ArticleNational science review2020
Research ethics: a safeguard for advanced technologies.
Article in National science review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the fast development of cutting-edge technologies and their greater integration into human life, more ethical challenges emerge. The problem became more salient when the world's first genetically edited babies were born in China in violation of existing ethical rules. Although the responsible researcher He Jiankui was sentenced for imprisonment for three years last December, it is still necessary to examine the current status of research ethics and the challenges in China. Has China set up a sophisticated research ethics system? For research ethics and their implementation in China, are there unique national characteristics? Can the dominant ethics principles primarily developed from life science research be equally adopted in the emerging artificial intelligence research and development? At an online forum organized by National Science Review (NSR) and through subsequent correspondences among forum participants, NSR Executive Editor-in-Chief Mu-ming Poo and guest moderator Hepeng Jia asked three scientists and three bioethicists or philosophers of science and technology in the field to examine the dynamic development of research ethics in China. Weiwen DuanPhilosopher of Science and Technology at Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, China Junjiu HuangLife scientist focused on genetics at Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China Renzong QiuBioethicist at Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, China Qiang SunLife scientist and the principal investigator (PI) of clone monkey program at Shanghai Institute of Neuroscience, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China Yi ZengArtificial intelligence scientist at Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China Xiaomei ZhaiBioethicist at Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences/Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China Mu-ming Poo (Chair)Neurobiologist at Center for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China Hepeng Jia (Co-chair)Professor of Science Communication at Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.