It is an article written by Chinese researchers whose theme is liver transplantation. I have not read the paper yet, and am indifferent to the content. The reason for banning this paper is shocking. It is suspected that executed prisoners of conscience were utilized as a donor of organs.
The Guardian: Medical journal to retract paper after concerns organs came from executed prisoners
There are some layers in this issue. First, the authors declared that no prisoner's liver had been involved in the study he conducted. But, after the publication, Wendy Rogers, a professor of clinical ethics at Macquarie University in Sydney, suggested the probability of utilizing executed prisoners' organs in this study. She directed the separation between the number of donors after cardiac death in China and the cases mentioned in the paper. It means that it was impossible to perform the study as the author wrote without gaining prisoners' organs.
Fabricating the process of a study is a serious breach of research ethics. It independently deserves a banning of the paper.
In addition, organ harvesting in China is broadly criticized. Official reports suggest the existence of a considerable amount of unethical organ transplantation. The author may be aware of this issue, resulting in the false declaration in the study process.
Furthermore, execution of prisoners of conscience is beneath this problem. In China, several people are arrested for speaking or publishing ideology against the government. Western people claim that liberty of expression is not assured in China.
There are several differences among culture, indeed. For example, eating dogs is acceptable in some areas in China. I respect it as a local culture.
However, I believe some basic principles should be definitely shared beyond culture and nationality. Human equality and freedom of thought must be guaranteed regardless of nations or regions. I never admire outcomes by unethical research.
No comments:
Post a Comment