Lessons of the South Korean stem cell research scandal
The world of scientific research has been rocked by the recent revelations of fraud by a South Korean medical researcher. According to investigators, stem cell researcher Woo Suk Hwang lied and falsified research when claiming that he had cloned human embryos and extracted stem cells genetically matched to patients. Hwang’s research was published last May in the prestigious American journal, Science. The journal editors are expected to publish a retraction of the report.
The story represents a huge embarrassment to the Korean people, who had regarded Hwang as a national hero. It is, likewise, a tremendous disappointment to those hoping that the achievements of the team of South Korean medical researchers might eventually result in the development of revolutionary new treatments for such debilitating conditions as spinal cord injury and Parkinson’s disease. In addition, the apparently unethical activities of this investigator might be viewed as tarnishing the reputation of other scientific investigators in the field of stem cell research.
Episodes of misconduct like this are not unknown in science. Perhaps the most famous is that of the so-called “Piltdown man.” Piltdown was the site of an archaeological find in England. In 1908 and 1912 human, ape and other mammal fossils were found in close proximity at Piltdown. British anthropologists subsequently became convinced that fossils discovered at a nearby site in 1913 represented a single individual possessing a human cranium and an ape’s jaw.
This find was interpreted as evidence favoring one particular theory of human evolution over a competing one at the time. In 1953, however, the find was determined to have been a forgery. The skull was shown to be that of a modern human, while the jaw had come from an ape. The teeth had been deliberately filed down to give them a more human appearance. The identity of the forger was never determined with certainty.
It might seem surprising when scientists are involved in misconduct, particularly one as egregious as this. Perhaps our surprise when episodes of scientific misconduct come to light stems from a basic misunderstanding within modern societies about the nature of science, and of scientists. We live, after all, in a world transformed by spectacular technological advances. Revolutionary progress has been made in fields of medicine, transportation, communications, space travel and warfare, to name a few. We generally attribute such advances to the progress in our understanding of the world ushered in by modern scientists.
Revolutionary scientific and technological achievements of our time have created a sort of “halo-effect” around scientists and their work. The popular image of the scientist is that of a dispassionate and ethical observer of nature, who dutifully abides by strict ethical codes of conduct, one who operates unaffected by the political, social, economic, religious, cultural forces around him/her. This image is, however, unrealistic.
Scientists are, in fact, human beings. Like the rest of us, they possess human traits, prejudices and biases. They are subject to errors in judgment, sloppiness, and incompetence. They can be lazy, greedy, and ambitious. They are capable of being wise or just plain ignorant.
Scientists operate in an extremely competitive and materialistic world. Most academics are subject to powerful pressures to “publish or perish.” The competition for the limited funds available for scholarly research can be fierce. Research agendas are often dictated by political and social priorities, passing professional trends, and economic incentives. Scientists can be bought and sold by commercial and other special interests.
The humanity of scientists is nothing new, nor is the imperfection of the societies in which they operate. Nevertheless, science endures and prospers. Unfortunate events like the stem cell research and Piltdown man scandals, in the long run, demonstrate the very characteristics that enable science to survive, despite errors and adversities. Unlike other knowledge bases, science is a self-correcting enterprise. It has the unique capacity to critically examine its own activities, to scrutinize its practitioners, to renounce flawed research, to correct errors, to revise or replace faulty theories. In this way, science can continue to advance, despite the limitations and shortcomings of its celebrated, illustrious, yet fallible human practitioners.
The story represents a huge embarrassment to the Korean people, who had regarded Hwang as a national hero. It is, likewise, a tremendous disappointment to those hoping that the achievements of the team of South Korean medical researchers might eventually result in the development of revolutionary new treatments for such debilitating conditions as spinal cord injury and Parkinson’s disease. In addition, the apparently unethical activities of this investigator might be viewed as tarnishing the reputation of other scientific investigators in the field of stem cell research.
Episodes of misconduct like this are not unknown in science. Perhaps the most famous is that of the so-called “Piltdown man.” Piltdown was the site of an archaeological find in England. In 1908 and 1912 human, ape and other mammal fossils were found in close proximity at Piltdown. British anthropologists subsequently became convinced that fossils discovered at a nearby site in 1913 represented a single individual possessing a human cranium and an ape’s jaw.
This find was interpreted as evidence favoring one particular theory of human evolution over a competing one at the time. In 1953, however, the find was determined to have been a forgery. The skull was shown to be that of a modern human, while the jaw had come from an ape. The teeth had been deliberately filed down to give them a more human appearance. The identity of the forger was never determined with certainty.
It might seem surprising when scientists are involved in misconduct, particularly one as egregious as this. Perhaps our surprise when episodes of scientific misconduct come to light stems from a basic misunderstanding within modern societies about the nature of science, and of scientists. We live, after all, in a world transformed by spectacular technological advances. Revolutionary progress has been made in fields of medicine, transportation, communications, space travel and warfare, to name a few. We generally attribute such advances to the progress in our understanding of the world ushered in by modern scientists.
Revolutionary scientific and technological achievements of our time have created a sort of “halo-effect” around scientists and their work. The popular image of the scientist is that of a dispassionate and ethical observer of nature, who dutifully abides by strict ethical codes of conduct, one who operates unaffected by the political, social, economic, religious, cultural forces around him/her. This image is, however, unrealistic.
Scientists are, in fact, human beings. Like the rest of us, they possess human traits, prejudices and biases. They are subject to errors in judgment, sloppiness, and incompetence. They can be lazy, greedy, and ambitious. They are capable of being wise or just plain ignorant.
Scientists operate in an extremely competitive and materialistic world. Most academics are subject to powerful pressures to “publish or perish.” The competition for the limited funds available for scholarly research can be fierce. Research agendas are often dictated by political and social priorities, passing professional trends, and economic incentives. Scientists can be bought and sold by commercial and other special interests.
The humanity of scientists is nothing new, nor is the imperfection of the societies in which they operate. Nevertheless, science endures and prospers. Unfortunate events like the stem cell research and Piltdown man scandals, in the long run, demonstrate the very characteristics that enable science to survive, despite errors and adversities. Unlike other knowledge bases, science is a self-correcting enterprise. It has the unique capacity to critically examine its own activities, to scrutinize its practitioners, to renounce flawed research, to correct errors, to revise or replace faulty theories. In this way, science can continue to advance, despite the limitations and shortcomings of its celebrated, illustrious, yet fallible human practitioners.
posted by Michael | Thursday, January 05, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home