SCIENCE is supposed to be a quest for truth. So it was deeply depressing to hear the admission by Woo Suk Hwang, South Korea鈥檚 stem-cell superstar, that he lied about his research. On 24 November Hwang admitted not only that his pioneering research on therapeutic cloning had breached ethical guidelines, but also that he had known as much for 18 months. 鈥淏eing too focused on scientific development, I may not have seen all the ethical issues related to my research,鈥� Hwang told journalists in Seoul.
For opponents of research on human embryonic stem (ES) cells, this is a gift. In the US, where the future of the field hangs on a debate in the Senate early next year, activists will portray Hwang as a rogue researcher who craved success at any cost. And in their quest to ban therapeutic cloning and limit the use of US federal funds for research on human ES cells, they will do their utmost to represent all researchers in the field as equally cavalier.
That is not true. Other groups work to strict ethical codes. It is, incidentally, now up to these groups and organisations that represent patients who may benefit from their work to redouble their efforts to deter the government of the world鈥檚 leading scientific nation from stifling ES cell research: that would simply drive the work to other countries and into the private sector, where ethical scrutiny may be less stringent.
Advertisement
But those scientists who rushed to embrace Hwang in recent months should now be asking themselves some searching questions. Their association with the disgraced scientist plays into the hands of those who want to represent the entire field as ethically bankrupt. Did those researchers let their judgement be clouded by the desire to get their hands on scarce ES cells?
Last week鈥檚 admissions should not have come as a huge surprise to them. Nature reported doubts about Hwang鈥檚 methods in May 2004, just three months after he unveiled the first human ES cells derived from a cloned embryo. The journal alleged that some eggs used in the research had come from two junior researchers in Hwang鈥檚 lab, in breach of guidelines designed to prevent vulnerable individuals from being coerced. Its source was one of those women 鈥� although she later sought to retract her words.
Hwang argued that the woman鈥檚 poor English led to a misunderstanding. But now, after a Korean TV investigation, he has been forced to admit that the story was true. He now says he lied to protect the two scientists鈥� privacy, after learning that they had donated eggs under false names.
Given that Nature鈥榮 source had revealed details such as the hospital where her eggs were harvested, and that she was happy to donate because she already had two children, the credibility of the claim that this was a linguistic misunderstanding should have attracted closer scrutiny. For those researchers who sought to collaborate with Hwang, the lesson is clear: when a field is as contentious as this, serious allegations must be properly investigated.
Some people may now take the view that South Korea is an ethical no-go area, to be avoided at all costs. But that, too, would be untrue. This is not a case of an emerging nation failing to abide by 鈥渁dvanced鈥� ethical standards. Rather, it casts light on differing ethical perspectives.
鈥淲hen a field is as contentious as this, serious allegations must be properly investigated鈥�
In Europe and North America, where an individual鈥檚 rights carry enormous weight, Hwang鈥檚 failure to protect his female subordinates is seen as a serious breach. But in Asian societies rooted in Confucian traditions, greater store is set by loyalty and striving for the common good. From this perspective, the junior scientists who donated their eggs are not victims but heroines. This may help explain why South Koreans are now rallying behind Hwang, with hundreds of women pledging to donate eggs for his research. Meanwhile, the TV station that exposed Hwang鈥檚 lies faces public opprobrium.
When researchers from different ethical traditions collaborate in stem cell research, they must be sure to agree on mutually acceptable standards. This cuts all ways. South Korea has banned trading in human eggs, yet it remains legal in the US to pay women who give their eggs for research. Though the National Academy of Sciences has urged US scientists to avoid the practice, it is not hard to imagine a future scandal in which Korean scientists are embarrassed by a US collaborator whose actions violate Korean ethical standards.
