Larvatus Prodeo

Fraud in science is a serious matter. And when that fraud is in a field that is the subject of ethical debates, intense competition and fierce lobbying for funds any case of fraud is very damaging to say the least.

Last week a panel from the Seoul National University concluded that Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk and his team fabricated the data used in a 2004 paper claiming a breakthrough in stem cell research. This is in addition to a December 2005 finding that Hwang Woo-suk also fabricated data in a 2005 paper. The only positive news for Hwang was that the panel are happy that Snuppy really is cloned dog.

The fall of ‘Supreme Scientist’ Hwang Woo-suk has raised questions of about the validity of science’s peer review’ process. Also there is the question of what impact Hwang Woo-suk’s fraud will have on embryonic stem cell research.

Nature has a good article that reveals how the fraud was uncovered. In summary the first hint of trouble was evidence that researchers themselves where egg donors. Then Hwang’s 2004 paper hinted the stem cell lime was not created by cloning but an altogether different process, parthenogenesis. However Hwang presented evidence that allayed any concerns regarding the process used.

With Hwang’s work being such a breakthrough result other laboratories tried to replicate the research. But these other labs had trouble doing so. With pressure on Hwang to replicate the research the ante was upped with the publication of the 2005 Hwang paper. As Nature notes:

The paper ruled out the possibility of parthenogenesis and showed a startling increase in efficiency of stem-cell production. “The 2005 paper was a shock because of the success rate reported, but again the quality of the journal and additional authors gave it further credibility,” says Alan Trounson, a reproductive biologist at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.

Eventually the Korean news programme PD Notebook started to investigate Hwang after receiving a tip off. Then everything started to unravel for Hwang as his deception was uncovered.

One consequence of Hwang’s fabrication is the discussion about whether peer review is a flawed process. Contrary to some naysayers peer review is not the problem. The way peer review works is that the papers are submitted so that the validity of the paper’s conclusions are consistent with the evidence presented. The reviewers do not examine the actual data. The honour system that accompanies peer review assumes that the data is as presented as being accurate. It would be very difficult to protect the process of peer review against fraud such as Hwang. To do so the peer review process would need to do a forensic examination of the data which would be impractical for every paper submitted. From a BBC article:

“You can only assess the science in terms of what is in the paper, and the data looked accurate,” Dr Stephen Minger, director of King’s Stem Cell Biology Laboratory, UK, told the BBC News website.
“I know at least one person who reviewed the original paper, and they were convinced the data was real; and short of going to the lab, and physically inspecting the data yourself, and saying ‘I want to see the cells, I want to do the DNA analyses myself’ - you just cannot do that physically.

However the nature of the peer review process would have uncovered Hwang’s fraud. Obviously in a highly competitive field such as stem cell research other parties are going to want to replicate the research. As noted earlier other labs had trouble replicating the initial findings. This puts pressure back on the original researchers. Hwang did try to dodge by fabricating a new paper but that would have been only a temporary stall. Eventually answers would be demanded of Hwang. The uncovering of his fraud would have been only a matter of time. The peer review process is not perfect but is not fatally flawed. At best it may need some tweaking (and this is an ongoing debate) however Hwang’s case does not necessitate a major overhaul of the system.

With regards to the status of embryonic stem cell research the fraud of Hwang does not invalidate the field. While calls for vigilance and a better process for screening research may be warranted the entire field does not stand condemned. It does offer a sobering reminder that science is a human endeavour subject to the whims, foibles and faults of all those who practice it.

What is likely to happen is that progress in embryonic stem field research will slow. Scientists though will be loathe to rush their research. Which isn’t a bad outcome. A valid criticism of stem cell research has been the hype in regards to progress and potential treatments. This has been at odds with the reality of challenges faced by stem cell researchers. A more circumspect approach to stem cell research as a result of Hwang’s fraud would be a positive outcome from this sad affair.