The lesson of cold fusion has not been learned. Scientific journals are again embarrassed by reporting on faked scientific results. This time, it's the result of being taken in by Dr. Hwang Woo Suk's impressive-sounding credentials and his research on the cloning of human cells from embryos.
This article, Clone Scientist Relied on Peers and Korean Pride from The New York Times, examines some -- but not all -- of the problems. In my view, the editors of Science and Nature magazines are getting off too lightly. Take, for example, this quote from the article:
Nature's reviewers did not ask Dr. Hwang to provide evidence that would have proved Snuppy was cloned from another dog. Dr. Campbell said that Nature, as part of its investigation of the article, would consider whether its standards of proof should be changed in the future.
They might consider implementing procedures to check for scientific fraud in the future? That's hubris at work. Here are some of the flaws identified by Nicholas Wade Wade in the NYT article, along with my added comments:
- Competition between science magazines over carrying the most stunning reports on scientific advances. When the TV news carries the results of a new study from a "highly respected" journal of medicine or science, this is not a news item: it's a PR stunt initiated out by the journal's publishers. I say it's not "news," because TV news organizations lack the ability to present findings of studies accurately. Just the fact that TV news readers used the adjective "highly respected" should set off a warning in your mind; news readers are in no position to determine whether a niche magazine is highly respected or not.
- Pride of association by other, independent scientists. The excuse was to produce confirmation of the results; the result was false confirmation. Hwang asked American researchers to be co-researchers and co-authors; they were so flattered at being asked that they didn't question the research -- or even get to see it. Fortunately, one of them had the strength to resign his post, and report his suspicions publicly.
- Compartmentalization of assistant researchers. The excuse was efficiency; the result was that no other scientist knew fully what was going on. Hwang used compartmentalization to hide the fact he was using (abusing) far more human embryos than reported.
- Nationalism driven by the government's goal to make South Korea the most advanced country in the world. Bureaucrats bestowed US$65 million on Hwang for his research, and awarded him the title of Outstanding Korean Scientist. The excuse was that the country wanted to believe it was on the forefront of "progress;" the result was international embarrassment.
- Lack of fraud detection at magazines and journals, who seem to think that scientists only work from the pure motive of research. The editor of Nature magazine admits, "Peer review is not set up to test for fraud. It is set up to provide expert assessment of the scientific credibility and reliability of what scientists report, taking the report itself in good faith." I sometimes get accused of being too skeptical in my upFront.eZine newsletter for CAD (computer-aided design), but skepticism is an effective BS filter.
As the understatement of the scandal, the editor of Science magazine, a Dr Kennedy mused: "It's a sad business. We don't feel like it's our best day" (koff, koff). The editors then admit faked research shows up in their magazines more than infrequently.
The scandal shows that even the most highly-placed scientists fall prey to their human pride. My son and I watched "The Island" last night, and its theme matches that of this Korean Kloning Krime: the greed for money and power overruling ethics and compassion for fellow humans.
Comments