Select your localized edition:

Close ×

More Ways to Connect

Discover one of our 28 local entrepreneurial communities »

Be the first to know as we launch in new countries and markets around the globe.

Interested in bringing MIT Technology Review to your local market?

MIT Technology ReviewMIT Technology Review - logo


Unsupported browser: Your browser does not meet modern web standards. See how it scores »

{ action.text }

Korean biologists recently made headlines with the first successful step toward therapeutic cloning–the creation of master cells genetically identical to a donor from cloned human embryos. Now the researchers, Woo Suk Hwang and Shin Yong Moon of Seoul National University, face serious questions over the methods used to recruit the egg donors that were critical for the study. In February, the team announced that they had not only successfully cloned human embryos, but also produced stem cells–that is, cells capable of becoming any tissue in the body–from those embryos. The work was hailed worldwide, both for its potential to one day provide patients with replacement cells, tissues, or even organs 100% compatible with their own and as the first rigorously reviewed evidence that such cells could be created.

Today, the journal Nature published a story that raises serious questions over the researchers’ recruiting of 16 volunteer egg donors, an astonishingly high number. Among the allegations: one of the study’s junior authors may have been a donor. Korean citizens’ groups and leading bioethicists are pressuring South Korea’s National Human Rights Commission to investigate.

While the researchers may well be exonerated, the fact that such questions have even been raised only fuels the arguments of those who claim that stem cell and therapeutic cloning research are ethical quagmires and that principled, reputable research in these areas is impossible. If the questions aren’t resolved quickly, the consequences for therapeutic cloning research–and in the U.S., even for unrelated embryonic stem cell research–could be disastrous.

0 comments about this story. Start the discussion »

Reprints and Permissions | Send feedback to the editor

From the Archives


Introducing MIT Technology Review Insider.

Already a Magazine subscriber?

You're automatically an Insider. It's easy to activate or upgrade your account.

Activate Your Account

Become an Insider

It's the new way to subscribe. Get even more of the tech news, research, and discoveries you crave.

Sign Up

Learn More

Find out why MIT Technology Review Insider is for you and explore your options.

Show Me