- Jonathan Gornall, freelance journalist
- London
- Jgornall{at}mac.com
A bitter dispute over the authorship of a twice published medical paper has pitted a 35 year old Korean doctor against one of the most powerful players in the country's struggle for biotech supremacy. The battle is threatening to disrupt Korea's efforts to recover scientific credibility in the wake of the recent scandal over Woo-Sok Hwang's stem cell research.1
On one side is Jeong Hwan Kim, a Korean doctor now working in Singapore. On the other is Kwang Yul Cha, a fertility specialist with important medical business interests in Korea and the United States and an emerging front runner in the race to inherit the disgraced Hwang's crown as Korea's foremost stem cell research pioneer.
Dr Kim claims a paper about premature ovarian failure that he originally published in the Korean Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in January 20042 was translated and republished in the American journal Fertility and Sterility under a different title and with different authors in December 2005.3
What is indisputable is that Dr Kim's name was not present in the later version of the paper and that in his place as lead author was Dr Cha, his former employer and the head of CHA Health Systems, a “global healthcare enterprise” whose many interests include the CHA Stem Cell Institute, Pochon CHA University and College of Medicine, and seven hospitals and clinics in Korea and the CHA Fertility Centre, CHA Regenerative Medicine Institute, and Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Centre in Los Angeles.
Now, as the dispute escalates into a series of allegations and counter allegations, the editor in chief of Fertility and Sterility has been accused …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012