When the journal Science released an editorial retraction last month of two pivotal papers by South Korean researcher Dr. Woo Suk Hwang that announced breakthroughs in human embryonic stem cell research, a two-year-long saga drew to a close.
The first paper, published in February 2004, described the creation of the world’s first cloned human embryo from which stem cells were mined. A second paper, published in May 2005, described the creation of 11 embryonic stem cell lines derived from skin cells of individual patients.
Both papers were then deemed groundbreaking steps towards a future where regenerative medical therapies are possible. And both papers were based on fraudulent data, according to an independent review headed by the Seoul National University, Hwang’s former employer.
“This was a lab that was headed up by one individual, who didn’t have many interactions, except for with people below him,” commented Dr. Peter Zandstra, a stem cell researcher at the institute of biomaterials and biomedical research (IBBME). “This individual was under an extreme amount of pressure, within his own country, to produce results.”
In contrast, he said, “Canadian stem cell science is fairly collaborative in nature. There are more checks and balances among scientists in terms of generating results.”
But independent validation by other labs following publication is a vital part of the scientific method. So why did it take so long to discover that Hwang’s research had been based upon fraudulent data?
The type of stem cell research, somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), performed by Hwang, is illegal in Canada, as per Bill C-6, which legislates assisted human reproduction and related research.
According to Zandstra, issues in human embryonic stem cell research arise as the result of “important ethical legal legislation,” which has resulted in differing legislation in various countries, making it harder to validate research through the exchange of reagents and data.
In a recent article in the journal Nature, an editor proposed that researchers should have their results
independently validated prior to submission and publication. Zandstra remarked that, “it would be unfortunate … if the integrity of science was such that that sort of oversight had to be imposed.”
Ultimately, he feels that this event, “can’t help but taint the [stem cell] field a little bit. Certainly, it doesn’t take away from the potential promise of stem cells and the importance of doing the work.
“But I think it means that we are sort of back at square one and that we’re now once again an important step away from being able to deliver therapies that might be important for Canadians,” Zandstra continued.
“This can be used, both in a positive way to regulate science but also in a negative way that shows how science needs to be regulated.
“You know, it’s a two-way street.”
