Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Published online 2 January 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/451007d
Disgraced cloner seeks licence in comeback bid
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Aggravating factors will probably outweigh any mitigating circumstances in this matter. Fabrication damages all integrity that one had worked hard to achieve. Scientific research has the potential to for clinical applications and one shudders to think of what the consequences could be. The scientific community should seek to uphold scientific, ethical and social values. Since Hwang is still on trial, it is important to see what the outcome will be.
Disgraced cloner poses less risk than glorified cloners There is no doubt that Hwang’s dishonesty in doing research deserves harsh condemnation. However, I do not think it is fair to deprive his right of doing research entirely. Given the bad publicity he has received I do not think any of his future publications will pose any real danger to the society because they will be subjected to more than usual scrutiny. On the contrary, I am worried more about the existing and increasing danger of the recent “milestone� discovery of iPS cells – the so-called biological first “airplanes�. As far as I know, these highly glorified cloners are also most dishonest “scientists� that I have encountered so far because they have cheated the world with the unproven claim of “inducing� normal skin cell into stem cells and an outright lie that these iPS cells are “indistinguishable� from embryonic stem cells. More importantly, these cloners have disregarded clearly proposed control experiments and ignored published criticisms (see many articles in http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm). Scientific competition is like any other competition in which some unethical behaviors will happen. However, if we can give athletes a second chance even if they have committed dishonest offences, why shouldn’t we give misconducted scientists a second chance? Sport competition will not be ruined by a few cheaters because any record is subject to public monitoring and protesting. Does scientific competition have this kind openness and fairness? Why should we worry about so much the cheating in scientific publication if all publications are subject to open review/commenting? I doubt any cheater will be that courageous to publish fabricated article in that kind scientific journal because it s/he does that, s/he will be posted on a disgracing post forever. By the way, could Nature ask the authors of its iPS papers to publicly answer the criticisms published in new-generation scientific journals? Shi V. Liu Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine Apex, NC 27502 USA http://im1.biz SVL@logibio.com