In This Story
In 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced that he used “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats” (CRISPR) gene editing to modify human embryos, three of which became living babies, sometime in 2019 and 2020. The international scientific community responded with vehemence—and so did a unified caucus of Chinese scientists and academics, which was remarkable. Human germline genome editing remains controversial among the global scientific community as it raises ethical and moral questions and invites considerable risks.
Schar School of Policy and Government associate professor Sonia Ben Ouagrham-Gormley, who teaches nonproliferation and international security among other subjects in the Schar School’s biodefense program, was a coauthor of a study on scientists within China who spoke out against He and noted the ramifications of the reaction in the scientific world. The new paper, published in Issues in Science and Technology’s Summer 2023 edition, is titled Chinese Academics Are Becoming a Force for Good Governance. It was cowritten with Joy Y. Zhang, founding director of the Centre for Global Science and Epistemic Justice at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom, and Kathleen M. Vogel, a professor at the School for the Future of Innovation in Society at Arizona State University. Read the full paper at Issues in Science and Technology here.
With academic censorship by the Chinese Communist Party seemingly the norm, it’s revelatory to find there are life and social scientists in China who are staking careers and reputations—and in some cases, their lives—in the pursuit of a culture of ethical conduct of research by speaking out against the failings of individual scientists like He and calling for regulatory transparency and accountable public oversight.
“China still has much work to do to develop a trusted and accountable regulatory system worthy of its scientific advancement and ambition, but meaningful, sustainable reforms must come from within the country” said the study authors.
The research found that, overwhelmingly, Chinese academics denounced He’s actions, yet Western media, which also scorned He, ignored their voices, preferring instead to focus on the views of prominent Western scientists, and thus promoting the widespread view that all Chinese scientists are passive and subservient to the Chinese Communist Party. This massive misperception by the West, say the paper’s authors, is dangerous for the advancement of science ethics in China, as well as for the well-being of those who conduct the science. The bottom line, according to the study authors: It’s both the West and Western journalists who fail to report on the debate existing in China even if they witness it.
“It is important to acknowledge that China’s censorship has made it difficult for Western media to engage with real people and debates in real time,” Ben Ouagrham-Gormley said. “Several Western journalists have been expelled from China since the pandemic, while others faced administrative challenges such as visa delays. All of this significantly reduces opportunities for in-person engagement. Simultaneously, most academics in China have become reluctant to accept interviews from foreign media due to censorship concerns.”
When Chinese academics spoke out and took a collective stand in February 2023 during a meeting organized under the Bio-Governance Commons initiative — a series of meetings with Chinese scientists organized by the study authors and Chinese academics — Chinese scientists finally were able to air publicly their views about the CRISPR babies scandal directly to He, who was present at the meeting. It would have been important for Western media to portray those discussion accurately, say the authors. “Unfortunately, Western media tend to only quote elite Western scientists, which leaves out other important voices—including those from China and the global South—to provide a more holistic picture of what the broader scientific community, including the Chinese scientific community, thinks about He’s actions.” Ignoring Chinese voices also leads to ignoring the risks they take in speaking out —several of the February meeting attendees were admonished by Chinese authorities and pressured to remove mention of the meeting from their social media accounts— as well as the positive outcomes of Chinese scientists’ pushback. For example, after the February 2023 meeting, Chinese media placed greater attention on He’s new scientific endeavors launched after his release from prison, calling for greater government oversight of his new research, which until then had remain unchallenged by Chinese authorities.
The international scientific community’s general perception of Chinese scientists, often viewed as being solely aligned with the government, affects collaborations and trust with the West.
“Reducing a whole community to a uniform group can be conceptually convenient but it only creates biases on both sides and reduces the willingness to engage in dialogue, exchanges, and cooperation towards goals that can be mutually beneficial,” Ben Ouagrham-Gormley said. “The Chinese scientific community is more diverse than the media make it out to be. Recognizing that diversity and maintaining the dialogue with a variety of individuals can only improve mutual understanding, help solve challenges, and more importantly support those who have both the will and the capacity to enhance good governance and accountable research.”
How can the international community better support Chinese academics who are championing responsible research and innovation, especially when they face backlash at home?
“Recognizing them and giving them a voice in mainstream media can help,”Ben Ouagrham-Gormley said. “Also, recognizing the diversity of the scientific community by inviting to conferences or meetings not just a handful of individuals from elite institutions vetted by the [Chinese Communist] Party, but a wider range of scientists and academics from different regions of China, people at different career stages, and of different genders and backgrounds can help democratize scientific influence and authorities in China.”
Studying the relationship between China’s scientific community and the West falls into Ben Ouagrham-Gormley’s fields of interests, including biodefense, biosecurity, and the risks posed by emerging technologies such as CRISPR, which can be used unethically or for malevolent purposes, thus posing public health or/and security risk. She received her PhD in development economics from the Ecoles des Haute Etudes en Sciences Socials (EHESS) in Paris, France, and joined the Schar School after serving as a senior research associate with the Monterey Institute of International Studies’ James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS). While at CNS, she spent two years as director of research at the CNS Almaty office in Kazakhstan.
“Making an impact in any environment is difficult,” she said. “But when that happens under the shadow of an authoritarian regime, the amount of effort needed to make a visible impact is much greater and carries greater risks for one's personal life and career. It is easy to assume that Chinese scientists do not have a voice or influence over Chinese science—that they just follow the party line—but our research and other growing scholarship shows that there still is room for Chinese scientists to be a positive voice to influence decision-making that is good for China and good for the international community.
“But this is a fragile, contingent, and dynamic situation. The international community should do all it can to support Chinese scientists who desire to support responsible and accountable science.”
The essential first step is to respect the space Chinese scientists have created to engage in policy debates, making sure that Chinese voices are heard and acknowledged in global conversations. At a fundamental level, this means increasing the visibility of Chinese scientific communities’ contributions to policy discussions. That necessitates moving beyond a homogeneous portrayal of China’s science and researchers. For just one example, organizers and journalists could apply equality, diversity, and inclusion principles in invitations to and coverage of international events. This would empower a broader spectrum of Chinese academics in domestic dialogues and provide a fuller picture of that diversity to the international community. Everyone everywhere has a role to play in empowering the forces promoting better science governance in China.