What is the Hwang scandal?

On January 20, 2006, Hwang maintained that two of his 11 forged stem cell lines had been maliciously switched for cells from regular, not cloned, embryos. The allegation involves the lines Hwang claims to have created at Seoul-based MizMedi Hospital.

What was the purpose of the study that Hwang performed?

Hwang published a paper in May 2005 purporting that his team had created 11 individual stem cell lines from cloned embryos. This discovery had significant implications for medicine, as it raised the possibility of treatments tailored to the individual patient, using the patient’s own stem cells.

What were the instances of research misconduct that Hwang woo Suk committed?

In 2009, Hwang was convicted of misusing research funds and illegally buying human eggs for his research. Among many transgressions was the dubious manner in which the team persuaded women to donate their eggs for their SCNT research.

How Japan’s stem cell study became a scandal?

Its findings concluded that there was “research misconduct by Dr Obokata on two points”. She was found to have manipulated two images to create a false composite image, and she used data from her doctoral thesis, even though it was derived under different conditions to those described in her STAP papers.

Who is Dr Hwang Woo Suk?

Hwang Woo-suk, a geneticist in South Korea, claimed in Science magazine in 2004 and 2005 that he and a team of researchers had for the first time cloned a human embryo and that they had derived eleven stem cell lines from it. Hwang was a professor at Seoul National University in Seoul, South Korea.

Why do scientists falsify data?

It is commonly hypothesized that scientists are more likely to engage in data falsification and fabrication when they are subject to pressures to publish, when they are not restrained by forms of social control, when they work in countries lacking policies to tackle scientific misconduct, and when they are male.

Are scientists dishonest?

Not surprisingly there seems to be significant underreporting of dishonesty and misconduct [12, 13]. A systematic review and meta-analysis [11] showed that an average of 2% of scientists admitted serious forms of misconduct (fabrication, falsification or modification of data or results) at least once.