Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Commentary: Fraudulent Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research in South Korea: Lessons Learned

2006; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 13; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/08989620600634193

1545-5815

David B. Resnik, Adil E. Shamoo, Sheldon Krimsky,

Pluripotent Stem Cells Research

Now that most of the smoke has cleared from the South Korean human embryonic stem cell fraud, it is time to reflect on some lessons that one can learn from this scandal. First, a brief review of events will help to set the stage. In June 2005, Seoul University investigator Woo Suk Hwang and 24 co-authors published what appeared to be a ground-breaking paper in Science in which they claimed to have established eleven embryonic stem cell lines containing nuclear DNA from somatic cells of research subjects (Hwang et al 2005). In March 2004, Hwang’s research team had published another apparently important paper in which they claimed to have established one cell line with the nuclear DNA from a research subject (Hwang et al 2004). If these two papers had been valid, they would have represented a significant step forward in human embryonic stem cell research, since they would have demonstrated the feasibility of a technique known as therapeutic cloning. In therapeutic cloning, researchers transfer the nucleus from a somatic cell into an enucleated oocyte to create an embryo, and stem cells are then harvested from the embryo. Therapeutic cloning holds great promise as a medical therapy, since the patient’s immune system probably will not reject embryonic stem cells, since these cells are genetically compatible with the patient’s own cells. Hwang’s research put South Korea on the map as a biotechnology epicenter and made Hwang a national hero (Normile et al 2006). Trouble started brewing for Hwang’s research team in November 2005, when coauthor Gerald Schatten, from the University of Pittsburgh, accused Hwang of misleading him about the sources of the oocytes used in the 2004 paper. In the 2004 paper, which Schatten did not coauthor, Hwang and his colleagues indicated that the oocytes had come from 16 donors. A report published in Nature alleged that the oocytes had come from two junior members of Hwang’s laboratory (Vogel 2005). Although not illegal, a subordinate’s participation in a supervisor’s research project is considered to be ethically problematic, because it can be coercive (Hawkins and Emanuel 2005, Shamoo and Resnik 2003). Schatten ended his collaboration with Hwang in November 2005. Hwang, who initially denied these allegations, admitted in early December 2005 that two of the donors had been junior members of his laboratory and that all of the donors had received up to $1400 in compensation for their oocytes (Holden 2005). A University of Pittsburgh committee investigated Schatten’s role in the scandal. Although the committee found that he had not committed misconduct, it found him guilty of research misbehavior for shirking his responsibilities as senior author on the 2005 paper to assure the veracity of the data and results. According to the committee, Schatten failed to catch some inconsistencies in the paper and also failed to ensure that each coauthor had approved the paper before it was submitted too Science. The committee also found that Schatten probably did not deserve to be an author on the 2005 paper on the world’s first cloned dog, since his only contribution to that paper was suggested that the authors hire a professional photographer to take a photo of the dog. Finally, the committee also found fault with the unusually high consulting fees that Schatten accepting for working with Hwang’s team: Schatten received $40,000 in honoraria for collaborating with the team for 15 months (Holden 2006). Matters became much worse for Hwang later in mid-December when Science received a tip from an anonymous researcher that two of the photos of stem cells in the 2005 paper were duplications. Soon, co-author Sung Roh told the media that Hwang had confessed to fabricating evidence for nine of the eleven cell lines. Hwang denied this charge. Schatten told Science that the data in the 2005 article could not be trusted, and Hwang and Schatten asked for the article to be withdrawn. A committee from Seoul University began investigating Hwang’s research. By the end of the month, the committee had determined that none of the DNA in the eleven cell lines reported in the 2005 paper matched the DNA from the somatic cell donors. The committee also determined that the data in the 2004 paper were also fabricated, and the authorship had been granted on the 2005 paper for helping to procure oocytes. However, the committee verified Hwang’s claim to have created the world’s first cloned dog, Snuppy, which was reported in Nature (Lee et al 2005). Hwang resigned from his position at Seoul University and now face up to ten years in prison for fraud (Normile et al 2006). The human embryonic stem cell research scandal is the most significant episode of fraudulent research since the Piltdown Man, because the stakes were so high. If the research had been sound, it would have been one of the most important developments in biomedicine in the 21st century. It would have brought money and glory to South Korea and could have earned Hwang a Nobel Prize. As it turned out, the research is one of the biggest scientific disappointments in this century, which has been a set-back the field of embryonic stem cell research (Check 2005). Political support for this controversial research, especially support for research cloning, may subside a bit after this demoralizing incident. Perhaps some good can come from this troubling chain of events if the research community learns some lessons from it.