More blatantly, perhaps, in the 2004 paper Hwang claimed that establishing the first human cloned cell line required 242 eggs. But for the set of experiments he performed for the 2005 paper, that number fell to 17 per cell line. Cloning is extremely difficult in humans for reasons unknown; not even a vastly improved technique could account for such a low figure. In fact, as many as 1,100 eggs may have been used in the 2005 study.
Such transgressions would be hard for a co-author to miss—unless that co-author never saw the results or participated in the experiments. Such was the case with Gerald Schatten, a University of Pittsburgh researcher who is listed as senior author on the 2005 paper. Science is now considering requiring each author to make a statement describing his or her contribution—a move that might raise a red flag if an author is forced to acknowledge zero participation. (A panel at the university found Schatten guilty of research misbehavior.)
Whether editors of scientific journals will learn lessons from the Hwang case
remains to be seen. Some are incorporating image screening into their procedures,
and others say they will look more carefully at original data. In November an
independent panel convened by Science recommended that the journal apply
special scrutiny to papers that are likely to generate a great deal of public
attention. Editors are clearly shaken, but many seem to consider rooting out
fraud the responsibility of universities rather than journals. 
|
