第80回 WORKSHOP報告(4月12日) / 参加者73名

第80回 WORKSHOP報告(4月12日) / 参加者73名

1

(1:新人の方々が自己紹介をされています)

 

2

(2:開会直前! 受付を行っています)

 

3

(3:この日も70人を超える方々にお集まりいただきました)

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

《 今回のworkshop 》

 

○workshop参加人数:73名(うち新人の方:4名)

 

○【前半】:”Job transfer away from their home for women”というテーマでディスカッション

 

○【後半】:”Issues regarding Dr Obokata and STAP cells”というテーマでディスカッション

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

<英語サークル E’s club 第80回workshopのご案内>

 

みなさまこんばんは、E’s club幹事のKです。第80回workshopの詳細をお送りいたします。

 

今回は前半のマテリアルをKさん、後半のマテリアルをYさんにそれぞれご作成いただきました。

前半は”Job transfer away from their home for women”、

後半は”Issues regarding Dr Obokata and STAP cells”というテーマでそれぞれディスカッションを行ないます。

 

 

[今週のマテリアル]

<FIRST HALF>

みなさま、こんにちは。前半のマテリアルを担当させていただくKと申します。

今回のテーマは「女性の単身赴任」です。

最近は、結婚しても仕事を続ける女性が少なくありません。

昨年、以前の職場の友人がハワイへ転勤になりました。彼女は結婚していたので、とても悩んでいましたが、結局単身赴任という形を選択しました。

私も含め、メンバーの大半が現在独身だと思います。ですが、想像してみてください。将来結婚して、自分もしくは自分のパートナーが転勤を命じられたら、あなたはどうするでしょう。

 

まず、どうしたい(して欲しい)か、とその理由について意見交換して下さい。その後、家族会議を開いてその家族なりの結論を出して頂きたいと思います。

 

Agenda;Job transfer away from their home for women

1.self-introduction (5min.)

 

2.After you get married, if your(or your wife’s) company should tell you(or your wife) to transfer to the distance, what will you want to do(or what will you ask your wife to do)?  And why? (10min.)

 

3.Role play (Case1,Case2 12min. each)

(1)Determine your respective roles in the role-play as a family.

(2)In the Case1 and Case2 , through a family council, draw a conclusion of your own family.

 

【Case 1】

・You don’t have a child and any loan either.

・Company told you(or your wife) to transfer overseas for two years.

《Role》Husband・Wife

 

【Case2】

・You have a child who is in elementary school and you have housing loan also.

・Company told you(or your wife) to transfer other prefecture for two years.

《Role》Husband・Wife・Child

 

1.自己紹介(5分)

 

2.結婚後、もし女性側が転勤になった場合、どうしたい(して欲しい)ですか?

また、それはなぜですか?(10分)

 

3.【ケース1】【ケース2】について、役割を決めて家族会議を開き、結論を出して下さい。(各12分)

注)この場合それぞれのテーブルを1家族とします。つまり、複数人で1人の夫・妻・子供の役割をして下さい。

 

【ケース1】子供はおらず、ローンもなし、女性が海外に2年間転勤になった場合

《役割》夫・妻・・実際の性別にかかわらずテーブルで半分にわかれて下さい。

 

【ケース2】小学生の子供がおり、ローンあり、女性が国内で2年間転勤になった場合

《役割》夫・妻・子供(小学生)・・実際の性別にかかわらずテーブルで均等に3役割にわかれて下さい。

 

<LATTER HALF>

Agenda:

Issues regarding Dr Obokata and STAP cells

 

Today, I would like to bring up a topic about Japanese researcher Dr Haruko Obokata’s breakthrough finding on stem cell study.

 

On January 29, 2014, Nature, a prominent science journal published a paper of Dr Obokata being the first named author, where her research team has found and introduced a method to produce stem cells (named STAP cells, where STAP being an acronym of Stimulus-Triggered Acquisition of Pluripotency) in a very simple manner, which could possibly revolutionize a field of tissue engineering.

 

Many Japanese media has once reported that her finding is “historical” and because it is so remarkable that it’s worth a Noble Prize. Not just about the finding of STAP cells, but media has also focused on Dr Obokata herself and gave glowing praises.

 

However, the situation became very dubious when it has been pointed out that the paper is containing several problems such as some images on the paper looking almost identical to images found on corporate websites.

Also, scientists over the world had tested, but failed to generate STAP cells according to the method introduced in the paper. Further study conducted by the individuals have also revealed that her paper during her doctoral course contains a major plagiarism from the US National Institute of Health website.

 

This whole issue regarding the STAP cells paper is still under an investigation, but a credibility of “historical” finding regarding STAP cells are now being questioned, and Dr Obokata is placed in a very difficult situation where her paper could become “historical” in a very unpleasant way.

It is reported that her employer Riken is considering to withdraw the paper, and Dr Obokata seemed to have agreed to its decision.

 

I have made several questions to be discussed from this hot news. I hope you would enjoy, speak many English, have fruitful discussions, and get new insights from the next 75 minutes.

 

Questions:

 

1) How do you feel about what Dr Obokata has done? Do you think what she has done is permissible?

 

2) Why do you think this entire issue regarding the paper of STAP cells became such a big news? Come up with some factors which you think would have made this issue to get such a wide attention.

 

3) What if a person who wrote the paper was not Dr Obokata who is a young female researcher, but just a regular middle-aged male researcher? Do you think this news would have got an attention in the same way?

 

4) As you could see from Reference 3, some gossip magazine focuses on Dr Obokata’s somewhat personal life. What do you feel about these articles?

 

5) What would be the best thing Dr Obokata could do in response this issue? Is there any way she could restore her reputation?

 

6) Ultimately, what would be the lessons we could learn from this issue? How can we prevent similar problems to happen?

 

 

====================

 

Reference 1

Stem cell ‘breakthrough data inappropriately handled’ – BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-26576368

 

Full Article:

 

An investigation into a supposedly groundbreaking stem cell study in Japan has discovered “inappropriate handling” of the data.

 

It was reported in January that dipping cells in acid could cheaply and quickly convert them into stem cells.

 

Questions were raised about the images used in the scientific report and other research groups have failed to reproduce the results.

 

The interim report has not found any evidence of research misconduct.

 

Stem cells can become any other type of tissue and are already being investigated to heal the damage caused by a heart attack and to restore sight to the blind.

The original study, published in the journal Nature, became a huge story globally and was described as “remarkable” and a “major scientific discovery”.

It offered a cheap and ethical source of stem cells that could have helped make them a practical treatment rather than a researcher’s dream.

 

Similar images

But significant doubts have emerged.

 

One centres on the use of images in the scientific report by the team at the Riken Centre for Developmental Biology.

They were similar to images from previous research by one of the scientists involved, Dr Haruko Obokata, which did not use the acid-bath technique.

 

Meanwhile, teams around the world have failed to produce stem cells using the reported technique.

 

A review by Prof Kenneth Ka-Ho Lee, at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, published on ResearchGate, concluded: “The ease and simplicity of their method for generating STAP cells [the name given to stem cells produced by this method] from various stressors and cell types have left the readers in doubt.

 

“We have tried our very best to generate STAP cells using their protocol and it appears that it is not as simple and reproducible as we expected.

 

“So whether the techniques really works still remains an open question.”

 

‘No malice’ intended

Riken launched an investigation and the first findings are now being reported.

It has found that some images had been “inadvertently” left in the report and there was “no malice” intended.

However, a conclusion has not yet been reached on allegations that part of the methodology had been copied from another scientific paper or that images in the paper resemble those from Dr Obokata’s previous research.

 

In a statement, the president of Riken, Prof Ryoji Noyori, said: “I would like, first and foremost, to express my deepest regrets that articles published in Nature by Riken scientists are bringing into question the credibility of the scientific community.

 

“It is extremely regrettable that significant discrepancies have been found to have been generated in the process of preparing the Nature articles for publication.

 

“We are investigating these discrepancies, with the understanding that it may become necessary to demand the withdrawal of the articles.”

 

This week, a member of the research group called for the findings to be withdrawn as it was no longer clear what was right.

 

Prof Teruhiko Wakayama, of the University of Yamanashi, told Japanese TV: “When conducting the experiment, I believed it was absolutely right.

 

“But now that many mistakes have emerged, I think it is best to withdraw the research paper once and, using correct data and correct pictures, to prove once again the paper is right.

 

“If it turns out to be wrong, we would need to make it clear why a thing like this happened.”

 

 

Reference 2

http://difff.jp/dev/obokata_copypaste.html

 

The above URL directs you to a page showing a comparison between an introductory section of Dr Obokata’s doctoral paper and an article from US National Institute of Health (hereafter “NIH”) website. Highlighted parts indicates non-duplicate section. As you could see, only few highlights could be found, meaning that major part of Dr Obokata’s intro is identical to the article of NIH.

 

 

Reference 3

週刊文春 2014年3月27日号 「STAP論文」事件のウラに不適切な“情実人事”  小保方晴子さん 乱倫な研究室

http://shukan.bunshun.jp/articles/-/3782

http://s-bunshun.ismcdn.jp/mwimgs/9/9/-/img_99c0bd2845d77247cde57198d85eaa58632145.jpg (中吊り広告画像)

 

 

Reference 4

日本国著作権法 第三十二条 第一項

(引用)

公表された著作物は、引用して利用することができる。この場合において、その引用は、公正な慣行に合致するものであり、かつ、報道、批評、研究その他の引用の目的上正当な範囲内で行なわれるものでなければならない。

 

 

Reference 5

http://www.cric.or.jp/qa/hajime/hajime8.html

 

著作権侵害・罰則など

 

権利の侵害

著作権のある著作物を著作権者の許諾を得ないで無断で利用すれば、著作権侵害となります。ただし、許諾なく使える場合に該当するときは、無断で利用しても著作権侵害にはなりません。

また、著作者に無断で著作物の内容や題号を改変したり、著作者が匿名を希望しているのに著作物に勝手に本名をつけて発行したりすれば、著作者人格権侵害となります。

さらに、無断複製物であることを知っていながら当該複製物を頒布(有償か無償かを問わず、複製物を公衆に譲渡・貸与することをいう)したり、頒布の目的で所持する行為や、著作物に付された権利者の情報や利用許諾の条件等の権利管理情報を故意に改変する行為なども権利侵害となります。

 

1. 民事上の請求

上記のような権利侵害の事実があるときは、権利者は侵害をした者に対し次のような請求をすることができます。こうした請求に当事者間で争いがある場合には、最終的には裁判所に訴えて実現してもらうことになります。

a.         侵害行為の差止請求

b.         損害賠償の請求

c.          不当利得の返還請求

d.         名誉回復などの措置の請求

 

2. 罰則

著作権侵害は犯罪であり、被害者である著作権者が告訴することで侵害者を処罰することができます(親告罪)。著作権、出版権、著作隣接権の侵害は、10年以下の懲役又は1000万円以下の罰金、著作者人格権、実演家人格権の侵害などは、5年以下の懲役又は500万円以下の罰金などが定めれれています。

また、法人などが著作権等(著作者人格権を除く)を侵害した場合は、3億円以下の罰金となります。

さらに、平成24年10月の著作権法改正により、私的使用目的であっても、無断でアップロードされていることを知っていて、かつダウンロードする著作物等が有償で提供・提示されていることを知っていた場合、そのサイトから自動公衆送信でデジタル録音・録画を行うと、2年以下の懲役若しくは200万円以下の罰金が科せられることになりました。

なお、「懲役刑」と「罰金刑」は併科することができます。

 

**********************************************

 

 

私たちと一緒に英語コミュニケーション能力を鍛えませんか?

 

ご興味を持たれた方は、

入会申込フォーム

 

https://english-speaking-club.com/cms/?page_id=93

 

 

よりお申し込みください。お待ちしています!

 

***********************************************************