Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38681134›Full record

ReviewComputational and structural biotechnology journal2024

A sustainable balance between innovation and risk: How the "right to science" affects China's medical biotechnology regulatory policy.

Yiping Han, Lindsay L Fan, Yang Xue

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Yiping HanSchool of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Lindsay L FanNorth Oconee High School, Bogart, GA, USA.
Yang XueCenter for Biosafety Research and Strategy, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medical biotechnology is at the forefront of scientific progress, with humanity facing a critical juncture during the pandemic. However, to maximize these benefits, governments face the complex challenge of reconciling innovation and risk. A sustainable balance is critical, as extreme measures such as blanket bans on biotechnology research could hamper progress, while unfettered research could pose an existential threat. The need for effective regulation has become apparent in the context of recent controversies surrounding pharmaceutical biotechnology. Governments face the challenge of reconciling precaution with innovation, necessitating a dual strategy fostering both principles. This paper explores the delicate dynamics of innovation and risk in pharmaceutical biotechnology, focusing on the evolving landscape in Europe, the U.S., and, notably, China. At the same time, we delve into the regulatory landscape and examine the role of the "right to science" in shaping Chinese policy. This paper further applies the right to science that has received the interests of medical biotechnology regulatory policymakers: understanding the role of scientific claims in regulating emerging technologies and analyzing the impact of major regulations on the ability to sustainably balance innovation and risk. We believe that a comprehensive global effort is needed to harmonize these two principles, highlighting the imperative of responsible governance in steering the trajectory of this powerful scientific frontier. The insights gained from the Chinese experience offer valuable implications for global policymakers facing similar challenges.

Indexed as

Biosafety and biosecurityChinaMedical biotechnologyRegulatory policyRight to scienceRisk and innovation

Identifiers

PMID38681134
PMCPMC11052690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.