PressEthic

The journal Science is considered to be one of the world’s most prestigious academic journals. Its estimated readership is one million people and the journal’s peer-reviewed content is considered the most progressive and relevant information available within the discipline. Less than 10% of all submitted content actually achieves publication in the journal.

Korean researcher Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk awed the scientific world in 2004 when he claimed to have achieved unparalleled advancements within the field - the ability to clone human embryos and obtain stem cells. The news met the journal’s presumably rigorous standards and the publication of Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk’s findings in the journal in 2004 and 2005 ignited the scientific world.

In a shocking retraction, it was revealed that Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk’s assertions were entirely fabricated.

An article in The New York Times details the journal’s response to the humiliating scandal:

The fraud came to light not through any of the formal checking procedures in the scientific process, but because a whistle-blower in Dr. Hwang’s lab spoke to the South Korean television station MBC. Like other scientific journals, Science has long taken the position that its reviewing procedures work well but cannot be expected to detect deliberate fraud, and therefore no change is necessary. But the spectacular nature of the fraud prompted deeper than usual soul-searching on the part of leading journals.

A Science appointed panel determined that the fraudulent reports could have been prevented if the journal had employed more rigorous review measures:

After reviewing the paper record of how the Hwang reports were handled, a panel led by John I. Brauman, a chemist at Stanford University, yesterday recommended four changes in Science’s procedures. A risk-assessment method should be developed to flag high-visibility papers for further review, the panel said. Also, authors should specify their individual contributions to a paper, a reform aimed at Dr. Hwang’s stratagem of allowing another researcher, Gerald Schatten of the University of Pittsburgh, to be lead author of one of the reports even though Dr. Schatten had done none of the experiments. The panel advised online publication of more of the raw data on which a scientific report is based.

The panel further recommended that all academic journals employ similarly stringent standards in order to deter frauds from attempting publication in more lax periodicals.

This story is evidence that unethical behavior and fabrication permeates all forms of media. The disgraced scientist is similar to the numerous disgraced journalists of our day, and Science faces the same embarrassment and inquiries into its credibility as The Times did amidst the Blair scandal.

The published written word is an absolute and powerful tool, when abused the results can be catastrophic. Never more so than now, the credibility and integrity of journalists is critical to the profession.