Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 26 October 2009 | Nature 461, 1181 (2009) | doi:10.1038/4611181a
News
Woo Suk Hwang convicted, but not of fraud
Cloning pioneer gets two years for embezzlement and bioethics breach.
Cloning pioneer Woo Suk Hwang was sentenced to two years in prison at the Seoul Central District Court on 26 October, after being found guilty of embezzlement and bioethical violations but cleared of fraud.
Supporters of Hwang, a former professor at Seoul National University in South Korea, were pleased with the sentence, which is suspended for three years and half the length sought by prosecutors.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
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.
Professional missteps happen all the time. They have happened to all of us and examples include a poorly worded newspaper headline, “Mad Cow Chases Farmer With Ax†or an email slamming the boss that accidentally goes to “Reply Allâ€. Usually, these peccadilloes get a slap on the wrist and a warning to be more careful. Fraud, however, is not a misstep. It is a moral and legal crime.
Woo Suk Hwang’s reckless use of coveted and desperately needed venture capital and publication venue is galling. His falsification of data taints the reputation of all researchers and further erodes the scant bit of trust that the public may have in the biopharma industry. Worse than Hwang’s fraud is the tickle of a sentence that South Korea’s Seoul Central District Court issued. Hwang should be banned from the lab and required to make retribution.
As a worker in scientific community we all experience the surprising results. In finding (manipulating) expected results, it should be remember that others are going to repeat the same for other findings. They will refute the previous finding but in process of doing that they are going lose scientific work hours.
In any way this is not adequate.
Rajiv Lochan Gaur
Data falsification is a serious matter. This takes me to Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) who to his last day believed that the sun and the planets went around the earth. As an observer he made thousands of records with patience and integrity. It was based on this that Kepler could give us the planetary laws of motion and proving conclusively the holiocentric view that the earth went around the sun. Brahe's observation's were not coloured by his beliefs. In contrast, there are many organizations that falsify or 'manufacture' data and it is this that not only gives science a wrong name, but also retards the pace of progress.
Data falsification is a serious but also common matter.
SIR – I believe that behind the headline to your recent article 'Woo Suk Hwang convicted, but not of fraud' (Nature 461, 1181; 2009) lies a far more important issue that you have failed to raise.
Hwang admitted falsifying data back in January 2006, yet he has been able to continue his scientific career and is receiving support to pursue research into animal cloning (Nature 461, 1035; 2009). How can a scientist that has been found to publish fabricated and unethical research in one field simply switch to a different scientific field, and carry on as if nothing has happened?
My shock is compounded by the fact that animal cloning is an area of research that raises a number of serious animal welfare and ethical concerns all of which are validated by a recent statement announcing the cessation of dog cloning services by BioArts International (www.bioarts.com/press_release/ba09_09_09.htm). The fact that animals can be cloned does not mean that they should be cloned. The experience of BioArts merely reinforces my belief that there is little public support for this kind of work, and makes me wonder how many more animals will have to suffer before the cloning of animals for commercial purposes is banned?
Posted on behalf of Nikki Osborne, PhD (Senior Scientific Officer, RSPCA)