다음은  프런티어타임스  http://www.frontiertimes.co.kr  에 있는 기사임. 이 기사 아래에 뉴욕타임스 (12월 25일) 기사를 올림.    황 교수 논문조작, 정부가 있기에 가능? 입력 : 2005-12-26 11:59:32      편집 : 2005-12-26 12:03:35   황우석 교수의 논문조작이 가능했던 것은 황 교수가 한국정부의 관대한 지원을 얻는데 성공한 것 등 여러 가지 요소가 복합적으로 작용했기 때문이라고 뉴욕타임스가 25일(현지시간) 보도했다. 뉴욕타임스는 황 교수가 어떻게 그 많은 사람들을 속이고 그렇게 빨리 명성을 얻었다가 한순간에 무너질 수 있었는지 의문스럽다면서 나름대로 이번 황 교수의 논문조작이 가능했던 이유를 분석했다. ▲ 뉴욕타임즈는 25일 황우석 교수의 논문조작은 한국 정부의 영향이 크게 작용했다고 보도했다.     뉴욕타임스는 우선 황 교수가 6천500만달러의 정부 연구자금을 얻어낸 것은 물론 과학기술부로부터는 '제1호 최고과학자'로 꼽히는 등 한국정부 지지를 이끌어내는데 성공한 점을 꼽았다. 신문은 식물학자 출신인 박기영 청와대 정보과학기술보좌관이 지난 2004년 논문의 공동저자로 이름을 올린 것 자체가 황 교수가 얼마나 정부와 밀접한 관계를 유지했는가를 보여주는 사례라고 지적했다. 두 번째로는 황 교수팀을 방문한 많은 미국학자들에게 감명을 줬던 분야별로 세분화된 연구조직이 결과적으로 전체 연구실적에 대한 내부감시 또는 확인을 어렵게 했던 것으로 보인다고 뉴욕타임스는 분석했다. 여기에 세계적인 과학논문을 유치하기 위한 사이언스와 네이처의 경쟁도 황 교수의 논문조작을 가능케 했던 한 요소로 지목되고 있다. 두 과학잡지는 기본적으로 신뢰를 토대로 논문의 결론이 제출된 데이터에 따른 것인가를 검증할 뿐 사기나 조작의 가능성을 조사하지는 않기 때문에 이번과 같은 일이 일어났다고 변명하고 있지만 논문유치 경쟁으로 황 교수 논문에 대한 검증을 제대로 하지 않았다는 비난을 피할 길이 없을 것으로 보인다. 이와 관련, 필립 켐벨 네이처 편집장은 스너피 복제에 대한 논문을 조사하고 있다면서 논문심사를 적절하게 했는지, 논문심사 기준 변경 필요성은 없는지 등을 검토할 것이라고 밝혔다. 뉴욕타임스는 또한 황 교수가 외국의 다른 과학자들이 충분한 난자를 확보했다면 자신들도 이뤄낼 수 있었을 것으로 생각하고 있는 분야에 대한 진전을 보고했다는 것도 많은 사람들이 황 교수의 연구결과를 별다른 의심 없이 받아들이게 된 이유인 것 같다고 말했다. 신문은 어떤 논문에 대한 궁극적인 검증작업은 다른 연구실에서도 재현되느냐 여부라면서 이번 한국 내에서 일어난 일이 아니더라도 다른 연구실에서 황 교수의 실험을 재현하는데 계속 실패했다면 황 교수 연구논문에 대한 의혹이 제기됐을 것이라고 설명했다. 그러나 이번 논란이 일어나기 전에 다른 연구실에서도 인간줄기세포 복제에 성공했다면 모든 공은 황 교수에게 돌아갔을 것이라고 신문은 부연했다. 한편 뉴욕타임스는 황 교수 논문조작이 한국 내 젊은 과학자들의 문제제기와 서울대학교 자체조사에 의해 밝혀졌다는 점에도 불구하고 이번 사건으로 한국 과학계의 신뢰도 손상은 불가피할 것으로 보인다고 말했다.(연합) 프런티어타임스   ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 다음은 뉴욕타임스  http://www.nytimes.com  에 있는 기사임. December 25, 2005 Clone Scientist Relied on Peers and Korean Pride By NICHOLAS WADE When Dr. Hwang Woo Suk's recent reports of advances in cloning research were declared to have been fabricated on Friday, his disgrace left scientists wondering how he had risen so fast, deceived so many and fallen so hard. Dr. Hwang, a South Korean veterinary researcher who had climbed to a pinnacle of international visibility, took more than his own reputation down with him. The South Korean government, which promoted Dr. Hwang as a national hero and an international celebrity, has seen its investment wasted. The leading scientific journals that vied to publish Dr. Hwang's work are re-examining their acceptance procedures. And although Dr. Hwang's laboratory was just one of many working on stem cell research, the widespread impression he created that success in therapeutic cloning was imminent can now be seen to have rested on false pretenses. The panel of inquiry set up by Seoul National University said in an interim report issued Friday that Dr. Hwang had falsified data for 9 of the 11 patient-derived embryonic stem cell colonies he reported in Science this June. As to the two existing colonies, the committee does not yet know whether they were derived from patients, as Dr. Hwang said, or from fertilized human eggs. In addition, the main premise of Dr. Hwang's article, that he could perform human cloning very efficiently, with just a few human eggs, was untrue. The committee said he used far more eggs than he reported. The panel is also reviewing Dr. Hwang's 2004 claim in which he was apparently the first to clone human cells. If that also proves false, the goal of therapeutic cloning - repairing patients' cells with their own tissues - may be considerably further off than it seemed a few months ago. How did Dr. Hwang manage to rise so quickly in the scientific firmament and convince so many leading experts that his work was sound? Three ingredients of his ascent were attracting generous support from the South Korean government, compartmentalizing his laboratory so that few others had any overall view of what was going on and reporting plausible advances that scientists abroad felt they, too, might have achieved if they had access to as many human eggs as Dr. Hwang obtained. In addition, Dr. Hwang invited well-known American researchers to be co-authors on his articles, which he may have hoped would make his findings more acceptable to leading journals like Science and Nature. He even invited Dr. Gerald Schatten, a stem cell expert at the University of Pittsburgh, to be the lead author on the June 2005 report although Dr. Schatten had done none of the experiments. But Dr. Donald Kennedy, the editor of Science, said the inclusion of American co-authors "certainly did not affect us." The starting point of Dr. Hwang's rise to fame was his skill in making the South Korean system work for him. The government had invested about $65 million in his research before the collapse came, and the Ministry of Science and Technology had acclaimed him as an "Outstanding Korean Scientist." The Health and Welfare Ministry promised to provide $15 million next year to set up a World Stem Cell Hub in which Dr. Hwang's technicians would have cloned human cells for scientific customers abroad. An indication of Dr. Hwang's good connections to the government was the inclusion of Dr. Park Ky Young as a co-author of his 2004 report on human cloning. A botanist by training, Dr. Park may not have contributed much scientifically to the task of cloning of human cells. She is, however, the science adviser to Roh Moo Hyun, the president of South Korea. The frequent American visitors to Dr. Hwang's growing operation were impressed at the scale and skill of his operation and how he divided his scientists into task forces that specialized in each step of the cloning process. But this compartmentalization may have meant that not all of his co-workers knew what was going on. Few seem to have seen the colonies of embryonic cells Dr. Hwang said he had cloned from patients. Outside of South Korea, the debacle has left a bitter taste with scientists who trusted Dr. Hwang's work. "It's a sad business," said Dr. Kennedy, the Science editor. "We don't feel like it's our best day." Science and Nature, two leading journals that compete with each other in publishing striking scientific advances, accepted reports from Dr. Hwang. But Science is now reviewing the accuracy of articles of 2004 and 2005 in which Dr. Hwang said he had cloned human cells, and Nature is re-examining his claim to have cloned a dog, which he named Snuppy. "We are investigating the Snuppy paper and will review whether we and referees acted appropriately, and whether standards should change," said Dr. Philip Campbell, the editor of Nature. A question both journals have considered is that of whether their editors and reviewers should have caught the errors in Dr. Hwang's papers before publication. But as in past cases of fraud, the journals' editors and other scientists assert that their system depends basically on trust and that reviewers can check only whether a report's conclusions follow from the data presented. "Peer review is not set up to test for fraud," Dr. Campbell said. "It is set up to provide expert assessment of the scientific credibility and reliability of what scientists report, taking the report itself in good faith." Dr. Kennedy noted that journals often published articles that were later shown to be innocently in error. "The public needs to understand that the journals and peer review are not perfect," he said. Reviewers can, however, recommend that the author provide more data if they are dissatisfied on any point. Science's reviewers asked Dr. Hwang to furnish DNA fingerprints showing that each of his embryonic cell colonies had the same DNA fingerprint as the patient from whom they were said to be derived. Dr. Hwang sent in pairs of fingerprints, some of which had the identical background noise, suggesting the same print was being presented twice. But this anomaly was noticed only later by Dr. Hwang's critics. Nature's reviewers did not ask Dr. Hwang to provide evidence that would have proved Snuppy was cloned from another dog. Dr. Campbell said that Nature, as part of its investigation of the article, would consider whether its standards of proof should be changed in the future. Dr. Hwang's failure may have repercussions on the standing of South Korean science. "Clearly the scientific credibility of Korean investigators has been compromised," said Dr. John Gearhart, a stem cell expert at Johns Hopkins University and a member of Science's board of reviewers. He referred to the fact that duplicate and misidentified photos had turned up in articles by other South Korean authors besides Dr. Hwang. Dr. Kennedy said, "You cannot avoid a sense of taint from an experience like this." He added, however, that many leading American universities had had at least one case of scientific fraud. It was also South Koreans who took the lead in detecting Dr. Hwang's falsifications. Dr. Zach Hall, president of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, noted that young South Korean scientists had brought to light many problems with Dr. Hwang's papers in Web site postings, and that Seoul National University seemed to be conducting a vigorous inquiry. The ultimate test of a scientific claim is whether other laboratories independently confirm it. Some scientists have argued that even if Dr. Hwang's errors had remained undetected by the scientific journals and their readers, his work would have fallen under suspicion if no one could repeat it. However, if other scientists had succeeded in cloning human cells before any challenge had emerged to Dr. Hwang's work, it is not so clear that he would have been exposed. "If the procedure works indeed and other labs would have repeated it, the credit would have gone to Hwang," said Dr. Rudolf Jaenisch of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass. The people best situated to detect scientific problems are those inside the laboratory who see the raw data being generated and have some practical reason for suspicion. As in many other cases of scientific fraud this was true of Dr. Hwang's, too. It was a whistle-blower in Dr. Hwang's lab who informed the South Korean television network MBC of problems in his work, and that led South Korean journalists to begin to investigate. But for the whistle-blower, Dr. Hwang might well be continuing his meteoric career on the wings of his reports in Science and Nature.