Dolly the Sheep (Controversy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is proposed that this article be deleted, because of the following concern:

POV fork

If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.

The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days (This template was added: 7 December 2006).

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion policy. Nominator: Please consider notifying the author(s) of this page using

{{subst:prodwarning|Dolly the Sheep (Controversy)}} ~~~~

The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Ian Wilmut's fame rests on being the first author on the 1997 Nature paper describing the work of cloning Dolly the sheep, implying that he had actually done the work of cloning Dolly, but his role in the project has since been disputed and remains in doubt ^[1].

In March 2006 it was revealed that the scientists involved in cloning Dolly the sheep were in major disagreement.

In 2006, while testifying at an Edinburgh court following accusations of racial harassment of his fellow Prim Singh, Ian Wilmut denied the accusations, but acknowledged that he was not the 'father' or "creator" of Dolly, that he performed none of the experiments, that he has minimised the role of some of his fellows, and he gave most of the credit (66%) to Keith Campbell, while playing a "supervisory" or managerial role himself. Wilmut's own credit in cloning Dolly the sheep is in doubt, but is less than 1/3rd (i.e. 1-66%) as other people, in addition to Keith Campbell, did some of the work. ^[2]

Although it is not certain, it can be inferred from Wilmut's own testimony in court and from the statements of Mr Bill Ritichie, one of the two technicians who did the nuclear transfer experiments, and from an anonymous source, to the Guardian newspaper, that without the intellectual input of Keith Campbell the group would still be trying to clone a sheep. This is because Keith Campbell had the crucial idea of co-ordinating the stages of the "cell cycle" of the somatic cells and eggs which was required for successful cloning. ^[3]

The act of taking credit for the work of others is called plagiarism.

The journal Nature, in which the Dolly work was published, itself strongly encourages coauthors to specify their contributions.

According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.

From Wilmut's reported testimony it is difficult to see that he has fulfilled any of the authorship criteria as a supervisory role is not in any of the 3 categories listed directly above.

When asked by a reporter from the Sunday Times newspaper in 2006 about the controversy over credit for cloning Dolly the sheep, Wilmut reported reply was:

"We have now done two books describing events as they were, giving everybody credit," he (Wilmut) says crisply. ^[4]

Dr. Wilmut with Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk.

Concerning Dr Hwang Woo-Suk’s South Korean lab with which he was collaborating, but which is now in tatters:

“You have to feel very sorry for patients, because we were aware he oversold his technology. I have heard him promise people in wheelchairs they will walk again. There is a simple biological reason that makes [repair] unlikely: you have to do it very early, so if the person is already in a wheelchair it is probably too late.” Some might say Wilmut should have blown the whistle. ^[5]

In 2003 Gerald Schatten and Ian Wilmut wrote a short comment in Science, entitled: "Cloning claim is science not science fiction", volume 299, page 344, in which they warned others to "provide evidence (of cloning) or keep silent".

While he had originally believed that "[a]ny kind of manipulation with human embryos should be prohibited", Ian Wilmut is now prepared to use human embryos under 2 weeks old.

They had prefaced this warning with their own claim that "legitimate (themselves) scientists submit evidence, sufficiently substantial to withstand rigorous review" and emphasized how the protocols used in cloning experiment should be described in detail.

This comment now seems hypocritical as Gerald Schatten has admitted being on a scientific paper without contributing any scientific input whatsoever and Ian Wilmut has admitted, under oath, that the bulk of the credit for cloning should go to Keith Campbell. Please see Center for Genetics and Society newsletter of 29th March 2006 in external links directly below.

--64.135.142.32 21:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)CaRol==References==