Hwang Woo-suk, a geneticist in South Korea, claimed in Science magazine in 2004 and 2005 that he and a team of researchers had for the first time cloned a human embryo and that they had derived eleven stem cell lines from it. Hwang was a professor at Seoul National University in Seoul, South Korea. In the Science articles, Hwang stated that all of the women who donated eggs to his laboratory were volunteers who donated their eggs (oocytes) without receiving any compensation in return. In 2006, Hwang admitted that many of the results were fabricated. Subsequent investigations found that Hwang's lab used more eggs than they had accounted for in their experiments, and that egg donors had been paid. Hwang's use of donated eggs in his experiments attracted international attention and sparked debates about the ethics of egg donation for research purposes.

The South Korean government passed the Bioethics and Biosafety Act, known henceforth as the Bioethics Act, in 2003 and it took effect in 2005. South Korea's Ministry of Health and Welfare proposed the law to the South Korean National Assembly to allow the progress of biotechnology and life sciences research in South Korea while protecting human research subjects with practices such as informed consent. The Bioethics Act establishes a National Bioethics Committee in Seoul, South Korea. The Bioethics Act is the first law in South Korea to regulate research on embryonic stem cells and in vitro fertilization. Most South Korean bioethical policies rely on this act and its provisions.

This project analyzes the efforts of Seoul Grand Park Zoo (the largest and most important zoo on the Korean peninsula) to develop and achieve the highest standards in conservation, education, animal welfare, and research over the last three decades. Founded primarily as an entertainment venue in 1984, the zoo has struggled to become a scientific center that adequately provides for the animals under its care and promotes the advancement and dissemination of knowledge. Drawing on interviews from zoo officials, academics, conservationists, and animal-rights activists, I explore the animal welfare management and conservation priorities of a prominent Asian institution. Although the zoo has made significant improvements in animal welfare, it remains constrained by limited resources and government indifference. These constraints have also restricted the zoo’s ambition to become a major center for conservation; it currently concentrates on a handful of projects with broad popular appeal. Based on my interviews, greater collaboration, better communication with other researchers, and more systematic sharing of data would be especially beneficial for expanding the zoo’s conservation agenda. As research and conservation become a more prominent part of the zoo’s portfolio, potential conflicts may arise with zoo’s current emphasis on the welfare of the individual animals under its care.