Let us journey back to February 2004. Headlines in the press herald a breathtaking and terrifying breakthrough in science.
With the publication of two papers in leading scientific journal Science, Woo Suk Hwang and his team in South Korea claim the generation of the first patient-specific embryonic stem cell clones. The implications for treatment of disease are immense. The scientific community and the rest of the world draw their breath in admiration as we congratulate ourselves on human ingenuity in conquering the next frontier.
Fast forward to just two months later, scepticism abounds. Fellow researchers struggle to replicate the results. The methods and images used in the work are called into question. Hwang fervently denies any wrongdoing and continues to stand by his results, until December 2005 when he writes to Science requesting a retraction of the papers.
Following investigation by Seoul National University it emerges that a large proportion of the results was fabricated. These results had been used to secure funding which raised issues of embezzlement and fraud. Moreover, Hwang’s methods of obtaining human eggs for research begin to be regarded with suspicion. Charges are eventually brought forth on three counts: fraud, embezzlement and bioethical violations.
On October 26, a long five years after the initial publication of the controversial articles, Woo Suk Hwang was finally given a verdict. Charged with the counts of bioethical violations and embezzlement, he was cleared of the arguably most damning claim: fraud. And the damage? A two-year prison sentence suspended in view of appeal.
We like to believe that science is infallible. The pillars that frame the classical scientific method include detached objectivity, community activity, progress built on previous discoveries, scepticism to eliminate bias and crucially an underlying empathy for the human condition. Where does fraud fit into this framework?
The truth is, the scientific community is competitive. There is pressure to be the first to achieve those progressive results; who wouldn’t want the prestige of a Nobel prize to their name? It isn’t easy to secure funding for research; why not finagle your results if it will help you to secure the grant? The administrative regulations can be frustrating and it becomes all too tempting to cut corners. Scientists are only human after all.
Many leading researchers, such as Alan Colman, a stem-cell biologist from the Medical Institute of Singapore, feel violated by Hwang’s actions and are unwilling to forgive and forget what they see as a blatant disregard for basic scientific principles: “It was not just one moment of weakness — the degree of manipulation of the goodwill of people, particularly fellow scientists, made it more.” Perhaps the only silver lining to Hwang’s case is that it has helped to emphasise the importance of ethical education for scientists. Many undergraduate programs now offer courses on professional misconduct and ways to avoid falling into the trap.
Undoubtedly stories like this can serve to increase our mistrust of science. However, it’s important to remember that the vast majority of scientists pursue knowledge out of genuine intellectual thirst and curiosity for the discovery of “truth behind nature” and we benefit and make use of these discoveries every day. Then there are the exceptions whose motives require a little more scrutiny. Luckily, science is founded on principles that readily expose any such play outside the rules and punish them accordingly.
