ArticleHuman genomics2024
Public perceptions of international genetic information sharing for biomedical research in China: a case study of the social media debate on the article "A Pangenome Reference of 36 Chinese Populations" published in Nature.
Article in Human genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management discussion of laws and regulations on human genetic resources in China: a scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Public awareness, attitudes, and motivation toward biobanks: a survey of China.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe international disclosure of Chinese human genetic data continues to be a contentious issue in China, generating public debates in both traditional and social media channels. Concerns have intensified after Chinese scientists' research on pangenome data was published in the prestigious journal Nature.
methodsThis study scrutinized microblogs posted on Weibo, a popular Chinese social media site, in the two months immediately following the publication (June 14, 2023-August 21, 2023). Content analysis was conducted to assess the nature of public responses, justifications for positive or negative attitudes, and the users' overall knowledge of how Chinese human genetic information is regulated and managed in China.
resultsWeibo users displayed contrasting attitudes towards the article's public disclose of pangenome research data, with 18% positive, 64% negative, and 18% neutral. Positive attitudes came primarily from verified government and media accounts, which praised the publication. In contrast, negative attitudes originated from individual users who were concerned about national security and health risks and often believed that the researchers have betrayed China. The benefits of data sharing highlighted in the commentaries included advancements in disease research and scientific progress. Approximately 16% of the microblogs indicated that Weibo users had misunderstood existing regulations and laws governing data sharing and stewardship.
conclusionsBased on the predominantly negative public attitudes toward scientific data sharing established by our study, we recommend enhanced outreach by scientists and scientific institutions to increase the public understanding of developments in genetic research, international data sharing, and associated regulations. Additionally, governmental agencies can alleviate public fears and concerns by being more transparent about their security reviews of international collaborative research involving Chinese human genetic data and its cross-border transfer.
Indexed as
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.