Dolly creature Prof. Ian Wilmut thinks Prof. Hwang Woo-suk shouldn’t get a second chance.
-
English Books on Korea... and More!
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
One for Baduk
This entry was written by Robert Koehler, posted on February 1, 2006 at 4:08 pm, filed under South Korea. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
14 Comments
Some commenter at “DC inside Science gallery”, the website frequented by young scientists who exposed Hwang, suggested that Hwang should be sent overseas.
Since England wants to be the leader in this sordid business of making Frankenstein, Hwang and his collaborating liars could be sent there with Korean government paying the air fares.
I guess Wilmut, another liar in my book, was worried about this Korean upstart coming to his lair to unseat him as the Grand Wizard of Cloning.
I thought you’d get a kick out of that one, Baduk.
Many young Korean scientists and I do not believe that SNUPPY is a cloned dog. There are many questions about the dog, including lack of photographs on the dog’s birth, baby phase, or any other times.
The dog suddenly was shown to the press as a cloned dog. No media coverage up to the day SNUPPY, as a fully-grown dog, appeared. Strange to the max!
With Hwang’s track record, it will be rather strange if SNUPPY is real.
Ian Wilmut is the British Hwang. He will bilk the British taxpayers for million and billions.
Anyway, thank you, Marmot, for recognizing my strong interest in this area. I feel like a celebrity.
Second chance? Shouldn’t he at best be cloning cockroaches in some minimum security correctional facility?
Baduk, you are a celebrity. Your analysis of Hwang has been consistently excellent.
“Many young Korean scientists and I do not believe that SNUPPY is a cloned dog. There are many questions about the dog, including lack of photographs on the dog?? birth, baby phase, or any other times.”
If a tree fell in the woods and no one was around to see it, did a tree fall in the woods? The reason why we (the public) havent seen such evidence was because the scandal storm happened soon afterwards. If there was no scandal, I’m sure we would have seen such evidence in due time. But now all documents, records, etc, is in the hands of the investigators.
“The dog suddenly was shown to the press as a cloned dog. No media coverage up to the day SNUPPY, as a fully-grown dog, appeared. Strange to the max!”
The dog is not a fully-grown dog. It was born in April 2005, so it’s not even a year old.
“With Hwang?? track record, it will be rather strange if SNUPPY is real.”
Do you realize the full extent of what you are saying here? The SNU investigative committee was the one who determined that Snuppy was genuine, while the other two claims by Hwang were false. If you say that Snuppy is false also, you’re not just saying that Hwang’s credibility is even shittier than what it already is right now. You’re also, in part, disputing the findings of the SNU investigative committee.
I understand that you are against Hwang and stem cell research in general. But if you are gonna agree or disgree with the investigative findings, either agree or disagree in its entirety. Dont partially agree with that which fits your agneda and disgree with the one that doesnt. You cant have your cake and eat it too.
Bit slow there Marmot guy. Kushibo had this days ago.
As I posted on his site:
Hwang should be hung upside down by his testicles and slowly lowered into a vat of boiling rat urine.
The man is evil, through and through. He gave hope to so many that had none, then crushed it into a bloody pulp by his heinous behavior. He is a pox on society.
bluejives,
The SNU committee is comprised of college professors who are members of SNU. They have much to protect, the biggest among them, the reputation of the university.
You suggest that I take the findings as whole truths or all lies. Why? Haven’t you ever had a situation where people tell half-truths? Some findings are correct, but they could also sneak in some half-baked truths for their benefit.
Only yesterday, one member of the committee notified the newspapers that KwonDaeKi, the main researcher under Hwang, confessed that Hwang told him to lie about DNA matching test. This is the crucial piece of evidence. Yet, the committee did not make it public. Their excuse is that his testimony contradicted Hwang’s. So, they left it out from the report!!!!! The most important and crucial accusation about Hwang’s deceit. Left out!
SNU committee did a decent job. Yet, they are still politically motivated by the nature of the committee. Their findings about SNUPPY have holes. I am not the only one asking these questions.
Bluejives:??o you realize the full extent of what you are saying here? The SNU investigative committee was the one who determined that Snuppy was genuine, while the other two claims by Hwang were false. If you say that Snuppy is false also, you??e not just saying that Hwang?? credibility is even shittier than what it already is right now. You??e also, in part, disputing the findings of the SNU investigative committee…I understand that you are against Hwang and stem cell research in general. But if you are gonna agree or disgree with the investigative findings, either agree or disagree in its entirety. Dont partially agree with that which fits your agneda and disgree with the one that doesnt. You cant have your cake and eat it too.”
Nonsense. Do you understand how science works? Empirical eveidence, not published assertions, determines the credibility of a claim. Until then, all claims are to be met with scepticism.
There is also a widely accepted norm that an investigative body disqualifies itself from an investigation where there is a conflict of interest. SNU’s published statements are of little value without confirmation of independent international agencies with no personal stake in the issue.
The suspicious nature of SNU’s findings is one reason the National Human Genome Research Institute will continue independent testing of Snuppy.
During all this time, when Hwang was systematically fabricating his flights of fantasy, do you think that the people at SNU knew nothing of what was going on? The man has a long history of eggregious false claims that goes back to the 1990s, but somehow the fact that he was bringing in - and handing out - big money, seems to have shut everybody at SNU up.
Now you’re asserting that these same people should be trusted implicitly on the basis of their “authority”? Do you understand that it was precisely this kind of unscientific thinking that got us where we are today with Hwang?
There is too much ambiguity in this statement here. When you mention “empirical evidence” and “published assertions”, who are you refering to, Hwang or the SNU committee? I request that you be more rigorous and specific in your wording.
It is already proven and accepted that Hwang’s credibility is nil. I can accept the notion that if a researcher’s credibility is in doubt, then all of his prior research claims are suspect also, even the ones that weren’t initially called into question.
But I dont care about Hwang’s credibility right now. But I do care when someone starts carelessly suggesting that even the SNU committee’s determinations, which is supposed to shed truth and clarity on the matter, are in doubt. Unless you sat in on that committee and were privy to all the deliberations that went on in there, or conducted your own independent testing of the dog, you are in no position to dispute their findings.
If you are charging that the oversight committee made a mistake (or even perhaps additional fraud, on top of Hwang’s) in determining tha validity of Snuppy, then please kindly articulate the full basis of your own claim in a convincing manner with something other than a “because I simply think/feel so…”
Fair enough. But since Hwang’s research was done under the auspices of SNU, they have the primarily responsibility to conduct the investigation when one of their own is charged with academic fraud. It is in SNU’s highest interest as a major research institution to make sure that the investigation was thorough, impartial, and accurate. Miscalculations, sloppiness, or any deliberate fudging even on the investigative part would have seriously compounded an already serious problem caused by Hwang’s fraud and I’m sure they are smart enough to realize that.
Furthermore, independent testing of Snuppy has already been done by the National Human Genome Research Institute.
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/22933/
bluejives,
I read the Ostrander findings before. One thing I like to ask of her is that she had taken the blood samples herself.
The answer, I am afraid, is no.
She received the sample from a SNU professor, who probably got the blood samples from prof. Lee Byung Chun himself. This is where the fraud originates. People trusting others in the loop. A typical con game.
Koreans are very trusting people. They do not think the prof. Lee will lie to the end. But, Dr. Hwang did. And, still do.
This Ostrander girl had better come to Korea and extract the blood samples directly from Tai and Snuppy before she makes this type of “confidence” statement. She is being a part of “con”.
Like Schatten was.
Even I can separate out mitocondria from blood cells, mix in other mitrocondria, and reconstitute the blood.
Or, did she receive the blood samples that are already separated as “nucleus” fraction and “mitocondria” fraction? You never know.
These are the objections pointed out by DC Inside commenters and me.
1) Lack of birth pictures, growing up picture
2) The dog that donated the egg is already killed - cannot do mitocondria matching. A bad record keeping about this egg donator. Almost smells a coverup.
3) How come other groups, in America and in Europe, failed and Dr. Lee succeeded when he is not using any new techniques? (The chopstick trick is already debunked.)
“There is too much ambiguity in this statement here. When you mention ??mpirical evidence??and ??ublished assertions?? who are you refering to, Hwang or the SNU committee? I request that you be more rigorous and specific in your wording.”
The published statements refer to any party related to the scandal, including anyone at SNU.
The only meaningful emperical evidence would be to reproduce the results using the claimed methodologies. Lacking that, the “accomplishment” is just an irrelevant and useless claim.