The Cloning Fraud Case Is A Scientific Success Story

A staggering fabrication has been uncovered. This is to our credit, not our shame, says Richard Horton. The devastating fraud committed by Dr Woo Suk Hwang has left scientists dazed and speechless. Not only are they struggling to come to terms with the enormity of his crime (for that is what it is), but they also fear the prospect of a public backlash against stem-cell research. Hwang's fictions do more than set back cloning research by a year or two: he may have permanently tainted the public's view about this critically important sphere of science. Your reports rightly point out the need for a healthy intellectual climate to support and sustain successful science (Stem cell pioneer accused of faking all his research, January 11). They also allude to the competitive pressures that scientists now face, implying that in some way these forces might encourage research fraud. But while this may be true for a very small number of scientists, it is important to put such claims into perspective. The lesson nobody has drawn from the cloning fraud is that science has succeeded, not failed. Scientists have quickly rooted out a fabrication of staggering proportions, a self-correction which is to science's credit, not shame. What other area of society promotes such persistent self-criticism, acknowledges its errors so transparently, and rewrites its record? The public should feel confident that science is able to admit its mistakes and clean up its act. It is also important to put this episode into context. Thousands of research papers are published every year. Scientific activity has never been so great in the history of humankind. This constant cascade of work shows that most of the time science proceeds slowly, quietly and progressively. It would be a grievous error to conclude that something is rotten in the state of science. Finally, there are already calls, even from scientists, for stronger regulation of science to prevent a fraud of this magnitude from recurring. But more regulation is exactly what science does not need. There is already an overwhelming bureaucracy of control that threatens to stifle scientific creativity. The last thing science, one of the most innovative and beneficial areas of public life, needs is more rules, laws and sanctions. Instead, it is important for the way science is done to be more widely appreciated. Here, scientists, and editors of science journals, have done too little. The most reliable knowledge in our lives comes from experiments devised in a state of uncertainty. Checks and balances should be put in place to make sure that biases for or against a particular outcome are excluded. While we often become excited about new discoveries, all research - including that published in prestigious scientific journals - is best seen as provisional. That is, it needs corroboration and replication before it can be accepted as fact. Scepticism protects us from making fools of ourselves. In Hwang's case, we collectively dropped our sceptical guard. The success of science in our culture depends on a bond of trust between scientists and the public. Recent history shows that this trust remains robust and is at the core of science's vital contribution to society. Let's not overreact to one bad episode of deception. Better to understand science's peculiar strengths - and limitations.

Back to news