Tibet and Xinjiang are literally autonomous ethnic regions that are under local governments of Tibetans and Uighurs, respectively. No one has any concerns about the poor donating plasma or Canadians pushing euthanasia to the poor, but you’re gonna just smear scientists because of Westoid propaganda?
Free Tibet into the hands of CIA tool Dalai “Suck My Tongue” Lama.
OK, but what if every opinion I have about Tibet has been formed by that one Brad Pitt movie where he plays a literal SS officer?
Gen x spooked.
Am gen x, was a
propagandized by the zeitgeist: Tibetan Freedom ConcertHere is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=e3zDn39VogY
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=e3zDn39VogY
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Tibet and Xinjiang are part of China because they want to. Can we say the same about Texas?
This is the real issue I have with all Chinese reporting: by government policy, they have proportional ethnic representation (and often overrepresent minorities in government in autonomous regions). Yes, it’s still technically the CPC, but it’s like saying that the BC NDP and federal NDP are the same party with the same interests.
Who are you adressing? The guardian article refers to retractions in multiple journals.
Also, people are worried about socioeconomic factors involved in plasma donation and euthanasia. As they should be. These are always important to be aware of and to actively try to preempt.
These things don’t absolve the retracted papers from criticism. Nor do they exclude any other research from close scrutinyThe point is this isn’t “criticism”. It’s just a journal trying to legitimize western propaganda and slow down China’s inevitable rise to the top in scientific research, like they’re trying to do in other fields like computing. This article doesn’t admit it outright, but the last paragraph shows they seem to understand that quite well.
" Several of the researchers are associated with public security authorities in China, a fact that “voids any notion of free informed consent”, said Yves Moreau, a professor of engineering at the University of Leuven, in Belgium, who focuses on DNA analysis. Moreau first raised concerns about the papers with Hart, MGGM’s editor-in-chief, in March 2021.
One retracted paper studies the DNA of Tibetans in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, using blood samples collected from 120 individuals. The article stated that “all individuals provided written informed consent” and that work was approved by the Fudan University ethics committee.
But the retraction notice published on Monday stated that an ethical review “uncovered inconsistencies between the consent documentation and the research reported; the documentation was not sufficiently detailed to resolve the concerns raised”. "
Weird. So they had written consent forms for the blood samples, but the forms weren’t detailed enough(?), and anyway you can’t trust anyone associated with the Chinese gvmt? Is that what they’re saying?
This seems like weird reactionary virtue signalling.
@HorseRabbit I think “inconsistencies between the consent documentation and the research reported” could be anything from
- fewer consent forms than participants
- age and sex of consent form signatures don’t match participant cohort
- consent forms do not consent to an aspect of the research process
- consent forms from clearly illiterate subjects or indicate in some other way that subjects do not understand the nature of the research, and methodology does not deal with this.
Take for example that retracted study where the authors basically state that their research on Uighur DNA “might be useful for the police”..
If you said that about, say, African-Americans in a ghetto I think most people would be suspicious of the level of informed consent given and want to look into it.
I’ll also point out “the forms weren’t detailed enough to resolve the concerns raised” directly implies that not only were these sorts of inconsistencies then investigated, but that the forms didn’t provide information to allow the investigators to understand why (or why not) it was ethically performed.
The paperwork isn’t there for no reason, if it isn’t sufficient to cya, it’s not actually doing anything for you beyond ritual, and you’d need to redesign your forms or accounting to correct that.
Removed by mod
Researchers used samples from populations deemed by experts and campaigners to be vulnerable to exploitation, including Uyghurs and Tibetans
By this logic, said genetics journal should retract all papers which used samples from black people in the United States and Europe.
Removed by mod
So basically, you can’t do research on Uyghurs and Tibetans because they’re a vulnerable minority. 😅
Only han chinese studies are aceptable to the west.
China: exists
West: deeply concerned
The moment an empire turns on science is the moment it signals its irredeemable collapse.
@Omega_Haxors yeah having ethical standards for consent is not that. If anything it’s the opposite.
I actually do think US/west hegemony is declining but I don’t see having rigorous research standards as an indication of it.
Read closer. These aren’t genuine grievances, it’s just right-wingers being racist. Good faith does not come from conspiracy theories.
I’m afraid Ockham’s razor leads me to a very different conclusion when it comes to a 2-year investigation by a Wiley journal. YMMV.
“I don’t care if it’s racist fascist pseudoscience with no basis in reality, it’s still a useful theory so I’m going to continue to believe it”
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Several of the researchers are associated with public security authorities in China, a fact that “voids any notion of free informed consent”, said Yves Moreau, a professor of engineering at the University of Leuven, in Belgium, who focuses on DNA analysis.
The article stated that “all individuals provided written informed consent” and that work was approved by the Fudan University ethics committee.
In Human Rights Watch’s most recent annual report, the campaign group said that the authorities “enforce severe restrictions on freedoms of religion, expression, movement, and assembly”.
It is considered to be a relatively easy forum for publication, which may have been a draw for Chinese researchers looking to publish in English-language journals, said David Curtis, a professor of genetics at University College London.
Curtis resigned from his position as editor-in-chief of Annals of Human Genetics, another Wiley journal, after the publisher vetoed a call to consider boycotting Chinese science because of ethical concerns, including those relating to DNA collection.
In 2023, Elsevier, a Dutch academic publisher, retracted an article based on blood and saliva samples from Uyghur and Kazakh people living in Xinjiang, a region in north-west China where there are also widespread reports of human rights abuses.
The original article contains 929 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
