Korean stem cell debacle

In December 2005, a series of startling revelations about the fabricating of research results by internationally-acclaimed South Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk, plunged the scientific community and South Korea into shock. His research paper that was published in the prestigious Science magazine, claimed that he was able to produce patient-specific embryonic stem cell lines that would provide potential cures for currently incurable diseases like cancer. The publication propelled him to instant international fame and he was regarded as a national hero of South Korea, being termed as 'supreme scientist' and the 'pride of Korea'. However, with these revelations, serious repercussions have followed.

The image of South Korea as a leader in scientific stem cell research has been tarnished and South Korean scientists are now regarded with suspicion in the scientific community. Credibility of the South Korean goverment's science programmes will be seriously questioned. Moreover, the national image of South Korea is also affected as it had hailed an undeserving person as a national hero. This is representative of the lack of discern of the Korean government. The entire debacle also throws South Korean's 'hurry-up culture' into the limelight. Desire for instant results and fame could have prompted Prof Hwang to falsify research. This whole incident is a also a sharp setback for therapeutic cloning, meaning that the entire process of finding cures for incurable diseases is going to take even longer.

The wider issue at hand is to examine the causes for this incident and the probability of it happening in Singapore.

Firstly, research fraud could occur due to the fervent drive to be No. 1. In the highly competitive world where scientists worldwide are working feverishly to come up with a groundbreaking research, the drive to succeed and attain international fame may sometimes trump scientific integrity.

Social culture is also an important issue. In South Korea, there is unquestioned adherence to authority. In the 7 Jan 2006 article "S. Korean graduate students just can't say no", it states that "Blindly obeying lordly professors is seen as the surest way to success" and that Mr Kim Sun Jong, a former researcher at prof Hwang's lab revealed that he obeyed the professor's order to fabricate data for a paper on the designer stem cells published in Science in May 2005. The general culture is that challenging bosses is uncommon and failing to bow to superiors invites reproach. Such a culture of "obedience" is definitely not the way to encourage the healthy social growth of society. In this case, society is becoming increasingly 'closed'. Unwillingness to challenge authority would eventually lead to a stifling of ideas and the prevalence of unwelcome practices by unreasonable bosses.

Research fraud could also occur due to economic gains. Fabricating results to get increased government grants could be a lucrative way to boost one's income as well. Prof Hwang received US$65 million in grants. There were previous cases of research fraud as well. In 2005, nutrition researcher, Eric Poehlman, formerly of the University of Vermont College of Medicine, pleaded guilty to fraud in obtaining a federal grant for US$542,000. He made up research between 1992 and 2000 to win millions of dollars in federal grant money for studies in such areas as menopause, ageing and hormone supplements.

To liken the situation of the stem-cell debacle to the NKF saga, we can find some similarities. Through the misuse of public trust, clever politics, and deliberate misinformation, these 2 incidents were allowed to take place and to "create a "perfect storm" able to wreck any external oversight system imposed". (Dec 30:Korean stem cell debacle, can it happen in Singapore?) This might not happen in Singapore. Some reasons are that the Singapore government had already published guidelines in 2002 on the regulation of stem cell research, reproductive and therapeutic cloning. Reproductive cloning is banned, and paying for donors is strictly prohibited, while this was only banned in 2004 in South Korea. The prefixed set of stringent guidelines would be an efficient curb to research fraud. Secondly, A*Star, the major funding agency for biomedical reserach today, has strict systems for the monitoring of grant moneys as such, the likelihood of misuse of grants is quite low. At the moment, Singapore is also aiming to develop a culture of scientific integritiy in its next generation of scientists. Singapore also uses foreign scientists extensively and thus the issue of fierce national pride as in South Korea, is probably not a problem here.

Both the NKF saga and the Korean stem cell debacle were busted by whistle-blowers. This shows that individuals can make significant contributions to society as well and that their power should not be underestimated. However, there are currently no laws to protect whistle-blowers. How are we going to ensure that more of such undesirable incidents are revealed if the message we send to whistle-blowers is that they would face serious repercussions? In my opinion, protection laws for these group of people should be put in place, to encourage them to reveal unfair practices, and to keep a stronger surveillance over their superiors and organisations. Regulation by government agencies is insufficient, we need the cooperation of the masses to act as eyes and ears of the government as well. Only then, can we be assured that organisations and individuals likewise would do their utmost best to uphold the integrity of their occupations, be it in the field of science and technology or otherwise.

Let leaders come off the pedestal

1) I perceive Singapore's society to resemble Asian societies more.

As mentioned in the passage, Asians tend to prefer to follow their leaders rather than take the initiative to assume leadership; as a result, they expect their leaders to be perfect which is unrealistic in actual fact. Most Singaporeans are a conservative people and they tend to be less forgiving towards actions that conflict with their ideas of a proper moral code of conduct. In the NCMP Steve Chia's incident in 2004, he was publicly chastised for taking nude photographs of his maid at his home. Even though he claims that this is an expression of art, this incident still caused a furor and a political backlash. There were even calls for him to be stripped from office. His reputation was severely tarnished. If the same incident was to take place in a more liberalized Western society where people are more open to this kind of artistic expression, I am pretty sure that it would not have entailed such serious repercussions.

Another point raised is that Asians are more inclined to think that everything the boss says is right and less inclined to contradict him. This is also quite prevalent in Singapore. Some Singaporeans place too heavy a trust on the government, so much so that they lose their sense of scepticism and doubt. In the recent Northstar V exercise, PM Lee highlighted that a particular citizen was very relaxed about the issue of terrorism coming to Singapore as he had complete faith in the government to properly handle the situation. Such subservient thinking is definitely a situation of being too trustful and lazy to step out of his comfort zone. Moreover, Singaporeans are not being supported to challenge authority as well. There are no laws to protect whistle blowers at the moment and they face serious consequences if found out by their superiors. An example is the NKF saga. 3 people who blew the whistle on NKF were sued and had to pay defamation charges while the actual culprit, the board of NKF got away scot-free. This will only further serve to encourage Singaporeans to blindly follow authority so as to avoid persecution. In Western societies, there is more freedom and people dare to expose the wrongdoings of the relevant authority in power e.g. exposing pictures showing the American army torturing Iraqis prisoners by Newsweek without fear of being sued by the Federal Government.

2) I do not agree with this proposal.

When we give authority to a person we elect to be leader, he is expected to fulfill this duties and responsibilities and at the same time, meet up to certain of the population’s expectations. We ourselves should not demand unrealistically high standards on our leaders too, like expecting them never to err. It is harder for people without authority to exercise much leadership because of the lack of political clout and influence. It is also true that having leadership skills is a prerequisite to official rank and appointment so it is quite difficult to separate leadership from official rank and appointment.

In the passage, Professor Heifetz suggests that MPs are only like authority figures and not necessarily leaders and we should not coerce them to live by impossible standards. However, the passage mentions that the width of pedestals can be adjusted and this means that our standards are already becoming more flexible. Thus, it is the duty of an authority figure to conduct himself with morally acceptable standards. Of course, we must also learn to appreciate authority figures based on their leadership abilities and not their private lives. It is imperative for a proper balance to be achieved and not a separation of authority from leadership.

French Racial Riots

There have been a violent spate of riots in France in recent times, starting around the end of last year. The riots were triggered by the deaths of two youths of African descent . The two youths were troublemakers in Clichy-sous-Bois. They were pursued by policemen and accidentally electrocuted to death while hiding in a power station. Cars have been set alight every night and much instability has been brought to the country itself. Although the riots have mainly happened around Paris suburbs that are mostly ethnic ghettoes, they underline a fundamental problem in France's immigration policy.

Firstly, as from what I've read, the French hope to create a common French identity in everyone residing in France. In short, it means that there can only be one culture, and that is the French culture. However, immigrants would cherish the unique characteristics of their country of origin, so they would also seek to pass down some cultures and customs. This is also a reason why they are not very able to fit in with the French mainstream society. They do feel marginalised, and this leads to the formation of ethnic ghettoes which make them further segregated from the French society.

Secondly, not everyone is given equal opportunities, especially the immigrants. They tend to face more discrimination. Unemployment in these ethnic conclaves can reach as high as 10%. The youth dropout rate of school is also very high. These youths turn out to be vagabonds, roaming the streets at night and creating trouble. Without proper jobs and proper education, these immigrants will always be trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty, which will lead to further social segregation and inequality in the country.

Thirdly, France has a very comprehensive social welfare system. Unemployment benefits are given out to people and this greatly reduces their incentive to work for a living. Without a job, some of the unemployed have a lot of free time and they would tend to create trouble.

The solutions are not easy. France has to come up with a policy that would ensure that the rights of all immigrants are protected. Moreover, they have to feel a sense of belonging to France which is not really in existent at the moment. The social welfare system could be modified in such a way to encourage a two-tiered approach among the people and the government to motivate the citizens to be self-sufficient eg. in Singapore, government bodies help people to find jobs instead of giving out unemployment benefits. Finally, "It might be time for some positive discrimination" as mentioned by French President Jacques Chirac. Immigrants could be given certain incentives like subsidised education so that their status in society can be elevated. Moreover, they will be able to break out of their poverty cycle and be better off financially. When people have a higher standard of living, they would be less inclined to indulge in violence and troublemaking.

In conclusion, the French racial riots represents a dormant problem in European society. The tricky problem of tackling immigrants cannot be resolved overnight. Moreover, the fact that such riots also occur in other EU nations eg. Britian, underscores the urgent need for action. Such inequality and unrest could be a potential breeding ground for terrorists as well. This problem, if left untouched, could fester and will eventually affect the stability of the country as a whole. Therefore, it is a pressing imperative for the different governments to formulate suitable policies to bridge the inequalities in the society.