Analysis of ethics dumping and proposed solutions in the field of biomedical research in China.

Bohua Liao, Yonghui Ma, Ruipeng Lei
Author Information
  1. Bohua Liao: School of Philosophy, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
  2. Yonghui Ma: School of Medcine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
  3. Ruipeng Lei: School of Marxism/Center for Ethics and Governance of Science and Technology, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.

Abstract

As international academic exchanges and cooperation deepen, China has actively engaged in international biomedical research collaboration and achieved significant success. However, these accomplishments have been accompanied by ethical controversies and issues, with ethics dumping being a recurrently discussed focus among scholars. This paper reviews ethics dumping incidents in China's biomedical research field and analyzes the underlying causes to answer why China is often susceptible to ethics dumping. We argue that the primary reasons include weak ethical awareness among some researchers, an oversimplified research evaluation system, gaps in relevant ethics governance and oversight mechanisms, and limited capabilities of certain ethics committees. To address these issues, we propose five ethics governance recommendations: establishing refined ethics committees at various levels and types; advancing theoretical and practical research on science and technology ethics governance; strengthening legislation and regulation related to emerging science and technology; emphasizing self-regulation and capacity building of research institutions; and providing special protection and healthcare for victims of ethics dumping. The aim is to enhance China's research supervision system and prevent similar ethics dumping incidents from recurring.

Keywords

References

  1. Cell Stem Cell. 2020 Oct 1;27(4):511-514 [PMID: 33007234]
  2. Nature. 2019 May;569(7755):184-186 [PMID: 31065097]
  3. Lancet. 2019 Jan 5;393(10166):25-26 [PMID: 30522918]
  4. Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1985 Summer;63(3):504-22 [PMID: 3852077]
  5. Am J Bioeth. 2022 Jan;22(1):56-58 [PMID: 34962206]
  6. Biol Reprod. 2022 Jul 25;107(1):261-268 [PMID: 35640230]
  7. Int J Surg. 2017 May;41:190-195 [PMID: 28110028]
  8. Biotechnol Law Rep. 2014 Aug 1;33(4):155-160 [PMID: 25140072]
  9. Biotechnol Appl Biochem. 2020 Nov;67(6):880-891 [PMID: 33011985]
  10. Nature. 2012 Dec 6;492(7427):15-6 [PMID: 23222581]
  11. Science. 2023 Mar 10;379(6636):970 [PMID: 36893237]
  12. Nat Biotechnol. 2006 Feb;24(2):141-3 [PMID: 16465151]
  13. J Law Biosci. 2019 Aug 13;6(1):111-183 [PMID: 31666967]
  14. Asian Bioeth Rev. 2023 Apr 26;15(4):431-455 [PMID: 37808450]
  15. Nat Biotechnol. 2019 Jan 3;37(1):19-20 [PMID: 30605150]
  16. Nature. 2019 Feb;566(7745):440-442 [PMID: 30809070]
  17. Dev World Bioeth. 2016 Aug;16(2):116-20 [PMID: 26791577]
  18. Nature. 2019 Oct;574(7776):25-28 [PMID: 31576042]
  19. Nature. 2018 Jul;559(7712):17-18 [PMID: 29970912]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0ethicsresearchdumpingbiomedicalgovernanceChinainternationalethicalissuesamongincidentsChina'sfieldsystemcommitteessciencetechnologyacademicexchangescooperationdeepenactivelyengagedcollaborationachievedsignificantsuccessHoweveraccomplishmentsaccompaniedcontroversiesrecurrentlydiscussedfocusscholarspaperreviewsanalyzesunderlyingcausesansweroftensusceptibleargueprimaryreasonsincludeweakawarenessresearchersoversimplifiedevaluationgapsrelevantoversightmechanismslimitedcapabilitiescertainaddressproposefiverecommendations:establishingrefinedvariouslevelstypesadvancingtheoreticalpracticalstrengtheninglegislationregulationrelatedemergingemphasizingself-regulationcapacitybuildinginstitutionsprovidingspecialprotectionhealthcarevictimsaimenhancesupervisionpreventsimilarrecurringAnalysisproposedsolutionscommitteeECpublicpolicy

Similar Articles

Cited By