In 2004, Hwang made headlines when he claimed in the prestigious journal Science, that he created the first human embryos through the cloning process known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), from which he said, he had derived one embryonic stem cell line. (SCNT is the cloning technique used to create Dolly the sheep.)

That study made Hwang and international science star. Then, with a follow up paper published in Science in 2005, Hwang seemed to be on the fast track to a Nobel Prize. He not only claimed to have created several more cloned human embryos, but to have derived eleven patient-specific stem cell lines.

Human cloning proponents giddily predicted that sick patients would soon be able to have cloned embryos made of themselves from which genetically matched embryonic stem cells would be derived for use in their medical treatments. (This is often called "therapeutic cloning.")

Beyond that, the "breakthrough" was seized upon by cloning proponents as proof that America had fallen behind Asia in stem cell science. Catching up, they argued in a well oiled political advocacy campaign, would require scuttling President Bush's embryonic stem cell funding policy and handing billions of dollars in public funds to the biotech industry and affiliated university researchers.

Then, shockingly, unexpectedly, the cloning roof caved in. Hwang's American research partner, Dr. Gerald Schatten of the University of Pittsburgh, severed ties with Hwang, complaining that the South Korean researcher had unethically purchased the human eggs for use in his cloning experiments and then lied about it. Then came the real nuclear explosion: Roh Sung-il, one of Hwang's 2005 Science co-authors, charged Hwang with faking nine of the eleven stem cell lines.

A media feeding frenzy broke out in South Korea culminating in an independent panel confirming not only of Roh's charges, but more: The entire 2005 paper was a fraud. Hwang's cloned embryonic stem cells were actually derived from fertilized embryos and did not involve human cloning at all.

Hwang's unraveling has left the issue of human cloning in a state of chaos: At this point, we don't know whether human cloning has been accomplished, or indeed, whether it can be. If human embryos can be cloned, we don't know whether embryonic stem cells can be derived from the resulting cloned embryos, since no one other than Hwang has claimed success in this endeavor. And we still don't know to what depths the dishonesty of the seemingly most successful researcher in the field actually descended.

The Hwang fraud is one of the worst science frauds in recent history. And it raises several crucial issues that will have to be confronted in the coming years:

• The Reliability of Peer Review: Publication of a blatantly fraudulent paper by Science, which it touted as major breakthrough in the field of biotechnology, is a major embarrassment that calls into question the reliability of the peer review process. This is a crucial matter, both for the scientific enterprise and the general public. Investigators need to determine whether the Hwang debacle represented a relatively rare failure of the peer review process or whether the system itself needs a major overhaul. Has politics contaminated the peer review process? Why were South Korean scientists able to discover Hwang's fraud when the presumably more seasoned peer reviewers for Science failed? Indeed, did the Science reviewers so want Hwang to have succeeded that they did not put his paper through sufficiently rigorous scrutiny? Answers to these and other questions are essential to protect the rigor and robustness of the scientific process.

The peer review system is essential to the forward momentum of science. But it clearly failed in detecting what now appears to be a relatively obvious fraud. For example, Hwang used duplicate photographs to illustrate his text.

• Do Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Therapeutic Cloning Really Offer the Best Hope for Regenerative Medicine? For years, members of the Science and Bioethics Establishment Have Insisted that embryonic stem cell research offers the best chance for treating degenerative conditions such as Parkinson's, diabetes, and spinal cord industry. This assertion has impacted public policy and the direction of biotechnological research. But is it really true? Based on the published science, it seems doubtful. At present, 65 human maladies are being treated in clinics or human trials with adult or umbilical cord blood stem cells. These include spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, and heart disease. Mice with advanced juvenile diabetes were cured with adult spleen stem cells, and the procedure has been approved for human trials.
• In contrast, zero maladies are being treated effectively in people with embryonic stem cells, and even the most successful animal studies to date have only been moderately encouraging. One reason is that unlike adult stem cells, in animal studies, embryonic stem cells cause dangerous tumors and will likely remain unsafe for human use until ways are found to prevent tumor formation.
• Has the American Media Been Biased in its Coverage of Biotechnology? The Hwang story broke because a courageous South Korea media pursued the story with doggedness and determination. In contrast, the mainstream American media seems clearly biased in favor of therapeutic cloning, often merely regurgitated the advocacy points promoted by the biotechnology lobby in their stories. [Link my article:1] Whether science and biotech reporters will bring a new skepticism to their coverage remains to be seen.

The tactics of the biotechnology lobby and their allies in bioethics, universities, and media, have been profoundly deceptive and disingenuous. The potential for immediate cures from embryonic stem cells have been hyped, voters have been misled, and too often, scientists have not provided information to the public about these issues in an objective and dispassionate manner. As a result, science is in danger of becoming viewed by the public as merely another special interest. If that happens, proponents of human cloning and embryonic stem cell research will only have themselves to blame.

Proposition 71’s Rocky Road: Californians passed Proposition 71 in 2004.

The law authorizes the creation of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, and provides that the Institute can borrow $3 billion over ten years to pay for human cloning and embryonic stem cell research. (It does not allow funding of reproductive cloning.) Since its passage, Proposition 71 has remained moribund. Lawsuits claiming that the measure violates the California Constitution have prevented the state from issuing bonds to pay for the grants. A judge refused to dismiss the case and it is expected to be tried in February.

Meanwhile, post election newspaper reports have shown that the pro- Proposition 71 campaign was deceptive. For example, proponents promised that California would receive a bounteous return in taxes and royalties on their borrowed money. But now, it appears that California will not receive royalty revenues and that it is also unlikely to receive substantial tax benefits either. "What [Robert] Klein [The head of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine] knew before the election was that such royalty-sharing by the state might be hampered by federal regulations, according to an attorney who helped Klein draft the initiative," the San Francisco Chronicle reported. "Yet he didn't tell voters."

Hwang's Best Friend
Koreans did actually clone dog, panel declares

The Seoul National University panel investigating the work of disgraced stem cell scientist Hwang Woo-suk has partially exonerated him by declaring that his team did in fact produce the world's first cloned dog in 2005, as claimed.

The Register

Alzheimer's Disease Not Likely Candidate for Embryonic Stem Cell Treatment

Proponents of human therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research often claim that people with Alzheimer's disease would likely benefit from this form of regenerative medicine. But this is more hype than hope. In reality, Alzheimer's is one of the least likely degenerative diseases to be effectively treated using embryonic stem cell therapies.

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.