ArticleScience and engineering ethics2009
The legacy of the Hwang case: research misconduct in biosciences.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Institutional capacity to prevent and manage research misconduct: perspectives from Kenyan research regulators.Research integrity and peer review · 2023Article
- The Embassy of Good Science - a community driven initiative to promote ethics and integrity in research.Open research Europe · 2022Article
- Research Integrity Among PhD Students at the Faculty of Medicine: A Comparison of Three Scandinavian Universities.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2020Article
- Perceptions of occurrence of research misconduct and related factors among Kenyan investigators engaged in HIV research.Accountability in research · 2020Article
- In Their Own Words: Research Misconduct from the Perspective of Researchers in Malaysian Universities.Science and engineering ethics · 2018Article
- Stewardship of Integrity in Scientific Communication.Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2018Article
- Towards a Systematic Screening Tool for Quality Assurance and Semiautomatic Fraud Detection for Images in the Life Sciences.Science and engineering ethics · 2017Article
- Why Correcting the Literature with Errata and Retractions is Good Medical Practice?Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2014Article
- Hype and public trust in science.Science and engineering ethics · 2013Article
- Ethical modernization: research misconduct and research ethics reforms in Korea following the Hwang affair.Science and engineering ethics · 2013Article
- Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?PloS one · 2013Article
- An analysis on the research ethics cases managed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) between 1997 and 2010.Science and engineering ethics · 2012Article
- A retrospective analysis of the trend of retracted publications in the field of biomedical and life sciences.Science and engineering ethics · 2011Article
- Judge the article, not the author.Croatian medical journal · 2010Article
- International perspectives on plagiarism and considerations for teaching international trainees.Urologic oncologyReview
- Misconduct in Biomedical Research: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper focuses on the infamous case of Hwang Woo Suk, the South-Korean national hero and once celebrated pioneer of stem cell research. After briefly discussing the evolution of his publication and research scandal in Science, I will attempt to outline the main reactions that emerged within scientific and bioethical discourses on the problem of research misconduct in contemporary biosciences. What were the ethical lapses in his research? What kind of research misconduct has been identified? How this kind of misconduct affects scientific integrity? How to avoid it? Focusing on these questions, the paper interprets the Hwang's case as a case study that might shed light on the worst aspects of highstakes global science. This case presents a group of problems that might endanger scientific integrity and public trust. Regulatory oversight, ethical requirements and institutional safeguards are often viewed by the scientific community as merely decelerating scientific progress and causing delays in the application of treatments. The Hwang's case represents how unimpeded progress works in contemporary science. Thus, the case might shed light on the often neglected benefits of "the social control of science".
Indexed as
Identifiers
19247809What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.