The trial of Hwang Woo Suk has begun, and it would be a good time to clarify some of the issues to be adjudicated.

Hwang was indicted on charges of fraud, embezzlement and bioethics violations. Hwang has admitted ethical lapses in human egg procurement for his research.

As to embezzlement charges, prosecutors say Hwang used bank accounts held by relatives and subordinates in 2002 and 2003 to receive contributions from private organizations, laundered the money by withdrawing it all in cash, breaking it up into smaller amounts and putting it back in various bank accounts. They claim he bought gifts for his sponsors, politicians and other prominent social figures, and bought a car for his wife.

But it is the fraud charges that are interesting. Prosecutors say they will take no separate action over the fabrication of data in Hwang’s published research. Prosecutors say:

“There is no precedent in the world where someone has been punished for fabricating research results, and the matter should be left to academic mechanisms.”

However, the fraud charge is based on the fabrication of two papers published in the journal Science in 2004 and 2005 that netted Hwang massive research funds. In a 2004 paper in the journal Science, Hwang’s team said they had cloned the first human embryos for research, while in another subsequent article in May 2005, they claimed to have produced the first embryonic tailored stem cells. A University investigation said that Hwang and his collaborators could not provide any proof that he or anyone else on his team could have created the cloned embryonic stem cells, and the data in the published papers was deliberately fabricated. Hwang claims it was a lapse in supervision that lead to publication of fabricated results, while at least one underling claims they were directed to fabricate the now infamous images of cloned cells.

This case is important as there is apparently no precedent of legal punishment for academic fraud, generally being left up to the academic institution. However, prosecutors call for strict punishment, saying the academic fraud was

“a historically significant case capable of ending a widespread practice where academics manipulate research results with impunity”.

It is not clear where the prosecutors obtained evidence of “… a widespread practice where academics manipulate research results with impunity”. Anyway, the crime is not the fabrication of data, but the obtaining of funds under false pretenses, i.e. fraud.

It seems the most serious of the charges is the fraud for accepting 2 billion won (USD2M) in private donations based on the outcome of the falsified research. Thus the funds were given under the false impression that they were capable or carrying out particular procedures, reported in the Science articles.

What would the analogous situation be in the case of a statistical or programming methodology? In my dubious legal opinion it would also fraudulent to accept research grants knowingly based on false statistical claims. Examples of types of claims that might help secure funding, and hence potentially trigger fraud charges include:

• statistical skill or significance of models,
• performance such as efficiency or robustness,
• generality of application of results,
• management of results to appear consistent with past studies,
• failing to include uncertainty in press releases, or
• exaggerating the relevance of research to controversial issues.

The range of claims that could be involved in litigation illustrates how dangerous it is for individual scientists to exaggerate. What is more, when for personal and selfish reasons, scientists decide to misrepresent the truth to promote their agendas, they create immense problems for scientists that are very genuinely honest and truly devoted to the goals and aspirations of true science and present the facts as they may appear. It is not hard to imagine passionately held desires to solve or bring attention to the importance of a problem, could eventually lead to ‘crimes of passion’. Unfortunately they have a way of backfiring.