Overview:the Korean Stem Cell Case

LEARNING GOAL

• Understand ethical issues in the practice of research using this case study

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

• Identify and analyze important concepts in research misconduct and fraud using group share

• Create a concept map: make connections between different elements of this case

Active learning methods

• Clickers

• Group share

• (Concept map)

Woo Suk Hwang, DVM, PhD 

Hwang ‐ rise to fame• Feb  2004: First reported success of 

creating human embryonic stem cells by cloning using somatic cell nuclear transfer method

• May 2005: 11  more stem cell cultures from cloned human embryos using same method

• These two landmark  articles published in Science

• August 2005: Nature: first to report cloning a dog (Snuppy) 

Somatic cell nuclear transfer method (SCNT)

• Injecting genetic material from adult human cells into human eggs that had their own DNA removed

David Cameron, 2001

Heart Muscle

Vessels

Blood

KidneyBone Skin

Nervous System

Liver

Pancreas

Potential of Embryonic Stem Cells

neuronsastrocytesoligodendrocytes

blood cells

cardiomyocytes

liver cells

insulin producing cells

endothelial cells

osteoblasts

Magnuson, Vanderbilt  U.

Study brings therapeuticcloning one step closer

• The technique could eventually help scientists develop ‘’ Repair Kit’’ for the treatment of many diseases using a patient’s own stem cells

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/308/5729/1738a.pdf

The Scandal

• November  2005:  One of Hwang’s collaborators raised concerns regarding oocyte (egg) donations in Hwang's research and unethical conduct in the egg cell acquiring process in violation of the country's bioethics law

Science Feb 10 2006

• January 2006 : University announced that all Hwang's stem cell lines were fabricated and both Hwang's 2004 and 2005 Science papers are based on fabricated data

Time cover Jan 6 2006

However, Snuppy was a real clone

• January 2006: Science retracted both Hwang's papers

Science Jan 20 2006

Indictment and trial• May 12, 2006: Indictment

– Conduct and reporting of fraudulent research

– Embezzlement and misappropriation of funds

– Violation of Bioethics and Biosafety Act 2005

• June 20, 2006: Trial• 2007: Hwang was fired from 

SNU• October 26, 2009: Guilty of 

embezzlement and ethics violations but not research fraud 

Science 5/19/2006

Gerald Scatten(International  collaborator)

• Not guilty for research misconduct

• Guilty for research misbehavior

http://www.britannica.com

Do you think Hwang should have been allowed to continue his work? 

A) YesB) NoC) Undecided

What is Dr. Hwang doing now?

Group Share (15 min)• What ethical issues stand out and what are some lessons learned from Hwang scandal?

1‐Misconduct and Fraud2‐ Responsible authorship3‐ Research with human subjects 4‐ International collaboration5 ‐Mentor trainee relationship & responsibilities

Concepts for the Korean stem cell case

• Regulations that govern research• Research with human subjects• Informed consent• Oocyte donation• Risk/benefit• Scientific integrity• Research Misconduct• RCR education• Responsible authorship 

• Data fabrication• Peer review of manuscript 

submissions• Error vs. intent• Mentor‐trainee relations• Reporting results• Coercion and autonomy• International collaborations• international guidelines for RCR

Concept map elements for photosynthesis

• Photosynthesis• CO2

• H20• Glucose• O2

• Aerobic metabolism• Plants

http://www.smccd.edu/accounts/bucher/modules/Photosynthesis.pdf

• Photosynthesis• CO2

• H20• Glucose• O2

• Aerobic metabolism• Plants

Plants

O2

“create” 

Concept map elements for photosynthesis

• Photosynthesis• CO2

• H20• Glucose• O2

• Aerobic metabolism

http://www.smccd.edu/accounts/bucher/modules/Photosynthesis.pdf

Connect the following eight elements derived from group share using a CONCEPT MAP

• Research with human subjects• Informed consent• Oocyte donation• Risk/benefit• RCR education• Data fabrication• Peer review of manuscript submissions• Error vs. intent• Mentor‐trainee relations

LEARNING GOALS – KOREAN STEM CELL CASE• Understood ethical issues in the practice of research using this case

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

• Identified important concepts in research misconduct using group share

• Created a concept map: make connections between different elements of this case

GoalParticipants will understand and appreciate a variety of ethical issues related to the conduct of research.

Learning objectives 

Participants will be able to:• Define research misconduct.• Identify cases of and behavior representing research misconduct. 

Research Misconduct

Teaching Methods• Group discussion• Analysis of a case study

• Most research funding agencies definemisconduct as “fabrication, falsification, orplagiarism in proposing, performing, orreviewing research, or in reporting researchresults.”

• Fabrication is “making up data or results.”

• Falsification is “manipulating research materials,equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data orresults such that the research is not accuratelyrepresented in the research record.”

• Plagiarism is “the appropriation of another person’sideas, processes, results, or words without givingappropriate credit.”

• Research misconduct does not include honest error ordifferences of opinion.

U.S. FEDERAL POLICY ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

CASE STUDY: group discussion

• Suresh was reading his samples on aspectrophotometer. Duplicate measurementswere carried out on each sample. During hisreadings, the electricity was on and off atdifferent time intervals. When he had finished, henoticed that readings of some duplicates did notresemble each other. He decided to select onlythe readings in the same range as those reportedin some famous publications and show these tohis supervisor.

• What are the types of misconduct here?  Discuss

(10 min)

Scientists behaving badly Vol 435|9 June 2005

Titles of ComplainantsSee - ORI-RCR website

Student/Post Graduate

Doc

Assoc/AssistantProfessor

Full Professor

No Degree

Group discussion

Discuss cases of misconduct that you have heard about in your field.

Suggest ways to avoid misconduct.

(10 min)

Take home message 

Over many centuries, researchers have developedprofessional standards designed to enhance theprogress of science and to avoid or minimize thedifficulties of research (Susan H. Frey, 2012).

Among ethical standards of researchers: honesty,objectivity, openness, respect for intellectual property,Confidentiality, Responsible Publication, ResponsibleMentoring, Non‐Discrimination, social responsibility,legality. Ethical standards also cover animal use, humansubjects research and biosafety issues.

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/

Objectives:The participants will :Define who can be an authorDebate how to acknowledge the contributions of othersPresent ways to avoid plagiarism

AUTHORSHIP & PLAGIARISM

Teaching Methods

• Discussion • Assemble in groups to examine case study• Poster presentations 

http://library.ucf.edu/ScholarlyCommunication/OtherModels.php

http://www.napavalley.edu/Library/Pages/ScientificInformationLiteracy.aspx

ACTIVITY 1 (10 min)

WHY DO SCIENTISTS PUBLISH?

Call out reasons from your tables

Why publish scientific work?• Communicate new scientific methods, findings, ideas,

and questions.• Put new methods, findings, ideas, and questions in

context of prior knowledge and others’ work.• Create a formal record of data and interpretation. • Provide standardized mechanism for peer review to

critique, validate, and promote new work.• Permit others to replicate or extend the work and

develop new questions.• Increase public awareness and understanding of

science, which may increase funding.

HAVE  YOU ENCOUNTERED AUTHORSHIP PROBLEMS?

• Discuss in your group and make a list 

• Report the thoughts of your colleagues

ACTIVITY 2 (10 min)

Criteria for authorship Criteria are increasingly formal and stringent. Named authors get credit and take

responsibility for the contents of the paper and the conduct of the research that it reports.

Authorship implies a substantive intellectualcontribution, but “significant” may vary by field, journal, and study.

Journals increasingly require authors to specify their respective contributions in writing in a formal declaration or checklist.

COMPILE A LIST OF AUTHORSHIP CRITERIA

ACTIVITY 2 (cont. ‐5 min)

Criteria for authorship

1. Substantial contributions to conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data for the work;2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;3. Final approval of the version to be published;4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part … are appropriately investigated and resolved.

ALL AUTHORS SHOULD MEET CONDITIONS 1,2,3 and 4

http://www.icmje.orgInternational Committee of Medical Journal Editors

Plagiarism

Objectives:

• Participants will be able to – recognize and define different types of plagiarism– develop methods to avoid plagiarism

“(T)he theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work.”

US Office of Research Integrity, Newsletter,Vol. 3, No. 1, December 1994

“Appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.”

OSTP Definition of Research Misconduct(65 FR 76260-76264, December 2000)

PLAGIARISM

Types of plagiarism

When in doubt…include the citation

• Citation identifies the source and authority of the material, and attributes credit and responsibility for the work.

• Direct quotes always need a citation, even quotes from a textbook, but direct quotes should be used only when the specific language is essential.

• “Common knowledge” and specialized terms may still need a citation.

• Formats vary by field and journal – check the Instructions to Contributors.

• Citation also shows that YOU know the literature.

Complete the phrases:

• Publication of research helps investigators….

• Pressure to publish may encourage…

• We can discourage plagiarism in our institutions by…

questions for final discussion

1. Do the journals that you read have formal criteria for authorship? If so, where can you find them?

2. What does the order of authorship mean? (What did the first, second, third,… last author DO?)

3. How many authors do papers in your field usually have? What is a “reasonable” number of authors on a paper ?

4. How can co-authors be sure of the integrity of their colleagues’ work?

5. Hwang’s co-authors include trainees who gave oocytes to his research. Is this appropriate?

6. Was Gerald Schatten appropriately included as an author under ICMJE guidelines?

7. What are some strategies to reduce conflicts over authorship?

Goals: Using the Hwang stem cell case and other materials, students will understand contemporary issues in misconduct, authorship and plagiarism.

Objectives: Participants will be able to:

– Compile a list of research misconduct and unethical behaviors

– Define who can be an author– Know how to acknowledge others’ contributions– Describe professional standards of plagiarism– Describe how to avoid plagiarism