When you purchase through links on our site , we may earn an affiliate commission . Here ’s how it work .
Updated 2:09 p.m. ET
Three years after being charge for humbug , misuse country pecuniary resource and violate bioethics police force , disgrace South Korean stem mobile phone researcher Hwang Woo - suk was convicted today on some but not all charges .
Cervical Cancer Vaccine Shows Promise
The court regulate he had partly fabricated the research results , according to medium paper , but since he has repent the homage handed down a 2 - twelvemonth suspend sentence .
Hwang ’s team in 2004 lay claim to have cloned human embryonic stem cells . But the scientist fabricated of the essence information , and even researchers working on the project did n’t know the results had been wangle .
While Hwang ’s case has become one of the most notorious model of breakthrough gone speculative , even well - done and above - board wellness and aesculapian studies have a history of being incorrect , in part because the scientific process allows for publication of data that may appear to let on a breakthrough , even though subsequent inquiry might show just the inverse .
A work in 2005 , published in the Journal of the American Medical Association , bump that one - third of all aesculapian study turn out to be improper .
Even common existing treatments can be found useless years after they ’re widely accept by the medical profession and the world . In 2007 , scientists evidence thathoney works easily than cough medicinesin comfort children ’s coughs .
Another study this yr revealed that conflict of interest oftentaint aesculapian field . The research , detail in the June 15 issue of the journal Cancer , found that 29 percent of Crab inquiry published in high - visibility journal had expose a conflict of interest . Those conflicts , moreover , seem to affect how studies were conducted . Research that had manufacture support , for example , focalize on discussion 62 percent of the time , while studies not fund by industry focalise on discussion only 36 percent of the time .
Even honorable study can be mucked up by the medium , which tend to latch on to the juiciest stuff and squeeze all they can out of it , not always describe the come - up subject area in which the plug dry out up . The result : distortion , albeit often unintentional .
Many studies produce determination that are incremental or relatively unimportant , yet the publicity machine at institution are eager to promote their researchers ' study , and journalists do n’t always do their job to the full to dig into the setting that reveals a work ’s rightful significance , or lack thereof .
For example , a review in 2006 found that much of what you read regarding health research lacks important context . Specifically , themedia often miss introductory factsin stories they report from professional aesculapian conference , the study concluded . That ’s partly because enquiry disclose at conferences often has not been publish in peer - refresh journals , where such circumstance is required and where outlandish claims are often quashed .
Then again , Hwang ’s hypothecate find in 2005 was publish in Science , one of the most well-thought-of journals around .
