blog.bioethics.net

Dr. Hwang and the Bad Apple Theory of Scientific Misconduct

At last the investigation of stem cell research in South Korea has become a matter for criminal investigation. The Korean equivalent of an indictment is likely, and it may turn out that Hwang Woo-suk will (as Art Caplan describes it) "end up in the DMZ somewhere with a bull's-eye on his lab coat," as detailed in The Korea Times:

Prosecutors are expected to investigate embattled stem cell expert Hwang Woo-suk over his team’s fabricated research...

Investigators are predicted to focus on finding out whether Hwang and his team intentionally forged the research results to receive state funds and donations from a number of private companies.

The Lone Liar Theory

Several of my favorite colleagues, including Laurie Zoloth in the Los Angeles Times, have distilled the ethical implications of the Hwang matter to "telling the truth."

Laurie writes:

The bottom line is this: In a complicated world, the public must trust experts, because how can you know what to do if you cannot know what is real?Tell the truth, always, we teach students, withhold nothing from your data. It is a categorical imperative for science and indeed for all societies. It comes from Immanuel Kant, whose early writings on truth in the new discipline of science shaped what we teach as core questions in bioethics ... Bioethicists cannot reflect on complex moral issues without a truthful narrative. Policymakers cannot regulate without good facts. The public cannot know what to hope for if it cannot know what is real.

The submission of an article for publication in a science journal may well be, as David Magnus points out, a form of testimony. But whose testimony is it? Who must stand to account for the science that seems to have been literally made up in this paper? In this case more than 20 authors. And several institutions. And high-ranking government officials.

To be sure, if the allegations are demonstrated in South Korea, the alleged activities in this case would join Summerlin's painted mice and the Piltdown "missing link" man in the Great Halls of Bogus Discovery. But there is an important difference in this case. In this case a legion of collaborators share the responsibility. The lone-liar theory falls apart:

... the Board of Audit and Investigation has requested the Ministry of Science and Technology submit documents on the state funding it has provided to Hwang’s research team ... The state auditor’s probe into the ministry is expected to focus on the ministry's management of Hwang's research fund and the government’s report channels on the destruction of several stem cells that Hwang reported in January.

In addition, its probe is targeting the Ministry of Health and Welfare for its subsides worth 15 billion won provided for construction of the World Stem Cell Hub ... The inspection agency is also looking into 4.3 billion won in subsidies offered in 2001 to Hwang’s research team by the Ministry of Information and Communication.

This case will turn out to be like peeling an onion.

Hwang's lab was subject to extreme funding mechanisms, insufficient oversight, excessive pressure, a crazy confederation of authors and institutions, confusion about patents, translation of both language and data by international collaborators, pressures from peers (the so-called "chopstick theory of scientific supremacy") and more importantly from the culture, and a grossly irresponsible lack of American leadership in the regulatory and funding arena where in virtue of our intellectual property, our consumer safety rules, and our national interest in getting the science right we have that responsibility.

We in bioethics are part of the problem. We undertake partnership with and are often seen as giving approval to the companies, agencies, industry organizations and individuals that share our ideals, and sometimes the enemy of our enemy is
our friend. This is true whether we heading their ethics committees, as
I once did for an American stem cell company, or working in their
industry organizations. In my own case the company whom I was helping
failed to inform me that it was doing cloning experiments that were
of profound moral significance ... a fact I found out when I was asked to
comment on the experiments for a news organization. In this case Laurie
details with equal regret standing alongside Hwang for an announcement
where validation of the significance and ethics of the experiment
mattered a great deal. And John Robertson wrote persuasively in this blog, in commenting on what he saw as hyperventilation about the egg
donation problem in
Hwang's lab, that, "Now that [Hwang] has done his public mea culpa I say
the time is to forgive him and let him get back to plying his
considerable craft."

No.

Lying is bad. But the tangled web in this matter is not the sort of thing one finds in the history of scientific misconduct. An entirely new kind of deception occurred here, one in which picking out the key player will be like playing Where's Waldo. [updated 12/26]