A group of researchers is calling for the retraction of more than 400 scientific papers after a first-of-its-kind study that claims countless human organs were unethically harvested from prisoners in China.
The study, which was published in the journal BMJ Open and led by Australian researchers, highlights a facet of scientific ethics that does not receive a lot of attention. Namely, that many English-language academic journals do not follow international ethics rules over donor consent for organ transplants.
“There’s no real pressure from research leaders on China to be more transparent,” Wendy Rogers, a professor of clinical ethics at Macquarie University and the study’s author, told the Guardian. “Everyone seems to say, ‘It’s not our job.’ The world’s silence on this barbaric issue must stop.”
[...] The study looked at research papers published from January 2000 until April 2017. Researchers identified 445 studies involving 85,477 transplants. A staggering 92.5 percent failed to report whether or not organs were sourced from executed prisoners, while 99 percent failed to report that organ sources gave consent for transplantation.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @11:11PM (7 children)
But the means by which a result was obtained does not invalidate the result itself.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @11:12PM (1 child)
Consenting organs are happy organs.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 08 2019, @04:36PM
Which man has the biggest organ?
Usually the one with the most registers (eg, keyboards).
Or organ size might be measured by the pipes.
Why is it so difficult to break a heroine addiction?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sulla on Thursday February 07 2019, @11:17PM (1 child)
Agreed. Was it immoral for the Japanese to test on Chinese/Americans/British/Australians in WWII without anesthetic for research? It very much was. Is it a good idea to throw out research that has already been done and spend years trying to replicate it on more willing subjects? No way.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Interesting) by stormwyrm on Friday February 08 2019, @06:06AM
No, we shouldn't throw out the research, but perhaps it might be better deny them credit for any such discoveries as much as possible. That's the most that can reasonably be done, and I believe that is what is being attempted with the Nazi research findings that came out of the concentration camps. Pantothenate kinase-associated neurodegeneration, formerly known as Hallervorden–Spatz disease, was discovered by Julius Hallervorden and Hugo Spatz, two Nazi doctors who arrived at their findings by examining brains harvested from Nazi euthanasia victims. The Paralysis agitans reaction, formerly known as the Spatz–Stiefler reaction, was discovered by the aforementioned Spatz and Georg Stiefler from the same process. Portal vein thrombosis, previously known as Cauchois–Eppinger–Frugoni syndrome, was previously named partly for Hans Eppinger, who conducted cruel experiments on Romani concentration camp prisoners at Dachau. He committed suicide just before he would have been made to face the music at Nuremberg. Is there a stand-in name like Alan Smithee that can be used for these papers so that these unethical scientists don't get their names cited?
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday February 08 2019, @03:11AM (2 children)
Thank you, Dr. Mengele https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele [wikipedia.org]
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday February 08 2019, @04:12PM (1 child)
I get that Josef Mengele and his ilk were extremely horrible people and committed horrendous acts on innocent victims. That doesn't necessitate that the science and results were incorrect/invalid. You definitely don't want to be promoting his methods, though.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeVilla on Saturday February 09 2019, @04:04AM
The point is to make discourage further horrendous acts. This is being done by trying to remove any potential benefit that might come from it. It is making an ethical choice to reject the acts in totality. Of course, China does not see any ethical problem with what they are doing so it will continue. Now, do you cooperate with "Dr. Mengele" or do you shun him?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @11:12PM (7 children)
Donating their organs is probably the best thing most of those evil Chinese prisoners did in their life, and you now want the results retracted. WTF.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Thursday February 07 2019, @11:22PM
"No kittens or puppies were hurt in the process, thus it must be A-OK."
Is that what you are saying?
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08 2019, @12:14AM (5 children)
Those evil Chinese prisoners were probably innocent. Imprisoned for being moral.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday February 08 2019, @12:42AM (3 children)
Or ... they were murderers, rapists, drug traffickers ... The kind of people China has an ample supply of to put to death.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 08 2019, @12:55AM (2 children)
Alleged, of course. Always the problem with a system that doesn't try for justice.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday February 08 2019, @01:12AM (1 child)
I have no doubt that a rapidly-growing country, including 1.3B people, lots of new millionaires/billionaires, yet hundreds of millions of dirt-poor people, does find a few thousand people per year who did things they deem worthy of a bullet to the back of the head (and I don't support the death penalty except in extreme and unquestionable cases).
Being omniscient would be nice, allowing us to figure out the number of impolite demonstrators who don't get the hint after their first kneecapping and require a full framing for death-and-organs process. I am tempted to think that it is too much paperwork to be used as often are we are led to believe.
Whether they approach the improper conviction rate of the US is indeed the question.
By contrast, few people denounce Japan's amazing 99% conviction rate. Those are some really good cops, never nabbing the wrong guy. We should hire a few.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Friday February 08 2019, @03:17AM
Why should that be considered a problem? Sounds like they don't bring cases to court unless they have pretty solid evidence. For example [wikipedia.org]:
I doubt there are many people complaining about North Korea's conviction rate either.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08 2019, @01:45AM
Just as Fan Bingbing was guilty?
No court of law examined evidence. No lawyer defended her. Formal charges were not announce and defended in court.
Imagine being held prisoner with the threat of death or worse hanging over your head.
They drained her back amounts and liquidated property worth an estimated 100 million dollars. Based on an accusation of contact fraud. An accusation that still has not been proven.
They came for Fan Bingbing and stole her wealth, but people said nothing because they were not millionaire Chinese movie stars.
They came for the head of Interpol, and no one said anything because international politics is belt and road mortgage unstable.
....
(Score: 4, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday February 07 2019, @11:43PM
BMJ Open claims it will follow the BMJ Author policies for research ethics ( https://authors.bmj.com/policies/research-ethics/ [bmj.com] ), which in turn references that it adopts the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki ( https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ [wma.net] ). Their section on informed consent is below. Paragraphs 26 and 27 are relevant in terms of both securing consent and ensuring that consent is not given under duress. Just because one is a prisoner does not mean that participation in research has been coerced or is under duress automatically, but the researchers should have to justify how they ensured that consents were in fact freely given (i.e. going above the average norms to ensure free participation). If the research is to be published in a journal like BMJ Open. Different places can have different ethical standards, but it is as much the ethics of the publisher that need to be called into question to ensure they were performing to their standards as much as those of the researchers.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08 2019, @12:41AM (2 children)
Next you'll be saying the prisoners were unethically denied their freedom.
I think it is unethical to waste organs on useless criminals. Productive members of society need those organs, yet we let them die despite having the organs available in prison.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08 2019, @02:17AM
So, if you are jailed for jay walking in China you agree to your organs being harvested?
Slippery slope right there. .
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 08 2019, @04:41PM
Being denied freedom is something different than being denied organs, or denied life.
There may be some way denying any of these can be done under the law. But that is not the same as arbitrarily substituting one punishment for another.
If you're going to harvest prisoner's organs, then spell it out under the law. Don't dance around it. Don't do it in secret. Try bringing it out in the bright light of day. A government either thinks this is a good idea or a bad idea. Let's make it transparently clear.
Why is it so difficult to break a heroine addiction?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08 2019, @12:54AM
Once again we see capitalism rearing its ugly head.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Friday February 08 2019, @11:29AM
When I saw the title, I assumed the donors were still alive, and I thought, yes, that is a bit bad. However, as they were already dead I see no problem.
There is a more extreme situation with experiments done on living subjects in German prison camps during WW2 - whether the results should be taken into any account.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08 2019, @08:01PM
https://www.playboy.com/read/playboy-interview-donald-trump-1990 [playboy.com]
He appaluded the Chinese gov for being tough with Tiannemen square. He is a human waste land.