of the stem cell research trust that was being set up (he was rejected) and had claimed 50% of the patent.

Above all, the collaborators are at fault too for not reviewing the paper that was being submitted (they all had the opportunity to, but were perhaps blinded by the dazzling results). IMO, the US collaborator who wants his name removed as co-author should get a big f**king NO. If you're not 100% careful about what you put your name on, you should accept the consequences.

It could still be a fake yet, but Hwang isn't the only one to blame. As the parent poster said, hold on...

Then, Give me urs. (1)

higon (568758) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265417)

How do you think if one day your super-powerful-bossy woman in your office come out and say, "Could you give me some of your sperms, because I want to dupricate it.". Then months later, a pair of your sperm is on Science journal! Can't you see any amorality?



... no. I ought to stop here.

Re:Then, Give me urs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14265791)

Sounds like the making of a letter to the Penthouse forum. Or maybe alt.sex.mindcontrol.cloning .

Re:Hang on (4, Informative)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265420)

" The cloning has not been proven 'fake' yet"

You're right. That's why TFA and TFS don't say that the the results have been proven a fake. But not proven != not true.

" I think it is only some of the 'morality' of the experiment that could be called into question so far."

No. RTFA. At the minimum, read TFS, since TFA is /.ed. There are pretty credible allegations of doctoring results, and the paper has been withdrawn.

Re:Hang on (1)

Atraxen (790188) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265596)

That's completely the wrong way to look at it. The authors have not proved their results to be correct, thus the cloning has not been proven at all. Your post implies that the world must show their results to be fake - especially with groundbreaking research, it is the duty of the authors to give an accurate, unbiased (as far as they can), and complete presentation of their research.

Research is not 'innocent until proven guilty' - it's 'erroneous unless otherwise demonstrated'.

Re:Hang on (4, Informative)

DeepHurtn! (773713) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265612)

With reference to this particular project, the moral questions have nothing to do with the morality of stem cell research itself. It has to do with the source of the material they were working with -- the head researcher's lab assistants. This is considered immoral for the same reason that teachers are not allowed to have sex with their students, even if the student is above the age of consent: someone in a subordinate position cannot make a truly free choice.

Re:Hang on (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265664)

It's not really the research that has the moralists panties in a bunch, but the harvisting.

More then Just Morality (1)

Shihar (153932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265665)

The piece about using one of the lab assistance eggs is a 'morality' issue, and I agree not a very big one. Who cares where the egg came from?

The much larger issue that isn't just a morality issue is that it looks like he faked much of his evidence. This part has nothing to do with the morality. It looks like a bunch of the evidence presented was faked and the author has since withdraw his paper. While the study hasn't been disproved, it seems pretty clear that there were either grievous errors or it was a fake. Either way, it is no longer to be considered a valid study.

Faked how? (1)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265323)

How exactly does one fake a colony of cells? A bit of moldy cheese? Take one stem cell colony and just replicate it?

I assume the controvercy is that they didn't have the degree of success they claimed (plus dishonesty in scientific study is generally frowned upon).

Re:Faked how? (2, Informative)

Kristoph (242780) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265451)

I think if you RTFA you will see that they essentially faked photographs/data of 9 out of the 11 colonies by using the donor cells and the 2 colonies they did actually produce.

]{

Re:Faked how? (1)

XXIstCenturyBoy (617054) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265458)

Here [newscientist.com] is a better article (with more explanations at least) than the one posted on /.

And the sad thing this is the link posted on fark.com [fark.com] a full day before /. did. And they did it With a much better headline.

"Slashdot.org : News for non-inquisitive Nerds"

Re:Faked how? (1)

Ontain (931201) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265685)

The one that wants his name removed from the paper said that some of the photos of "cloned cells" were really photos of real cells. and of course they can just make up stats and results of their tests and observations.

Irresponsible reporting. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14265324)

It's only on Slashdot that you see "S. Korea Cloning Success Faked" as the headline instead of, "S. Korea Cloning Success Possibly Faked".

They're going to go and redo all the experiments. All the stem-cell researchers want this, they don't want idiotic media speculation deciding the outcome.

Architecture of the World Wide Web - Post gone (2, Interesting)

appavi (679094) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265330)

Re:Architecture of the World Wide Web - Post gone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14265346)

In my four years of anonymously reading Slashdot, I have never seen an article (even a dupe) deleted. Perhaps, because there were few posts as embarrasingly flawed as that one. ;-)

Re:Architecture of the World Wide Web - Post gone (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265563)

Recently there have been posts that after 5 or 6 "dupes!", have been deleted. I've seen 2 or 3 of these in the last month.

Apparently the "dupe" tradition Slashdot has enjoyed for generations, is slowly falling apart :)

Re:Architecture of the World Wide Web - Post gone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14265368)

I saw it on the main page briefly as well. I think it's clear that Zonk is an idiot. Can't they find some random slashbot to play editor? I'm sure he'd do a better job than Zonk.

Re:Architecture of the World Wide Web - Post gone (1)

lpangelrob (714473) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265483)

It's pretty clear that article is pointing to an event that happened one year ago today. Maybe they'll re-release it as "One Year Annivesary of the Architecture of the World Wide Web" or something.

ah hahahaha (1)

weenis (656512) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265663)

this headline was on my google homepage . . . i followed it and got the infamous:
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
Zonk is a winner.
balls

Re:Architecture of the World Wide Web - Post gone (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265766)

What happened to this post

Zonk: "Tell them there are limits to even my power!"

Looks as though ... (5, Funny)

paulxnuke (624084) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265335)

when someone asks "Woo-suk" in Korea, the answer is going to be "Dr Hwang"

Isaac Asimov's dream must wait a while longer (5, Funny)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265340)

"Oh give me a clone
  Of my own flesh and bone
  With the Y chromosome changed to X.

  And when I'm alone
  With my own little clone
  We'll think of nothing but sex."

Re:Isaac Asimov's dream must wait a while longer (4, Funny)

winkydink (650484) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265414)

Makes hearing the words, "go fuck yourself" take on a whole new meaning

Re:Isaac Asimov's dream must wait a while longer (1)

Fishstick (150821) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265438)

eww -- brings to mind kissing one's sister

Re:Isaac Asimov's dream must wait a while longer (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265603)

No no this is just the ultimate form of masterbation.

That was absolutely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14265490)

...and totally completely sick-o, twisted and perverted. I like it!

Re:Isaac Asimov's dream must wait a while longer (1)

torchdragon (816357) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265735)

"Well I can be my own best friend and I can send myself for pizza so I say,
I think I'm a clone now...."

Korea? Lie? Never (1)

lakerdonald (825553) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265341)

Come on guys, Kim Jung Il is a nice guy. He wouldn't lie to us like that!

Re:Korea? Lie? Never (1)

Azreal (147961) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265463)

It's Kim Jong-Il, not Kim Jung-Il at least get his name right.
Kim Jong-Il is president of North Korea. You know that whole 38'th parallel and Korean war thing?
Roh Moo-hyun is president of South Korea. All of which has absolutely nothing to do with anything regarding this article whatsoever.

It's better to let someone think you're an idiot than to open your mouth and prove it.

Re:Korea? Lie? Never (0, Troll)

lakerdonald (825553) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265545)

The point of slashdot is to troll and be an idiot to get responses like yours. Do you want a sticker for knowing current events? Now I'll give you a gold star if you tell me the President of England.

Is this a dupe? (0, Offtopic)

tsu doh nimh (609154) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265344)

or is it just deja vu all over again?

Re:Is this a dupe? (1)

ryanjm (882598) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265413)

Must have been cloned. Korea's cloning success is fake. Slashdot's cloning success is real.

Re:Is this a dupe? (1)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265559)

Ok, so... at what point did people stop reading the summaries, too?

Donation of eggs by staff = bad? (3, Interesting)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265345)

This will be used as a strawman for any of the arguments against them. "OMFG, they used their own eggs, that is teh bad, everyone says so!" Whether or not this "international guideline" is reasonable, of course, is moot. Whether they faked it or not will eventually become moot. The "immoral" aspects of using your own eggs will be blown totally out of proportion to its real impact on the process, its validity, and its methods.

Re:Donation of eggs by staff = bad? (4, Insightful)

ed__ (23481) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265534)

yes, it is bad and discouraging it isn't exactly an onerous condition. the whole point is to avoid situations where pressure might be brought to bear on people who don't have a lot of power to refuse, regardless of whether there was coercion in any particular case. and you have to treat ethical lapses seriously, or else people get the idea that they don't matter if they don't do any "real" harm. the PI is responsible for making sure everyone understands the rules and plays by them.

in medical research it's of paramount importance to dot all the i's and cross all the t's and work methodically. even then there are lapses, but they are often easier to identify. plenty of really horrifying and morally repugnant things have occured in research history to warrant such hard-assed-ness.

Re:Donation of eggs by staff = bad? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265575)

Real scientists will be able to separate the egg source issue from the study itself. Research will continue.

If you don't draw attention to a problem you can't directly fix, then the problem will likely not be fixed. It's important that the egg source issue is publicized.

It's kind of ironic, though -- you complain about how the egg source issue will distract everyone from the study, in response to an article not about the egg issue.

Re:Donation of eggs by staff = bad? (3, Insightful)

Kelson (129150) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265718)

As I understand it, it's mainly that the subordinates donated the eggs. Even if all involved agree that he discouraged them from doing so (overtly, anyway), there's still a sense of "we need eggs -- hey, you have eggs!"

It's like rules about conflicts of interest. An individual may be perfectly able to set aside his emotional or financial stake and make city zoning decisions that affect his own property, or preside as judge over the trial of someone who used to beat him up in the elementary school playground. But when that happens, it's all too easy for someone else to claim bias, so guidelines are in place to keep people out of those situations.

Well... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14265347)

Who could trust anything published by a Doctor "Wang You Suck"?

Keep headers accurate. (1)

Virtualtaco (848235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265369)

Your header says the clone was faked. Your body says it might have been. thousands of people are now confused.

Standards (3, Interesting)

BananaPeel (747003) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265372)

9 out of eleven results altered. Interestingly the scientific press are not interested in having the results verified they are just after blood. Of course there is a good reason for this in that it maintains standards but I would like to know if the two unaltered results are still valid and statistically of importance.

Re:Standards (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265662)

This story just keeps getting murkier and murkier.

I suspect even if the two other results are valid, most researchers are going to want to start over with an "untainted" line of cells. This of course sets the research back, because even if you can duplicate the process they used, you still have to take the time to carry out the procedure -- whereas before allegations started surfacing, you could have some groups trying to repeat the process and others building on what had already been done.

Well I Guess... (0, Redundant)

sikandril (924466) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265383)

Well I guess it suks to be Dr.Whang right now.

Why 9 out of 11? (3, Funny)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265424)

Is he not sure that the other two were faked?

Sensational but not factual yet (3, Interesting)

austinpoet (789122) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265435)

I am not involved with the research, but I read a report about the submission in Science and this issue of duplicated photos of the cell colonies a few weeks ago. The issue was that Science had asked for better high-res photos at the last minute and a mistake was made on what got sent to them.

They (Science) had already had the submission paper with lower res photos that were (supposedly) clearly different from each other. So while the version of the paper that was printed in Science clearly had duplicate photos representing different colonies, the original version of the paper/photos that Science had was not that way.

I think this is just more sensationalizm to further smear an already hurting scientist.

Re:Sensational but not factual yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14265719)

Here's the link to an article: http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/biz/200512/kt20051 21220055811910.htm/ [hankooki.com] .

And here's the excerpt:
In addition to the ethical misstep, more critical questions came to the fore about the authenticity of Hwang's customized stem cells after he informed Science that several of the 11 photos in the published report included duplicates.

Science downplays the doubts, confirming the original manuscript held 11 different pictures and the erroneous duplicates were sent by Hwang after the journal asked for higher-resolution photos to make supplements of the paper.

Re:Sensational but not factual yet (1)

toxfox (581548) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265723)

I read the same thing in Science a few weeks ago too. This report is newer than that issue though. Look for an update in issues of Science published after this week - not to mention it looks like they will be publishing a retraction of the paper. The American coauthor contacted Science last week hoping to get his name removed from the paper (which Science wouldn't allow - retractions are all or nothing)

A blow for science (2, Interesting)

Miraba (846588) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265437)

While it is lamentable that a (likely) fake paper will be a setback for stem cell research, I can't help but see it as a blow for all of the sciences. There have been other instances where top science publications released falsified or outright bogus papers, but I believe that this one stands out by virtue of its controversial subject. Even if the paper was not faked, criticism will come from all sides, with questions ranging from the ethical standards/morality of scientists to the usefulness of the peer review process. Negative attention is the last thing needed by publically controversial research.

Re:A blow for science (1)

Pryon (181814) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265518)

While it is lamentable that a (likely) fake paper will be a setback for stem cell research, I can't help but see it as a blow for all of the sciences. There have been other instances where top science publications released falsified or outright bogus papers, but I believe that this one stands out by virtue of its controversial subject.



This is how self-regulation in science works, regardless of the subject of research. The controversy in the lay community is irrlevant. Fake your reasearch, lose your career. Period. As long as the scientific community lives by that simple rule, it is functioning properly and no amount of celebrity/controversy changes that. If the "every cell is sacred" crowd wants to bleat about it, that's their business.

Re:A blow for science (1)

Miraba (846588) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265622)

This is how self-regulation in science works, regardless of the subject of research. The controversy in the lay community is irrlevant.

Bullshit. The public influences the politicians, who in turn create the laws allowing or restricting research and set the budget for the groups that fund research. In addition, voters can choose whether to endorse or reject government-funded research. See Proposition 71 in California [smartvoter.org] . Public consent is essential for something like stem cell research.

Re:A blow for science (5, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265519)

"Even if the paper was not faked, criticism will come from all sides, with questions ranging from the ethical standards/morality of scientists to the usefulness of the peer review process."

Why is this a bad thing?

Asking questions and challenging the status quo are the very foundations of science.

And if those ethical questions come up, why is that a problem? Or do you think ethical concerns should be swept under the rug?

Re: the peer review process, this is exactly what peer review is intended to do. Under peer review, the study results are not holding up. This is just an example of peer review working exactly as it should.

The problem, IMO, is that too many people take as truth that which hasn't been confirmed.

Re:A blow for science (1)

Miraba (846588) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265779)

Why is this a bad thing?

I'm not complaining about the questions themselves. I'm complaining that the researchers have done the absolute worst thing possible: they faked data on an underfunded and undersupported subject. If they sought to entice greater funding from the government, they've failed. Even if they didn't fake the data, the result is the same: negative media attention and a lingering sense of doubt.

And if those ethical questions come up, why is that a problem? Or do you think ethical concerns should be swept under the rug?
I don't think ethical questions should be ignored, but this will create doubt in a system that, by and large, works fairly well. In addition, the entire body of work done on stem cell research will be targeted. Certainly it should be checked, but that should be a natural result of the scientific process, not just because a few people decided to cheat.

Should the scientists involved be punished? Without a doubt. Will unconnected researchers in the field receive a stigma due to their career? It's not fair, but it's likely to happen.

The problem, IMO, is that too many people take as truth that which hasn't been confirmed.

I'm not going to say you're wrong about that. That applies to just about everything.

Wow... (3, Funny)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265445)

If it's true -- talk about having egg on your face!

attack (1)

earthshake (908804) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265459)

Attack of the (faked) clones.

this really suks big hwang (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265472)

Apparently this guy lied several times in his research writings, maybe just start over and see if he can duplicate his results?

Foreign policy implications (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14265479)

IAASCR (I am a stem cell researcher) This is a devastating development in terms of progress in the field of stem cells. With the current administration's decisions to ban research, it has been all but impossible to get frant funding (and those that do have to mask it as something else). More recently, though, there's been an emotional change, and an opportunity has opened to take advantage of American fear of falling behind - God forbid the USA be 2nd in anything.

When this paper came out, the American public backlash was far-reaching. Even a Southern Republican farm-boy starts thinking, "why can they do it and not us, pop?"

My hope is that the hashed-up funding mechanisms put in place following the original research have too much momentum to stall, and we might actually continue to gain ground. Maybe we'll have learned that advancing science is a continuous activity, and that falling behind feels bad...

Re:Foreign policy implications (1)

orgelspieler (865795) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265626)

I think you mean "frant gunding." It's not a particularly good Spoonerism though.

Hopefully the farmboy won't be paying attention to the follow-up stories, and the momentum to get funding for US researchers will continue. Good luck with your research!

Re:Foreign policy implications (4, Insightful)

NaCh0 (6124) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265650)

With the current administration's decisions to ban research

You are not a stem cell researcher, or else you would know that stem cell research is not banned. You need to get your multibillion dollar corporation to pony up some cash instead of sucking on the Federal tit.

But hey, anything to get your troll modded up, huh?

Re:Foreign policy implications (0, Flamebait)

Bob Uhl (30977) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265707)

If you are an embryonic stem-cell researcher, then you know that there is no ban. Repeat, for those outside the country: there is no ban on embryonic stem cell research; those who wish to kill human beings and extract their cells will not be stopped in this country, so long as those humans are very, very young. The federal government just won't pay for it.

Wouldn't Worry (1)

Shihar (153932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265836)

I wouldn't worry much.

I doubt most people are going to be able to connect the two. Even if they did connect the two, if stem cell research is as hopefull as it appears, the constant drum beat of advances in the field will drowned out this one set back.

Further, the only real issue at hand is federal funding of stem cell research. State and private funding have never been at issue. Sure, Alabama and Mississippi might struggle with whether or not to fund stem cell research, California and Massachusetts on the other hand don't. That isn't to say that federal funding isn't a nice thing to have for this type of stuff, just that it is only an obstacle, not a barrier.

I think in the long run it isn't going to matter. We are finding better ways to develop stem cells beyond embryonic methods. For better or for worse, as a population as a whole we always are going to feel a little moral queasiness about using fertilized eggs. If there is a way to get around it, we are going to use it. There is already a lot of promising research out there that suggests that this entire thing is going to end up being a non-issue as there are other sources of stem cells that are just as good as embryonic stem cells.

Technology solves a lot of moral problems. Infanticide is a good example. Infanticide was considered a morally acceptable practice throughout most of human history. People considered it immoral to bring a child into the world if it meant potentially killing others to feed that extra mouth. Today, in most developed nations infanticide is completely illegal and the morality implications are not pondered. Developed nations have more then enough food and institutions that will take unwanted infants, hence the moral question of infanticide has been rendered moot.

In my opinion, abortion, embryonic stem cells, and a whole host of societal problems are eventually going to go the way of infanticide. Technology is just going to simply solve the majority of problems associated with this questions. That isn't to down play how we have to struggle with those issues today, just to point out that the struggle won't last forever. In the end, neither those that advocate a pragmatic approach nor those who are trying to uphold some moral code win. In the end technology wins and shuts them both up.

The bastard (0, Troll)

Bohemoth2 (179802) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265486)

Should be shot!

Towards the End of the BBC Article... (4, Insightful)

ndansmith (582590) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265488)

Here is a very interesting portion of the article:

The BBC's Charles Scanlon in Seoul says the revelations have sparked a furious debate in the South Korean media.

Leading companies have pulled their advertisements from the television station that first revealed the reported problems with Dr Hwang's work.

Many commentators said it was unpatriotic to challenge someone who had given the country a lead in such a promising new area.

That is just scary. It is sad that a whistleblower, an advocate of truth, can be branded as "unpatriotic" for exposing a fraud. Once again nationalism and patriotism have overwealmed logic and common sense.

Exactly why the East will always follow the West (0, Flamebait)

BassKadet (936182) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265574)

Cannot innovate, can only imitate. Creativity isn't valued. Hell, the individual isn't valued.

Re:Exactly why the East will always follow the Wes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14265657)

Who is the West following then, given the fact that whistleblowers here are generally fucked over as well?

Re:Towards the End of the BBC Article... (0)

vertinox (846076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265623)

That is just scary. It is sad that a whistleblower, an advocate of truth, can be branded as "unpatriotic" for exposing a fraud. Once again nationalism and patriotism have overwealmed logic and common sense.

Advocate of truth is relative, because truth in itself is relative to what you believe the truth to be because truth is mearly interpetation of facts. Facts themselves don't change however.

Secondly, if the work does indeed lead to a better life for most of humanity then perhaps it should be given a bit more leeway even if the means are somewhat dubious.

After all, if cloning means I might see the end of disease, old age, and death in my life time then generally people would tend to favor their support to the one who claims to be able to do so over the one who is a naysayer. Even I would...

However dubious means usually don't lead to a successful end so it helps to be skeptical.

Re:Towards the End of the BBC Article... (3, Funny)

ed__ (23481) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265639)

thank god i live in america...*cough*

Re:Towards the End of the BBC Article... (3, Interesting)

curb (239121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265640)

The BBC article barely touches upon the issue about the TV show, "PD Notebook". It involved investigative journalists who used threats and their interviewees and hidden cameras in order to try to bring down Koreans' view of Hwang as a "god". Living in Korea, this stuff is all over the news.

So while we know now that Hwang had violated research ethics, so too did the journalists violate their own ethics.

Nationalism in Korea is pretty rampant, but it has not overwhelmed logic here quite as you put it.

Google for "PD Notebook" and you'll see what I'm yammering about.

Re:Towards the End of the BBC Article... (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265645)

Could it be that the whisleblower and advocate of truth could actually be a fraud with his own agenda?

Hmm, he does work for a rival firm...

He's proven himself a liar once, (1)

ChocoBean (890202) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265608)

...And he's likely lto prove himself a liar twice.

Last month, Hwang admitted that some of the human eggs used in his experiments had come from junior researchers in his lab - an ethical lapse he had previously denied

This man's moral actions are debatable, but the fact that he lied about it doesn't help either.

And while I believe that rival cloning firms/research teams are out for blood, if their stuff is so real, why would the good doctor's own team give silly excuses for questions raise on the research topic?

as someone else has posted, this link is better

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8461 [newscientist.com]

Questions... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14265613)

Did he think he'd get away with it?

Didn't pesky concerns like peer review, and other scientists attempting to repeat his success bother him?

Fake studies always gets exposed given time, so what benefit did he think he was getting out of this?

In related news... (1)

danratherfoe (915756) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265636)

Dr. Handjob Give was unable to be reached for comment.

Scientific American: Hwang researcher of the year (3, Informative)

MasterC (70492) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265648)

So I picked up this month's Scientific American and was reading the their "Scientific American 50" the other day and realized that they had named Hwang the "Research Leader of the Year" [sciam.com] .

If the allegations about fabricating and faking the data are true, then I'm curious what the editors at SciAm will do? Rename him to "Fraud Leader of the Year"?

scientific method would eventually find out (2, Informative)

peter303 (12292) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265740)

Many fakes are found months after when other labs try to reproduce the results in a paper. Its less usual to find them during the review of the paper. The scienitific method is to publish, reproduce and improve on others results.

A classic case was immunopsupression of skin grafts. One guy was painting mouse fur to appear like it came from a different result. People couldnt reproduce what he said he was supposed to be doing.

Insert... (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265745)

Insert comment about secret clone army for the republic here.

Boy I'm glad.. (1)

mpfife (655916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14265789)

I'm really glad that none of that un-ethical medical behavior that 'religious nuts' were worried about has happen. This will most likely set the case of trusting in the ethics of scientific work on back a bit... "You cannot use people as a means to an end" - Kant

Can you say.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14265805)

He is Sum Dum Fuk!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>