Slashdot Mirror
Call for Retraction of 400 Scientific Papers On Organ Transplantation Amid Fears That Organs Came From Chinese Prisoners (theguardian.com)
A world-first study has called for the mass retraction of more than 400 scientific papers on organ transplantation, amid fears the organs were obtained unethically from Chinese prisoners. The Guardian reports: The Australian-led study exposes a mass failure of English language medical journals to comply with international ethical standards in place to ensure organ donors provide consent for transplantation. The study was published on Wednesday in the medical journal BMJ Open. Its author, the professor of clinical ethics Wendy Rogers, said journals, researchers and clinicians who used the research were complicit in "barbaric" methods of organ procurement.
"There's no real pressure from research leaders on China to be more transparent," Rogers, from Macquarie University in Sydney, said. "Everyone seems to say, 'It's not our job.' The world's silence on this barbaric issue must stop." A report published in 2016 found a large discrepancy between official transplant figures from the Chinese government and the number of transplants reported by hospitals. While the government says 10,000 transplants occur each year, hospital data shows between 60,000 to 100,000 organs are transplanted each year. The report provides evidence that this gap is being made up by executed prisoners of conscience.
"There's no real pressure from research leaders on China to be more transparent," Rogers, from Macquarie University in Sydney, said. "Everyone seems to say, 'It's not our job.' The world's silence on this barbaric issue must stop." A report published in 2016 found a large discrepancy between official transplant figures from the Chinese government and the number of transplants reported by hospitals. While the government says 10,000 transplants occur each year, hospital data shows between 60,000 to 100,000 organs are transplanted each year. The report provides evidence that this gap is being made up by executed prisoners of conscience.
Better analogy would be Nazi cold exposure science.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
A while ago, a bunch of Nazi scientists did some very, very unethical research. It was the kind of thing that would turn most people's stomachs. But rather than throw it away, we kept it, and for two reasons.
First, it was new data. They studied things that nobody else was studying (with reason) and medical science learned a lot from this.
Secondly, throwing it away would mean that those who died during this died for nothing. At least this way their sacrifice led to something meaningful.
Provided that these studies are accurate, they shouldn't be rejected, purely because we don't like the source. Sure, stop more abuses and ensure that there aren't any more studies in this vein, but the data exists, don't just throw it away. Keeping it means that we know more and there's less call to repeat these studies!
I guess you have never done any Human Subject testing. All testing in the US has to have IRB approval (https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm126420.htm) and the scientists doing the research need to have gone through the IRB course and sign that they can't not use data that is not been submitted and reviewed prior to experiments so that they don't do something illegal and un-ethical, like the Stanford Prison Experiment. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment).
Yes maybe some good data came from that, but the means do not justify the ends, same thing applies when doing testing on animals.
The Nazi government no longer exists. Discarding their research saves nobody. The Chinese government still exists. Discarding their research may prevent them from doing more like these.
Organ harvesting from a Nazi-like Chinese government exists, and is going on. Discarding the research sends a message the practice must die out, and good ethical science will replace it like it was never there.
Continuing to allow this does exactly that. It continues to allow prisoners to have their organs unethically harvested in a macabre dystopian 3rd world manner.
You're an apologist. You should have your organs harvested.
Indeed. Much of what we know about reviving cold water drowning victims comes from research conducted by Nazis on prisoners.
Did you even glance at the paper you linked? It says the research is total rubbish due to poor design, shoddy and incomplete data collection, lack of cardiovascular knowledge, outright falsification and fabrication to please Himmler, and totally unsupported conclusions. We most definitely learning nothing from that particular set of tortures masquerading as experiments.