Author: Jon Merz
Date: 02-11-06 08:45
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer
URL: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/health/13844895.htm
Date published: February 11th 2006
From Haavi Morreim:
Posted on Sat, Feb. 11, 2006
Cloning expert at Pitt rebuked
A panel of peers cited "serious failure" in his role in a now-infamous S.
Korean stem-cell hoax.
By Marie McCullough
Inquirer Staff Writer
University of Pittsburgh scientist Gerald Schatten did not help falsify a
fraudulent South Korean stem-cell paper, but he did cut corners, seek
personal gain, and shirk his responsibility to verify the research, a school
investigative panel has concluded.
Schatten's "serious failure" to properly vet the manuscript "facilitated the
publication of falsified experiments in Science magazine," the panel wrote
in its nine-page report, released yesterday.
"While this failure would not strictly constitute research misconduct... it
would be an example of research misbehavior."
In that sensational June 2005 paper, Hwang Woo Suk's group at Seoul National
University claimed to have taken a major step toward the dream of stem-cell
therapy. The scientists said they had created the world's first cloned human
embryos, then extracted stem cells genetically matched to sick patients.
After a former colleague alleged fakery, South Korean investigators found
evidence in December that Hwang fabricated virtually all the data. His
reputation plunged from national hero to international disgrace, and Science
retracted the article amid soul-searching by researchers and ethicists about
the scientific review process.
The Pittsburgh panel, composed of six fellow faculty members, absolved
Schatten of intentional wrongdoing but found his actions self-serving.
Schatten and Hwang first met at an international stem-cell conference in
December 2003. Soon after, Schatten helped Hwang revise a manuscript that
had been rejected by Science. Schatten was successful in lobbying the
journal to publish it.
Schatten nominated Hwang for prestigious honors, accepted $40,000 worth of
"honoraria" from Hwang in part for attending a news conference, proposed
that Hwang underwrite some of his Pittsburgh laboratory's stem-cell research
with $200,000, and applied for patents that piggybacked on the Koreans'
technology.
The panel concluded that Schatten began collaborating with Hwang on what
would become the 2005 Science paper "not only to help a colleague whom he
admired, but also to gain some... reputational enhancement" from a potential
breakthrough.
Schatten was listed as the last of the paper's 25 authors, an eminent
position reserved for the "senior author" - the scientist who not only helps
conduct the research but acts as a team manager and key writer.
Schatten did not participate in Hwang's experiments or even visit the
Korean's lab, yet he "did most of the writing" and revisions of the paper,
the panel said.
More disturbing, Schatten exaggerated in a cover letter submitted to Science
with the manuscript, saying that all the authors had read and approved the
manuscript. In fact, many did not read the paper until it was published
online, the panel said.
"We cannot rule out the possibility that if more authors had reviewed that
manuscript they would have noted and reported the falsification and
fabrication," the panel wrote.
Scientists not involved in the debacle agreed.
"He was putting his name and his reputation on the line in the letter to
Science," said Lorraine Iacovitti, a stem-cell researcher at Thomas
Jefferson University. "Had everyone seen the paper, [the fakery] probably
would have bubbled to the surface much quicker - maybe even before
publication."
"In science," said Ken Zaret, a molecular geneticist at Fox Chase Cancer
Center, "it's understood that the senior author and the first author should
have a primary role in generating the data."
To Schatten's credit, he immediately cut off his collaboration with Hwang in
November, when he found out Hwang had used - and lied about using - eggs
from a junior lab associate, an ethical lapse that raised concerns about
coercion, the panel said. Schatten also was among the first to urge Science
to disavow the paper.
However, the panel faulted Schatten for trying to minimize his role in
producing the paper in an effort to distance himself from Hwang. This effort
was in "sharp contrast" to Schatten's "full participation... in the media
spotlight following publication of the paper."
University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan commended the panel's
report, although it lacked detail about a potential conflict of interest.
"They failed to say whether Dr. Schatten's patent applications clouded his
judgment on the paper," Caplan said.
The panel left any further corrective action to the discretion of Arthur
Levine, dean of Pitt's School of Medicine.
Whatever the dean does, Schatten's ability to publish, collaborate and get
grants is likely to be affected, at least temporarily, Iacovitti said.
"He's going to pay a price, whether from the dean's office or not," she
said.
To review the report, go to http://go.philly.com/PittReport
Contact staff writer Marie McCullough at 215-854-2720 or
mmccullough@phillynews.com.
© 2006 Philadelphia Inquirer and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.philly.com
|
|
