Comments on: Hwang faked 2004 thesis; Schatten stealin’ patents

By: Horace Jeffery Hodges

Horace Jeffery Hodges — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:51:35 +0000

I don’t recall Baduk’s argument on Snuppy, but I have posted on my blog a question, which for ease of reference, I reproduce here:

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 00:44:20 +0000

I vaguely remember Baduk saying the dog wasn’t cloned, but I’m not going to dig through the comments to find it. It had something to do with a split embryo?

By: kushibo

kushibo — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 00:37:34 +0000

Baduk made claims that Dolly was not real. Does he assert Snuppy is not real either?

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 00:02:34 +0000

SNU said Snuppy is really a cloned mung-mung, so I wonder if this will let Hwang off a little easier.

By: kushibo

kushibo — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:51:45 +0000

Yonhap says that SNU has declared Hwang’s 2004 study also falsified.

By: kushibo

kushibo — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:49:20 +0000

Thanks for that link, Kimbob.

Interesting that these “discredited” scientists seem to think that there is value in their “failed” work.

My favorite quote from the Pittsburgh article was this:”I think that it is outrageous that the University of Pittsburgh refuses to discuss its patent claims on a technology that was funded by the U.S. taxpayers,” said Merrill Goozner, director of the Integrity in Science project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington, D.C.-based science watchdog nonprofit group. I

By: Katz

Katz — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:07:54 +0000

It could clearly see in his face that this Schatten was trying something bad.

By: Kimbob

Kimbob — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 19:05:25 +0000

This is what Pittsburg Tribune says:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/.....11230.html

I’m still scratching my head.