There is no way but that Professor Hwang has been involved.

It is difficult for Professor Hwang not to avoid taking major responsibility.

We commissioned additional tests on more samples of the stem cells featured on the 2004 Science article.

The errors in data in (Hwang’s) 2005 paper in (journal) Science are not simple mistakes, but it was an intentional fabrication to inflate the number of stem cells from two to 11.

So far we could not find any stem cells regarding Dr. Hwang’s 2005 paper that genetically match the DNA of patients. Dr. Hwang’s team doesn’t have scientific data to prove that it has produced such...

We determined that this is a grave misconduct that damages the foundation of science.

It is the panel’s judgment that Professor Hwang’s team does not have the scientific data to prove that they (patient-specific stem cells) were made.

There is sufficient evidence that results were deliberately manipulated, and Professor Hwang accepts this at some level. We don’t think that the data in the 2005 Science study were incorrect because of simple mistakes.

We believe that the number of eggs he used was far more than he has reported.

Whether the two cells were tailor-made can be found out after the panel’s DNA tests are completed.

The panel couldn’t find stem cells that match patients’ DNA . . . and it believes that Hwang’s team doesn’t have scientific data to prove that (such stem cells) were made.

This matter is grave enough to shake the very foundations of scientific research.

Based on this finding on fabricated data, it is difficult for Professor Hwang not to avoid taking major responsibility.

Stem cells with DNA matching with patient tissues regarding the 2005 paper were not found. And it is the panel’s judgment that Professor Hwang ‘s team does not have the scientific data to prove that...

We are looking into how many human eggs were used in his research, but so far we have found that the number of eggs exceeds the ones presented in the Science paper.

The patient-matching stem cells no longer exist.

We learned that the two cell lines from which Hwang fabricated photos of the other nine cells for the Science paper do not match the DNA of patients who contributed … cells.

The data . . . was intentionally fabricated, not an accidental error, and this constituted major misconduct.

There is disagreement among the investigative body on whether Hwang had the technology to begin with.

Based on these findings, the data in 2005 was intentionally fabricated, not an accidental error.

We have asked three independent labs to conduct DNA tests on the samples, and all three came out with the same conclusion. None of the stem cells were patient-specific.

This panel couldn’t find stem cells that match patients’ DNA regarding the 2005 paper, and it believes that Hwang’s team didn’t secure scientific data to prove that.

If the allegations of falsified studies prove true, appropriate disciplinary actions are unavoidable. We will base our investigations on first- hand interviews with Hwang and his research team.

It is our priority to figure out whether the data used in the experiments had been falsified or not.

It is the panel’s judgment that Prof. Hwang’s team does not have the scientific data to prove that they (patient-specific stem cells) were made.