"
Several of the researchers are associated with public security authorities in China, a fact that “voids any notion of free informed consent”, said Yves Moreau, a professor of engineering at the University of Leuven, in Belgium, who focuses on DNA analysis. Moreau first raised concerns about the papers with Hart, MGGM’s editor-in-chief, in March 2021.
One retracted paper studies the DNA of Tibetans in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, using blood samples collected from 120 individuals. The article stated that “all individuals provided written informed consent” and that work was approved by the Fudan University ethics committee.
But the retraction notice published on Monday stated that an ethical review “uncovered inconsistencies between the consent documentation and the research reported; the documentation was not sufficiently detailed to resolve the concerns raised”.
"
Weird. So they had written consent forms for the blood samples, but the forms weren’t detailed enough(?), and anyway you can’t trust anyone associated with the Chinese gvmt? Is that what they’re saying?
This seems like weird reactionary virtue signalling.
@HorseRabbit I think “inconsistencies between the consent documentation and the research reported” could be anything from
fewer consent forms than participants
age and sex of consent form signatures don’t match participant cohort
consent forms do not consent to an aspect of the research process
consent forms from clearly illiterate subjects or indicate in some other way that subjects do not understand the nature of the research, and methodology does not deal with this.
If you said that about, say, African-Americans in a ghetto I think most people would be suspicious of the level of informed consent given and want to look into it.
I’ll also point out “the forms weren’t detailed enough to resolve the concerns raised” directly implies that not only were these sorts of inconsistencies then investigated, but that the forms didn’t provide information to allow the investigators to understand why (or why not) it was ethically performed.
The paperwork isn’t there for no reason, if it isn’t sufficient to cya, it’s not actually doing anything for you beyond ritual, and you’d need to redesign your forms or accounting to correct that.
The samples came from a population considered to be at risk for exploitation. So that raises a level of scrutiny.
The researchers having ties to “public security” (police?) adds some credence that maybe there could be a conflict.
“uncovered inconsistencies between the consent documentation and the research reported; the documentation was not sufficiently detailed to resolve the concerns raised”
This to me sounds like the research used the blood in ways and for purposes that the consent forms did not specify. If you consent to foo and bar are they then considered to have consented to baz? That is what that statement sounds like to me.
Another retracted study appears to be because the publication has taken a stance to not publish that kind of research, “genetic forensics” which to my understanding is an area fraught with ethical questions.
I think the overarching issue here is that China hasn’t yet proved that they deserve the benefit of the doubt as it pertains to their handling of the ethics of these studies. In fact the mounting evidence says otherwise, which is why there is extra scrutiny.
" Several of the researchers are associated with public security authorities in China, a fact that “voids any notion of free informed consent”, said Yves Moreau, a professor of engineering at the University of Leuven, in Belgium, who focuses on DNA analysis. Moreau first raised concerns about the papers with Hart, MGGM’s editor-in-chief, in March 2021.
One retracted paper studies the DNA of Tibetans in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, using blood samples collected from 120 individuals. The article stated that “all individuals provided written informed consent” and that work was approved by the Fudan University ethics committee.
But the retraction notice published on Monday stated that an ethical review “uncovered inconsistencies between the consent documentation and the research reported; the documentation was not sufficiently detailed to resolve the concerns raised”. "
Weird. So they had written consent forms for the blood samples, but the forms weren’t detailed enough(?), and anyway you can’t trust anyone associated with the Chinese gvmt? Is that what they’re saying?
This seems like weird reactionary virtue signalling.
@HorseRabbit I think “inconsistencies between the consent documentation and the research reported” could be anything from
Take for example that retracted study where the authors basically state that their research on Uighur DNA “might be useful for the police”..
If you said that about, say, African-Americans in a ghetto I think most people would be suspicious of the level of informed consent given and want to look into it.
I’ll also point out “the forms weren’t detailed enough to resolve the concerns raised” directly implies that not only were these sorts of inconsistencies then investigated, but that the forms didn’t provide information to allow the investigators to understand why (or why not) it was ethically performed.
The paperwork isn’t there for no reason, if it isn’t sufficient to cya, it’s not actually doing anything for you beyond ritual, and you’d need to redesign your forms or accounting to correct that.
The samples came from a population considered to be at risk for exploitation. So that raises a level of scrutiny.
The researchers having ties to “public security” (police?) adds some credence that maybe there could be a conflict.
This to me sounds like the research used the blood in ways and for purposes that the consent forms did not specify. If you consent to
fooandbarare they then considered to have consented tobaz? That is what that statement sounds like to me.Another retracted study appears to be because the publication has taken a stance to not publish that kind of research, “genetic forensics” which to my understanding is an area fraught with ethical questions.
I think the overarching issue here is that China hasn’t yet proved that they deserve the benefit of the doubt as it pertains to their handling of the ethics of these studies. In fact the mounting evidence says otherwise, which is why there is extra scrutiny.