This paper provides an ethical analysis of the controversy that arose from the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing research involving human embryos that was conducted by a research team in Guangzhou, China, in 2015. It is argued that the researchers involved did not overstep ethical boundaries. This was confirmed to be the case in an international meeting of experts that was convened following the controversy. It is further argued that the controversy highlights the tension between two fundamentally different policies on developing genome (...) editing technology – one proactionary and the other precautionary. This paper argues for a third approach, based on the policy of “crossing the river by probing stones”. Such an approach is consistent with current international recommendations to prioritise basic and pre-clinical research, and to allow the application of genome editing technology to somatic human cells. However, the application of the technology in germline genetic modification for human reproduction or enhancement for medical purposes should not be allowed at present. This is because the attending risks are not well understood and could be excessive or extraordinary, with little or no prospect of benefit. In addition, this paper calls for norms and regulations to be developed for genetically modifying non-human living things. [End Page 307] Finally, the paper concludes with a letter that was sent by the author to the New York Times, setting out China’s fundamental stance on genetic modification involving humans and human derivatives. (shrink)

This is a review of the literature in the philosophy of medicine published in China from 1930 to 1980. The topics dealt with include the relationship between medicine and philosophy, the basic concepts of medicine, etiology and causality, the bearing of psychology on physiology and pathology, epistemology in diagnostics, methodology of medical sciences, philosophical and methological problems in traditional Chinese medicine, philosophical problems in health policy, and medical ethics.

The authors argue that in preventing and controlling the pandemic of Covid‐19, we should have taken an offensive or proactive strategy rather than a defensive or reactionary one because the former type of approach can bring about more health benefits and fewer harms than can the latter. The offensive or proactive approach consists of two parts: The first part is to preemptively establish a barrier between a novel virus and humans in order to prevent the spillover of the virus into (...) humans, and the second part is that, when a spillover fails to be prevented, we should take public interventions, such as contact tracing, social distancing, and quarantine and isolation, as early as when there are several dozens or one hundred or more cases that manifest symptoms with an unknown etiology in order to prevent an epidemic that is still limited to relatively small groups from developing into an outbreak. (shrink)

This article consists of four parts. In the first part it briefly describes the history of body‐to‐head transplantation (BHT) and the surgical plan proposed by Drs. Sergio Canavero and Ren Xiaoping on a human subject. In the second part it argues that the BHT procedure that they propose is scientifically invalid and technically infeasible so therefore would end in failure. In the third part it argues that the present conceivable procedure of BHT cannot be ethically justified because it would bring (...) great harm to the human subject, it is uncertain who would be the possible beneficiary, and valid informed consent cannot be obtained. In the fourth part it argues that the action of performing the procedure of BHT might violate China’s current criminal and civil laws. The conclusion that follows from the arguments above is that BHT should be prohibited now and also in the near future. However, this conclusion does not preclude scientists, neurosurgeons and bioethicists doing research into scientific, technical, surgical and ethical issues raised by BHT. (shrink)

Notice #1 (UIU Special Distribution & Readers List) - 1992-97 Notice #2 (Santa Fe Institute letter confirming rcpt of UIU) - 1992 Notice #3 URGENT Machavellian "Gene-Control" (Nov,1998) GLOBAL POPULATION and the NITROGEN CYCLE - The financial environment cannot sustain without the partnership of a healthy biosphere. Revered Images Some lessons are too valuable to be so casually misplaced..

: The introduction of transgenic organisms into agriculture has raised a firestorm of controversy. Many view the technology as a pathway to a much better future society, whereas others condemn it for endangering people and the environment. One defective argument against transgenics is the Unnatural Is Unethical argument (UIU). UIU attempts to prove if transgenic organisms are unnatural and all unnatural things are morally bad, then transgenics are morally bad. However, the argument fails once it is shown that there is (...) no plausible definition for "unnatural." Therefore, UIU should be abandoned in favor of arguments more likely to succeed. (shrink)

I feel very honoured to be able to attend this international conference entitled 'Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: 20 Years After' dedicated to the memory of Imre Lakatos. I am grateful to Prof. Kostas Gavroglou, Secretary of the Organizing Committee, for his invitation. Today I want to use this chance to give a brief account of the dissemination of Lakatos's doctrines in China. Although Lakatos was already famous in Western academic circles of philosophy of science as early as the (...) 1960s because of his distinguished contributions to both the philosophy of mathematics and the philosophy of science, yet his doctrines began their dissemination in China only after the beginning of the 1980s.1 In 1979, when I worked in the Institute of Philosophy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), I started Ziran Kexue Zhexue Wenti Congkan (Journal for Philosophical Problems in Natural Sciences), and held the post of editor-in-chief. The second issue of 1980 (appearing on June 25, 1980) published the following papers by Lakatos. (1) 'The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes' (translated passages by Qui Renzong, read and revised by Fan Dainian from Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 1978, pp. 47-52,68-72). (2) 'A Renaissance of Empiricism in the Recent Philosophy of Mathematics?' (Translated by Lin Xiashui, read and revised by Qiu Renzong from British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 27, pp. 201-23, 1976) The second part of this paper was published in the third issue of the same journal (appearing on September 25, 1976). These are probably the first translations of Lakatos' papers to appear in China. (shrink)