Chinese scientists, NGO staff and the public's view on trust and accountable science 2014-2017

Zhang, Joy (2019). Chinese scientists, NGO staff and the public's view on trust and accountable science 2014-2017. [Data Collection]. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Service. 10.5255/UKDA-SN-853413

China's rise as a 'leading influence' in the organization and delivery of scientific innovation is Janus-faced (FCO and BIS, 2013). On the one hand, China presents new opportunities of maximizing the uptake and application of science in a climate of sluggish economic growth. On the other hand, a persistent deficiency in ensuring responsible research conduct casts a shadow on the public attitude towards research conducted in, and with, China. Cases such as locally authorized stem cell therapy and unsupervised GM food trials not only has the effect of damaging China's own scientific reputation, but also impairs global public trust of biotechnologies (Moreno, 2010, Qiu, 2012).

This project proposes a timely and ambitious study on the accountability problem in China's life science governance through a comparative study of stem cell research and GM foods. This draws on my extensive network and previous research in both fields. Through a combination of semi-structured interviews, focus groups and international workshops, this project engages with regulators, scientists and civil society actors in both China and the UK. It makes an important contribution to the co-production of alternative ways to address public accountability in the life sciences. The analytical focus will be on the following questions:

RQ1: What are the regulatory standards and procedures used in defining, selecting and sustaining accountable research practice in stem cell research and GM foods in China? How are the development of the 'legitimation devices' shaped by domestic and international debates?
RQ2: How are the power dynamics among scientists, regulators and bioethisists constructed in stem cell and GM food regulations? What are the similarities and differences in the legitimisation of research practice in both fields?
RQ3: What forms of communication are needed to make stem cell and GM research more accessible to, and assessable by, the public? How can China improve its effective accountability to its potential research users and collaborators?

Stem cell research and GM foods make for excellent case studies. They provide complementary views on the project's three core research questions. Stem cell and GM technologies are both highly visible and controversial fields in China, but they represent the opposite ends of risk framing. While China's GM food regulation consists of a 'strong precautionary element', China's stem cell regulation arguably resembles a 'proactionary' approach (Tiberghien, 2010; Zhang, 2012). Despite these differences, stem cell and GM technologies in China share a similar regulatory history and governing structure. Both are predominately regulated by the Ministry of Health, the China Food and Drug Authority and the Ministry of Science and Technology. This difference in regulatory rationales and overlap in governance structures will provide rich comparable data for the research questions.

Addressing the accountability problem is not only crucial for China's goal of becoming a trusted player in the competitive and skeptical global community, but is also important for enabling efficient international collaborations and promoting research integrity in the life sciences. Thus, this research will be important to a number of non-academic users, such as 1) regulators and research funders in both China and Europe; 2) transnational scientific societies; 3) international civil society organisations, such as patient advocacy groups, environmental NGOs and 4) hospitals and biotechnology enterprises. Given the interdisciplinary nature this research, this project also enriches academic debates in a variety of disciplines, such as sociology, governance studies, bioethics, China studies and the life sciences.

Planned outputs includes 1 academic monograph, 6 articles in science and social science journals, 1 policy report in both English and Chinese, 1 regularly updated project website for public audiences and 2 international workshops.

Data description (abstract)

Between 2014 to 2017, 23 semi-structured interviews and 12 focus groups were conducted with Chinese policy-makers, ethicists, scientists and civil society actors in three Chinese cities: Beijing, Wuhan and Xi’an. These three cities were chosen for they are all important regional research hubs and provide complimentary insights on how scientific dialogues are organised in different socio-economic contexts. As the national capital, Beijing is a well-resourced and highly globalised north-eastern city. Wuhan is the moderately well-off southern provincial capital of Hubei and is a main hub for agroindustry research. Xi’an is the capital of the north-western Shaanxi province, which is less innovation-driven and financially less advantaged than Beijing or Wuhan.

Downloads

Altmetric