ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Management discussion of laws and regulations on human genetic resources in China: a scoping review.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe governance of human genetic resources (HGRs) in China has evolved quickly, driven by national security concerns and the rapid expansion of the biotechnology sector. This review examines the resulting legal and policy framework, with a focus on cross-border data transfers and the management of informed consent.
methodsEmploying a comprehensive search strategy integrated with bibliometric analysis, this study synthesized theoretical and methodological developments in Chinese HGRs management. Literature searches spanned publications across PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang database, official government websites, and Google.
resultsChina’s HGRs management has evolved from principle-based legislation to specific administrative regulations. Informed consent has become stricter, with HGRs data classified as sensitive personal information requiring separate consent and the right to withdraw. This orientation enables strict oversight but also defines the limits within which informed consent can function. The number of international cooperation projects declined after 2023 due to refined regulatory classifications and multi-departmental collaboration. HGRs cross-border require a security review and filing by the National Health Commission, with sensitive data subject to additional assessment by the Cyberspace Administration. In contrast, general cross-border flows are primarily managed through security assessments or standard contract filings, with the negative list mechanism and risk-level exemptions being piloted in free trade zones.
conclusionNational security and data sovereignty remain central to China’s HGR governance, shaping strict oversight while limiting the practical reach of informed consent. Cross-border data sharing continues to face challenges, including regulatory discrepancies, privacy risks that extend beyond de-identification, and technical inconsistencies in data formats and annotation standards. Future progress requires enhanced transparency regarding data usage, improved technical interoperability aligned with domestic security requirements, and stronger international coordination through bilateral agreements.
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.