{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024016257158692038, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010345464622205801, 'mean_word_length': 5.008879023307436, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 1, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Scientific misconduct, stem cells, and the way ahead

Recent events in South Korea may prove to have a more farreaching impact on the entire scientific publishing enterprise than anticipated. I am, of course, referring to the deliberate falsification of data and serious ethical lapses in the research from Professor Woo Suk Hwang’s laboratory at Seoul National University. Published reports from Dr. Hwang’s laboratory over the past 5 years have portrayed a research laboratory at the forefront of mammalian cell biology, producing impressive advances in the area of stem cell biology. It is from this laboratory that the first cloned dog was produced, and more recently, reports showing that these investigators had improved the efficiency for producing cloned human blastocysts from which to derive embryonic stem cells (ESCs). These putative advances had moved the field to a point when the potential of routinely obtaining patient-specific ESCs was appearing to be a real possibility in the relatively near future. While it seems that Professor Hwang and colleagues did in fact clone the first dog (Snuppy), not an insignificant accomplishment, much of his work with human ECSs is tainted with findings of ethical lapses in obtaining human oocytes and outright falsification of figures and data in his research articles. The magnitude of this fraud is truly awesome. As of early January, an investigation by a committee at Seoul National University has concluded that many of the claims made in two recent Science articles were not substantiated and that serious ethical problems surrounded the collection of oocytes for what work had been performed (for an English language summary of the report—http:// www.snu.ac.kr:6060/sc_sne_b/news/1196178_3497.html). Professor Hwang has resigned from the University and is under investigation for potential criminal charges resulting from possible misuse of public funds, and Science has printed a retraction of the two articles (Kennedy D. Science 2006; 311: 335). However, this is but the beginning of the end of this affair. The resolution of a number of currently unresolved questions will impinge, not only on the major players of this incident, but all of us who are involved in biomedical research. One of the major questions arising from this deception is ‘‘How can journals better identify submitted manuscripts that may contain fraudulent data?’’ As has been noted by many prominent scientists, it is almost impossible for reviewers to uncover a well-thought-out deception. However, there are some things that can be done. One of these actions relates to the frequent use of such software programs as Adobe PhotoShopt to manipulate photomicrographs, gel photographs, and blots. Software is currently being developed to analyze digital files with algorithms that can detect changes in a figure that are restricted to a single site or sites. This manipulation could be an attempt to alter the scientific content of the figure. Because of this, selected journals, e.g., Journal of Cell Biology, have issued guidelines that state that manipulation of digital files must only involve actions that affect the entire file. In this way, one can legitimately alter the contrast or background of a figure to enhance, but not alter the relative intensity of any given blot or photographic feature. Once these algorithms become more refined, we at Wound Repair and Regeneration intend to utilize this software to ensure the veracity of our articles. Another issue raised by the May 2005 Science article (Hwang WS, et al. Science 2005; 308: 1777–83) is one of authorship or more specifically, when should a contributor’s name be listed as an author? For this article, which had 25 authors, the final author was not from the Seoul laboratory, but rather Professor Gerald Schatten. Dr. Schatten is a Professor and Vice-Chair of the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, and Director of the Division of Developmental and Regenerative Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical School. Questions have been raised as to exactly what he contributed to this article that was retracted due to fraud (Guterman L. Chron Higher Edu 2006; 52: A15, A18–9). As the presumptive senior author (he was the final author of the article), he should have been intimately involved in the writing of the paper and the data that went into the article. Because of this, Professor Schatten’s role in this affair is being investigated by a committee at the University of Pittsburgh. No matter what the outcome of this investigation, his reputation is most likely permanently blemished, potentially only because he lent his name to a friend. However, this highlights the essential nature of a journal’s insistence that names listed on a manuscript reflect individuals who actively contributed to the work being described. Honorary authors may find out that the notoriety they receive is not the kind they were expecting. In response to this case, we are reviewing our written policies on authorship, and if need be, adopt a more proscriptive approach to identification of each author’s contribution to a submitted manuscript. Let us hope that introduction of relatively modest policy and software screens enables the scientific community to ensure the veracity of the scientific literature; if not, we all lose one of the most important attributes in science—trust.