Federally funded US researcherswere supplied with a prohibitedstem-cell line, disguised as anapproved line by researchers atSeoul’s MizMedi hospital.Allegations that a cell line had beenswitched surfaced earlier this month(see Nature 441, 680; 2006). Sung-ilRoh, chairman of the board oftrustees at MizMedi Women’sHospital, has now admitted to Naturethat this was indeed the case.

Research with the unapproved cell line has been halted. But theincident highlights how hard it is forresearchers to know what they areworking with. And in this case theproblem was not only scientific but

political: US presidentGeorge W. Bush announcedin 2001 that because ofethical concerns over humanembryonic stem cells, onlysuch cell lines establishedbefore 9 August 2001 wouldbe eligible for federallyfunded research. One lineestablished by researchers atMizMedi Hospital, Miz-hES1,was created before that date,and approved by the USNational Institutes of Health (NIH).But the cell line sent out in its place, Miz-hES5, was created later.

The NIH has paid the hospitalUS$930,000 since 2002 to grow,

characterize and distribute Miz-1. ButRoh told Nature that in December2003, researchers at the hospitalidentified a chromosomalabnormality in that line. In April

2004 they switched to Miz-5, butpretended they were shipping Miz-1.

The subterfuge came to lightduring the police investigation intothe research fraud committed bycloning expert Woo Suk Hwang (seeNature 439, 122; 2006). The humaneggs used by Hwang were harvestedat MizMedi. Roh admitted inNovember 2005 to paying for theeggs that he passed to Hwang,despite previously claiming theywere from volunteers.

Roh says he knew nothing aboutthe stem-cell switch, and only foundout from the police report. But hesays: “It’s a healthy line. From aresearch perspective, it wouldn’t

Vol 441|15 June 2006

790

NEWS

Koreans admit disguising stem-cell lines

In a demonstration of how international nego-tiations should be done, 12 national scienceacademies have issued two joint statements tothe leaders of the G8 countries, who will meetat their annual summit in Russia next month.One endorses a reinvention of the world’s dis-ease surveillance system; the other calls for amajor expansion of energy research to addressa looming global crisis in energy supplies.

The statements were announced on 14 Juneby the academies of the G8countries plus Brazil, China,India and South Africa. Theyfollow the first such exercise at last year’s Gleneagles sum-mit in Britain, when Britain’sRoyal Society coordinatedjoint academy statements onclimate change as well as capacity building for Africa.

The academies’ stronger role in interna-tional advocacy is a “new and extremely posi-tive development”, says Martin Rees, presidentof the Royal Society. “It’s a step towards theinternational scientific community having amore effective voice at the political level.”

Rees believes the academies’ input influ-enced the outcome of last year’s G8, which

included greater debt relief for Africa. And hehopes the string of recommendations for dis-ease surveillance and the energy crisis fromthe 12 academies (see box) will translate infirm pledges from this year’s G8 meeting.

The academies argue that the size of globalefforts in both infectious diseases and energysourcing are out of touch with the scale of the problems. They lament the inadequacy ofthe current systems of national and interna-

tional disease surveillance,which they describe as “multi-component and uncoordi-nated”. The threat of avian flu,they argue, should be a catalystfor investment in a moretightly coordinated global sys-tem, that in particular would

see animal and human health experts workingmore closely together.

Likewise, Rees says the G8 must addresswhat he describes as serious inadequacies infunding and incentives for energy research:“In relation to the scale of the problem, theR&D effort worldwide is unduly low.”

Although the G8 and other internationalpolitical meetings are important for settingagendas and funding priorities, the academies

recognize their shortcomings, says AndréCapron, foreign secretary of France’sAcadémie des Sciences. In particular, he criti-cizes the “disappointing” habit of states inneglecting to honour pledges once they gethome. At an avian-flu summit in Beijing inJanuary, for example, countries pledgedUS$1.9 billion in grants and loans to a globalaction plan, but so far only $1 billion has beencommitted, and of that just $286 million hasbeen spent. Donors also often insist that funds

Science academiestarget G8 agenda

Identity crisis: stem cells all look the same.

“It’s a step towardsthe scientific

community having amore effective voiceat the political level.”

E. S

UG

ITA

/REU

TER

SD

. SC

HA

RF/S

PL

15.6 News 790-791 MH 13/6/06 3:33 PM Page 790

Nature Publishing Group ©2006

SCIENCE TEXTBOOKSOF THE FUTUREToss out the oldbackbreaker — it’s time for video games.www.nature.com/news

NATURE|Vol 441|15 June 2006 NEWS

791

cause any trouble.” According to Roh,around 80 Korean groups and morethan 30 foreign groups were shippedthe Miz-1 line. NIH spokesman JohnBurklow says three dozen USresearchers received what theythought was Miz-1. But Roh saysabout 16 groups were shipped Miz-5disguised as Miz-1.

The NIH has suspended researchon MizMedi’s cell line, and insists noone used it in federally funded work.But the episode raises the questionof what can be done to ensure theintegrity of stem-cell lines.

James Battey, head of the NIHStem Cell Task Force, says thatwhen the agency receives a stem-cell line, it checks that the cells havenormal chromosomes, are free ofcontamination, and replicate in

culture. These tests confirm a line’shealth but do not check its identity.As the two MizMedi lines were bothmale, “the NIH would have no easy

way of knowing that Miz-5 wassubstituted for Miz-1”, he says.

Extensive DNA analysis wouldtell cell lines apart but is time-consuming, and referenceinformation for the original line isoften not available. Scientists at the Burnham Institute for MedicalResearch in La Jolla, California,working with a large group from theNIH and the DNA-analysis companyIllumina of San Diego, have recently

made a dent in this problem.The work was spearheaded by

Mahendra Rao, who left the NIH inOctober 2005 and is now at thecompany Invitrogen. While at theNIH, Rao offered to perform detailedgenetic profiles of all president-approved stem-cell lines for free. Hesays suppliers weren’t always eagerto share their resources, but he hasanalysed the lines he could getagreements on, using bead-basedmicroarrays developed by Illuminato compare single nucleotidepolymorphisms (SNPs). Rao haspublished his analysis of 7 of 22 celllines included in the NIH registry(www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-213x-6-20.pdf), and says apaper in press covers ten more.

Rao says a quick, cheap profiling

method is essential: “You need toknow what you are working with,because mix-ups are possible.” TheNIH says it knows of no other casesof deliberate fraud, but there havebeen accidental switches. Rao sayshe uncovered a case in which a UScompany was shipping out wronglyidentified cells after a technicianaccidentally mislabelled vials: “Wewere able to inform the few peoplewho got the mislabelled line.”

SNP analysis also reveals thegenetic basis of different cell types.The work heralds a breakthrough inthat respect, says Burnham’s EvanSnyder: “Only now is the researchevolving to the point where peopleare starting to profile these linesand compare them.” ■

David Cyranoski and Erika Check

go to particular countries or projects, makingit hard to organize a global plan that targetsareas in greatest need.

But Capron says scientists can only be“deliberately optimistic” about such realities,and hope to influence decisions “through con-stantly repeating the same messages, and making the scientific communities’ positions

known”. Rees agrees: “For 12 academies ofleading countries to emphasize the impor-tance of these issues is an important signal togovernments that they need to be addressed.”

Consensus buildingSo how does one go about getting scientistsfrom 12 countries to agree on hot topics suchas avian flu and energy? Capron says two tothree members of each academy met a fewmonths ago in Moscow to thrash out ideas andproduce draft statements. They took thesehome for discussion, then after much e-mail-ing about wording, joint texts were agreed.There was a “spontaneous consensus” on themajor steps needed for infectious diseases,according to Capron, with a “more protracted”discussion on energy.

All Capron is prepared to say about initialdisagreements on energy is that the UnitedStates differed with Europe (France in partic-

ular) on the degree of support for research intonuclear energy, compared with other tech-nologies such as carbon sequestration. Franceis highly dependent on nuclear energy, andlacks the coal reserves of the United States. Butthese were “divergences” rather than “aggres-sive differences”, he says diplomatically.

This kind of collaboration among the acad-emies will improve with time, he adds, in par-ticular by better involving academy membersin the process. Lack of consultation marred thefirst joint statements on climate change lastyear, when the Royal Society issued a pressrelease with its own interpretation of the con-sensus statement, leading to cries of foul playand spin by its partners. Such teething troubleswon’t occur this year, assures Capron. He hasnow written rules on the procedures, whichinclude requiring any press releases to bejointly agreed by all. ■

Declan Butler

Reinventing diseasesurveillance● Efforts to coordinatedisease surveillance acrossnational and internationalagencies and research bodies● Independent audit torecommend how to developglobal surveillance● Research into more rapidvaccine production methods● Greater cooperationbetween human- and animal-

health communities● Better collection andsharing of clinical andepidemiological data

Investing in energy R&D● Highlight ‘reality andurgency’ of global energysupply● Big, long-term infrastructureinvestments in cheap, clean,sustainable energies● Boost developing countries’

capacity in innovative energytechnologies● Incentives to develop cleanfossil, nuclear and renewabletechnologies● Focus public research andtechnology efforts on energyefficiency, non-conventionalhydrocarbons and clean coal,innovative nuclear power,distributed power systems,renewable energy sources,and biomass production

WHAT THE ACADEMIES WANT

G8 leaders: will they be in the mood to listen tothe world’s scientists?

“It’s a healthy line. Froma research perspective, itwouldn’t cause trouble.”

15.6 News 790-791 MH 13/6/06 3:33 PM Page 791

Nature Publishing Group ©2006