Lista em ordem decrescente dos fatos sobre o tema, organizada pela Revista Science
The following statement concerns two papers published in Science by Dr. Woo Suk Hwang et al.:
• “Evidence of a Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cell Line Derived from a Cloned Blastocyst” (February 12, 2004, Science Express; March 12, 2004, Science); and
• “Patient-Specific Embryonic Stem Cells Derived from Human SCNT Blastocysts” (May 19 2005, Science Express; June 17, 2005, Science).
Dr. Hwang was the lead author on both of these papers. Dr. Gerald Schatten of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center was a co-author on the 2005 paper only.
Science editors have been assessing a series of issues related to these papers. “The journal welcomes investigations being conducted by institutional authorities in Korea, as well as the inquiry now underway at the University of Pittsburgh,” Science's Editor-in-Chief Dr. Donald Kennedy said 14 December 2005, in response to ongoing questions. “The journal itself is not an investigative body, but we await answers from the authors, as well as official conclusions, before we can come to any ourselves. We are doing our best to follow these fast-moving developments, and we will continue, as best we can, to keep the scientific community informed.” The specific chronology of events is as follows:
(14.) 16 December 2005, 10:00 am U.S. ET -- Several hours prior to Dr. Woo Suk Hwang's press conference in Seoul, Science Editorial received direct communication, by telephone, from him and Dr. Gerald Schatten, the lead authors of the 2005 paper. They said they wish to retract the paper ("Patient-Specific Embryonic Stem Cells Derived from Human SCNT Blastocysts," May 19 2005, Science Express; June 17, 2005, Science). Science's stated policy is that all authors must agree to any retraction, and Dr. Hwang has assured us that he is contacting his coauthors. Science editors will honor the authors' request and assist them in preparing a retraction. Science Editorial continues to follow and encourage the official investigations now underway and will have no comment on them until the investigations have been completed.
(13.) 15 December, 11:20 am U.S. ET – All authors must formally request a retraction in writing for Science to retract a paper. Neither Dr. Hwang nor any of the co-authors have requested a retraction. Science editors have asked Dr. Hwang and his co-authors for clarification regarding unconfirmed news reports about requests for retraction.
(12.) 13 December, 4:45 pm U.S. ET -- Science editors confirmed that they have now received a letter from eight scientists, stating that “accusations made in the press about the validity of the experiments published in South Korea are, in our opinion, best resolved within the scientific community.” The letter, signed by Ian Wilmut of Edinburgh University and others, states: “We encourage Hwang's laboratory to cooperate with us to perform an independent test of his cell lines to determine their nuclear and mitochondrial genotype in comparison with the donors of the original cells.” At 6:00 p.m. U.S. Eastern Time, Science published this letter on its Science Express site.
(11.) 13 December – Science Editorial today confirmed that the journal Science has received a letter from Dr. Gerald Schatten of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Science editors have chosen not to release this letter because it contains unsubstantiated allegations, along with Dr. Schatten's request that he be removed as a co-author of Dr. Hwang's 2005 paper. Retraction of a paper requires the agreement of all authors. There is no mechanism for retracting authorship. No single author, having declared at the time of submission his full and complete confidence in the contents of the paper, can retract his name unilaterally, after publication, and while inquiries are still underway by the Korean authors. Unlike Dr. Schatten, the Korean authors have direct contact with the conduct of the experiments. “We continue to take this issue seriously,” Dr. Kennedy said, “and we are following developments both in South Korea and at the University of Pittsburgh.”
(10.) 9 December -- Science Editorial was continuing to review and respond to inquiries about the papers by Dr. Hwang and colleagues. Science editors asked the authors for further information about questions regarding images and DNA fingerprinting records included as Supplemental Online Material. Science will disclose new information as that becomes possible. Contrary to reports that have come to editors' attention, Science has never asked Dr. Hwang or anyone not to respond to press inquiries, nor has Science discouraged him from seeking independent replication of his findings.
(9.) On Monday 5 December, University of Pittsburgh officials said they had opened a preliminary inquiry after learning some high-resolution stem-cell images in the 2005 Science paper were duplicates, according to news
accounts.
(8.) On 4 December, Dr. Hwang contacted Science editors at 11:29 p.m. Eastern Time to alert us to erroneous duplications in some images published as part of the Supporting Online Material for the 2005 paper. Specifically, Dr. Hwang reported that “we made some unintentional error by using about 4 pictures redundantly.” The images in question were labeled: SSEA-3 of NT-hESC-3 and NT-hESC-8; SSEA-1 of NT-hESC-5 and NT-hESC-6; SSEA-4 of NT-hESC-9 and TRA-1-60 of NT-hESC-11; and SSEA-1 of NThESC-7 and NT-hESC-11. After an investigation of the e-mail, database and paper trail between editors and authors, Science determined that the redundant images noted above did not appear in the PDF version of the paper accepted on 12 May. In preparation for publishing on Science Express and in print, the editors had requested from the corresponding author, Dr. Schatten, high resolution images for all the figures. These author-provided high resolution images were received on 10 May and incorporated into a new PDF on 12 May for posting in the 19 May Science Express version. Some of the high resolution images did not match images that were in the version of the paper that peer-reviewers had seen and Science editors had accepted. On 13 May, the editor forwarded the new PDF with the high resolution images to the authors to ensure that the assembled files were correct. Unfortunately, the authors did not notice that the incorporated high resolution files contained the figure errors. Science has e-mailed Dr. Schatten and Dr. Hwang to request that they check their files to confirm this sequence of events and to shed light on the genesis of the high-resolution file. “There is no reason to believe at the moment that it is a problem that affects the scientific outcome of the paper,” Dr. Kennedy said in response to questions about the redundant images.
(7.) On 4 December, media outlets reported that the Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) had publicly apologized for reporting tactics related to a 22 November, PD Diary program, “The Myth of Hwang Woo-suk and Suspicions over Eggs.” It was further reported that the Foundation of Broadcast Culture met the following day with Choi Mun-sun, the president of MBC, to discuss questions about the ethics of reporting methods associated with the segment on Dr. Hwang.
(6.) On 1 December, Dr. Moon-il Park, Director and Chair of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) on Human Subjects Research and Ethics Committees, Hanyang University Hospital, e-mailed Dr. Kennedy regarding the results of an investigation jointly carried out by the hospital IRB and the college of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University IRB. Dr. Park indicated that his findings had been submitted to the Ministry of Health and Welfare and National Bioethics Committee (NBC). Dr. Park's e-mail concluded that, contrary to information originally given to Science: “After the investigation for the research conducted from late 2002 through late 2003 and published in issue of February 2004 of Science, we found out that 1) two researchers under Dr. Woo Suk Hwang's supervision donated oocytes voluntarily without any coercion and 2) approximately US$1,445 was paid for direct expenses.” Dr. Moon noted, however, that payment for ova donations was not illegal in Korea until January 2005, after the first paper was published. Further, the group concluded that Dr. Hwang's research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Guidelines of 1964, which prohibit coercion of research subjects. “We strongly believe that the identified concerns have no impact on the validity of the scientific conclusions,” Dr. Park concluded.
(5.) Beginning on 22 November, Science's press office began to receive reporter calls regarding numerous different versions of charges that apparently had been made by a Korean television station, Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation's (MBC) “PD Diary” program. “None of these allegations have been credible,” Dr. Kennedy said in response to questions about the MBC broadcast. “Until a specific, scientifically based claim against Dr. Hwang's findings is reported to us, we will not offer speculations.”
(4.) Meanwhile, in an unrelated development, authors of the 2005 paper provided Science with corrections to data contained within one table (Table 2). The corrected table was promptly published on Science's Web site, and was readied for print publication. Science Editor-in-Chief Donald Kennedy said at the time: “It is our understanding that the correction of the table does not significantly alter the paper's primary conclusion that patient-specific embryonic stem cells were derived from human SCNT-blastocysts.”
(3.) A formal statement by Dr. Schatten and the University of Pittsburgh was issued on November 12, 2005.
(2.) A day later, on 11 November, Dr. Schatten informed us that because he had come to believe that Dr. Hwang had misrepresented facts about consent issues related to the 2004 paper, he would not be able to work with Dr. Hwang in the future. Because this information was provided by Dr. Schatten, who had not been a co-author on the 2004 paper, Science Editorial asked Dr. Hwang to inform us of any concerns regarding his research. Dr. Hwang responded to say he was looking into the matter. We further urged Dr. Schatten to notify all appropriate institutional authorities about his concerns related to the 2004 paper.
(1.) On Thursday, 10 November, Science was alerted by Dr. Schatten of reports in the Korean press, alleging that researcher Dr. Sung-Il Roh had illegally traded ova. Dr. Roh is a co-author on Dr. Hwang's 2005 paper, and he is acknowledged for assisting with part of the research related to the 2004 paper. Dr. Schatten reassurred us that “none of the oocytes used in Prof. Hwang's 04 or 05 SCIENCE papers were obtained from reimbursed women donors.
