* 의도적 오역? 오늘 여기저기 포탈을 보니 가끔 이 기사 http://kr.news.yahoo.com/shellview.htm?linkid=477&articleid=2007080401192829080 가 눈에 띄어서, 한번 원문을 디비기로 해보았음. 황뿌아들의 구라질이 어디 하루이틀 된 일이어야지. 그래서 뇩 타임즈 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/science/03cell.html 에 들어가 보았더니만, 역시나 여기저기 구라와 인위적 오역으로 가득차 있더구먼. 쯔쯥.. 원문: “It could have been a seminal finding if they hadn’t had their blinders on,” said Kent E. Vrana, an expert on parthenogenesis at Pennsylvania State University. 노창현의 지좆대로 번역: 그는 보스턴어린이병원의 김기태박사와 조지 데일리 박사팀이 과학저널 ‘셀스템셀’에 발표한 연구성과를 전하면서 “황 박사팀은 그들의 눈을 가리는 사람들이 아니었다면 독창적인 발견을 인정받았을 것”이라는 펜실배니아주립대 처녀생식전문가 켄트 브라나 박사의 말을 소개했다. 맞는 번역: 만일 그들이 눈에 뭐가 씌이지 않았다면, 그 발견은 매우 독창적인 것이었을 것이다. blinders를 '그들의 눈을 가리는 사람들'이라고 번역한 대단한 노창현. 이건 번역이 아니라 아예 창작의 수준이다. 원문: “I’m delighted there was an explanation that didn’t involve fraud,” 노창현의 지좆대로 번역: “그들의 발견에 사기가 없었다는 사실에 기쁘다” 맞는 번역: 번역이야 대충 맞지. 하지만, 저 원문의 뉘앙스는 황구라의 사기질에 대한 냉소가 들어있음. 의역하자면, "왠일이래? 황구라가 한 짓중에 사기질 아닌것도 있고?" 정도가 될 듯하군. 원문: "It becomes an historic irony that Hwang was the first to produce the parthenogenetic stem cell but didn’t appreciate what he had,” Dr. Daley said. 노창현의 지좆대로 분석: 웨이드 기자는 데일리 박사가 “최초로 처녀생식 줄기세포를 수립한 황 박사가 칭찬받지 못한 것은 역사의 아이러니”라고 말했다면서 “황 박사가 2004년 논문에서 처녀생식의 가능성이 없다고 기술한 것때문에 처녀생식을 통한 배아줄기세포 수립은 과학적 신뢰를 많이 얻지는 못할 것 같다”고 전망했다. 맞는 번역: "황구라가 최초로 처녀생식 줄기세포를 발견하고서도 그가 이룬 것을 충분히 이해하지 못한 것은 역사의 아이러니다." 노창현 이친구는 appreciate가 '칭찬하다''감사하다'의 의미만 가지는줄 아는 모양임. 그리고, 지넘 번역대로라면 appreciate의 주어는 황구라인데, 그럼 황구라가 지가 해놓은걸 스스로 '칭찬'해야지 왜 뜬금없이 칭찬을 '받아야' 하는것인지 모르겠음. 노창현 당신한테 한마디 하는데, 모르고 이딴짓 했으면, 당신은 외신분석 기자질 그만해야 할 듯 싶고, 만일 알고도 이딴짓 했다면, 당신은 그냥 쓰레기일 뿐임. 노창현 당신과 좆선일보 김대중의 지좆대로 외신분석이랑 뭐가 다른지 좀 이해시켜주길 바람. 그리고, 여기 계신 황빠 제위분들. 저 뉴욕타임즈 기사는 황구라의 발견을 아쉬워하는게 아니라, 지가 해논것도 이해할 능력이 없었던 사기꾼대 대한 냉소가 가득한 기사임을 이해하기 바람. 만일 아니라면, 당신들 영어선생 비루스한테 물어보시던가.
The world of stem cell research was set reeling two years ago when its most successful practitioner, the Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk, was found to have fabricated much of his work. But according to a new post-mortem of his research, he did achieve a scientific first, though not the one he claimed.
Dr. Hwang said he had derived embryonic stem cells from the adult cells of a patient, but the claim was discredited after parts of his research were found to have been faked. A team of Boston scientists has now re-examined stocks of Dr. Hwang’s purported embryonic stem cells and arrived at a surprising conclusion: His embryonic stem cells were the product of parthenogenesis, or virgin birth, meaning they were derived from an unfertilized egg.
A team led by Kitai Kim and George Q. Daley of Children’s Hospital Boston reports this conclusion today in the journal Cell Stem Cell.
Embryonic stem cells derived through parthenogenesis cannot develop normally, so they are free of ethical objections. The cells could perhaps help treat degenerative diseases in women capable of supplying eggs, should effective treatments ever be developed.
Other researchers have since developed embryonic stem cells from parthenogenetic eggs, but Dr. Hwang’s team would have been the first to do so had its members recognized what they had done.
“It could have been a seminal finding if they hadn’t had their blinders on,” said Kent E. Vrana, an expert on parthenogenesis at Pennsylvania State University.
John D. Gearhart, a stem cell expert at Johns Hopkins University who had a ringside view of the Hwang affair as a member of the journal Science’s advisory board, said parthenogenesis had always been a possibility.
“I’m delighted there was an explanation that didn’t involve fraud,” Dr. Gearhart said.
Dr. Hwang soared to prominence after asserting in a report in Science in 2004 that he had developed embryonic stem cells from a patient, the first hurdle in the idea of rebuilding patients’ tissues with their own cells.
He said he had removed the nucleus from an unfertilized human egg and inserted a new nucleus from the adult cell of the patient. The egg developed into an embryo, from which his team claimed to have developed embryonic stem cells.
The editors of Science, the journal that published his claim, later retracted the article because the Korean committee that investigated Dr. Hwang’s work found that the supporting data had been faked.
As to the source of Dr. Hwang’s embryonic stem cells, the Korean committee said parthenogenesis was possible. But this could not be proved with the methods then available.
Dr. Daley has been studying parthenogenesis in mice with new devices that can analyze DNA at up to 500,000 sites on the genome. Recognizing that parthenogenetic cells have a special and unexpected genetic signature, Dr. Daley realized he could resolve the origin of Dr. Hwang’s cells.
“It becomes an historic irony that Hwang was the first to produce the parthenogenetic stem cell but didn’t appreciate what he had,” Dr. Daley said.
Although some creatures can reproduce by parthenogenesis, virgin birth would be a miracle in humans because the chromosomes from the mother and father each carry special chemical imprints, and both are required for normal development. Parthenogenetic embryos, in which both sets of chromosomes carry a female imprint, are not viable.
But Dr. Daley said that a case is known of a male patient who is a parthenochimera (“chimera” meaning an individual who is composed of two different types of cell). Two embryos, one normal and one parthenogenetic, fused in the womb. Some of the patient’s cells have the X and Y chromosomes of a normal man, but his blood has the two X chromosomes of parthenogenetic cells, evidently an instance of semi-virgin birth.
Dr. Hwang seems unlikely to get much scientific credit for developing embryonic cells via parthenogenesis because he said in his 2004 article that he had done tests showing that parthenogenesis was unlikely. He also said he had removed the nucleus from every egg, which he could not have done in the case of the egg that developed parthenogenetically.