The recent revelation of the South Korean stem cell scandal is
not only a setback in the quest for the holy grail of medicine
““ that stem cells from human embryos can be produced to
replace diseased or injured human tissue ““ but also harms the
credibility of the entire area of research.
The famed scientist, Hwang Woo-suk, claimed to have cloned the
first human embryo in 2004 and followed up a year later by claiming
that he had derived individually tailored stem cells from 11 cloned
embryos. An investigation by Seoul National University has revealed
that neither claim was true and that two papers Hwang published in
the journal Science were falsified as well. Hwang fabricated data
and manipulated photographs to fool the world that his laboratory
had made decisive scientific breakthroughs when it had not.
Before this particular incident, the death of actor Christopher
Reeve was the latest event that focused international attention on
stem cell research and the urgent needs of those with spinal cord
injury. The fact that it is already a contentious issue has
heightened the stakes of this scandal on the future of stem cell
research and the debate on the potential of stem cells to make
major contributions to fighting diseases.
For those who are already opposed to the field, it has further
reinforced the attitude that we should severely limit, if not stop,
stem cell research. To bring context to the situation, consider
that Congress is currently looking into amending a decision by
President Bush which proposed limiting federal funding for stem
cell research. Opponents of stem cell research can now claim that
Bush is right in wanting to limit it. After all, the South Korean
government has been questioned for putting $65 million behind
Hwang’s work, possibly creating pressure on the scientist to
show results, even if fraudulent ones.
Yet, politics aside, this whole episode of scientific fraud has
nothing to do with opponents’ arguments that cloning produces
embryos that are tiny human beings.
What I hope every reader realizes is that the scandal is more a
comment on human frailty than it is about the merits of therapeutic
cloning. It illustrates many all-too-human traits: desire for fame,
delusions of power, lying and recrimination. Among other perks he
received, Hwang was given permanent police protection by his
government, flew all over the world free on first”“class
courtesy of Korean Air, had one of the best-funded labs anywhere in
the world and was one of the most sought after lecturers.
Whatever the excuse for Hwang, the entire fraud scandal is an
anomaly in the sense that the overwhelming majority of scientists
who dedicate their careers to advancing this cause do so ethically,
in good faith, and primarily for the reward of being able to
contribute to the development of human therapies.
More importantly, we have not necessarily gone back to square
one as a result of this massive fraud. The scientific community is
also pursuing other methods of generating stem cells; the technique
employed by Hwang is really just one of many avenues that we are
following.
Stem cell therapy remains the best long-term hope we have for
people who suffer from a variety of incurable diseases. Despite the
medical hoax perpetrated by the South Korean researcher, stem-cell
research must continue. That said, because stem cell research is
such a contentious and highly emotional issue, the hoax will impact
some people’s attitudes. It will have the negative effect of
further reinforcing the attitudes of those who are already opposed
to the field, and will probably shift the positions of those who
are a bit ambivalent.
However, even if opponents of stem cell research succeed, and
research on the field in the United States is further restricted or
left as-is, what have we gained? I suppose most of us have ethical,
spiritual, or religious beliefs ““ a moral compass if you will
““ that guides our judgment on whether stem cell research
should continue, be restricted, or stopped altogether. Beyond these
ethical issues, we may also ponder legal and social issues that
involve the impact of stem cell technologies on society as a whole.
People differ in their opinions and there are no right or wrong
answers.
In the end, it may be a question of how much we are willing to
separate personal opinion from the promise and hope of a brighter
future and higher quality of life that stem cell research can
afford for millions of people who suffer from incurable diseases.
As we look ahead, we should not allow this episode to lead to the
wholesale dismissal of stem cell studies, even if there are many
obstacles to overcome before this research can result in reliable
medical treatment.
Shefizadeh is the president and founder of the Undergraduate
Medical Sciences Organization.