12 ms·

Call for retraction of 400 papers amid fears organs came from Chinese prisoners

51 points by howard941 8y ago

downrightmike 8y ago
This is disgusting. What is the point of sacrificing so much? A few more years?
gotocake 8y ago
Horrific, not surprising, but horrific. It’s a little slice of Niven-esque sci-fi hell, here and now. Still, while a crackdown on the groups that based their research on these organs is a must, I’m not sure that retracting the research is the way to do it. Suspend their licenses to practice, cut their funding and subject them to scrutiny, but if the research is good it should be agnostic as to the source. It should be possible both to set an example which discourages this practice in the future, without the loss of the research itself.
- krastanov 8y ago
  I understand your suggestion about not retracting the research and I am certain reasonable people would fall on both sides of this question. But it is not unreasonable to destroy something useful that appeared thanks to something horrible, in a show of moral leadership and an absolutist refutation of the horrible practice. For a much lower stakes example: The bounty confiscated from poachers (ivory for instance) is destroyed instead of being legally sold to fund the anti-poaching efforts.
  - gotocake 8y ago
    Of course destruction of ivory makes the remaining ivory more rare, more valuable, and desireable. The issue with ivory poaching isn’t going to be solved by Drug War tactics, and just like burning a pile of cocaine it does nothing to solve the problem, it just makes people feel better.
    - krastanov 8y ago
      Experts tend to find the question much more complicated than your armchair economics would suggest. The real world rarely follows what you learn in the first week of Econ 101. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/wildlife-watch-ivory-crush-elephant-poaching/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/wildlife-watch-i... Mind you, I am not saying that your thesis has no value, rather that you have way more confidence in it than it deserves.
      - gotocake 8y ago
        Did you even read the opinion presented in the article you posted? I don’t think it’s quite the comeback the tone of your post would suggest. The two camps seem to break down in terms of “signaling” or “sending a message”, and the argument I represented which is grounded in the evidence. For spice we have the person pointing out that in fact these burns/crushes present a ripe opportunity to steal the ivory. In some corrupt countries, ivory burns and crushes can act as a way to steal ivory because it is not all carefully recorded in its destruction. Although initially these acts made a statement as a cry for help, such as with the first Kenya burn in 1989 that helped put ivory out of fashion in the U.S. and Europe, many in Asia find destruction to be against their culture and think the ivory could be used for making an artistic monument as a long-term statement instead. It is the Asians, especially the Chinese, whose viewpoints on this issue count the most, as they are the main consumers of ivory. Ivory crushes can detract from what is really needed to save elephants: much greater efforts on law enforcement and improving ways to protect elephants in their natural habitat. Experts clearly disagree, but I find arguments about sending messages or deterrence unconvincing, as they tend to come from the gut rather than the evidence. It’s just that kind of sloppy thinking that death penalty advocates often use when confronted with evidence as well.
  - lowry 8y ago
    The ivory example is bad. Aside from being illogcal, it is also wasteful. It profits only politicians and impostors.
tombert 8y ago
Maybe I'm missing something; it mentioned it was using organs from executed prisoners. Is that a bad thing? Again, I feel like I missed a part of this article, so I'm genuinely confused. EDIT: I was under the (erroneous) impression that these people were being executed for other crimes, like murder or rape or something. I didn't realize people were being executed on demand. That's terrifying.
- quotha 8y ago
  Dude, you need to consent to having your organs donated.
  - mooman219 8y ago
    This 100%. And there's a non-zero chance that a prisoner is only kept alive long enough until one of their organs is needed.
    - bdamm 8y ago
      Far from non-zero, that appears to be exactly what is happening.
- xiii1408 8y ago
  Yes, that's a bad thing. The Chinese state has a documented history of executing people on demand in order to harvest their organs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Go.... Even if you were going to be executed anyway, you obviously have a right to determine what happens to your organs, particularly in cultures like China's, where it's seen as very important that the body remain whole.
  - tombert 8y ago
    Ah, I wasn't aware that they were being executed for that reason. Then I definitely agree it's horrifying.
toss1 8y ago
>>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. This indicates between 50,000 and 90,000 'prisoners of conscience' EVERY YEAR are executed and have their organs harvested. That is 1,000 to 2,000 people per week executed essentially for opposing the govt. Yet we continue to do business with this government and allow them into world trade and govt organizations as if they were somehow ethical or legitimate. This needs to be re-thought.
- p1esk 8y ago
  Do you use products made in China? If so, you indirectly (or in some cases, directly) support Chinese government. Are you going to stop, now that you think they are unethical?
  - reallydude 8y ago
    If I can (know), I avoid it. Same with a number of other organizations (mostly companies).
  - bdamm 8y ago
    That's ridiculous, it's the same fallacy as believing that a single person's choice to drive less somehow helps reduce global warming. The massive systemic abuses completely overshadow the noise of individual selection. It's not even clear to me that a social-media storm resulting in a global boycott of "Made in China" goods within developed nations would have much of a long-term dent in the Chinese economy or domestic policy.
    - p1esk 8y ago
      Can you propose something more effective, that you personally can do? Or are you suggesting we ignore (alleged) dozen of people executed every hour for organ harvesting?
      - 8y ago
lbj 8y ago
Destroying the knowledge now is counter productive and if anything it makes all lives lost in vain
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  The corollary of this argument is that the deaths contribute to some noble purpose and and are thus justified to some degree. That instinct to engage in retroactive bargaining is understandable but dangerous. What is the point of having ethical standards if there isn't a high cost for breaking them?
  - maccio92 8y ago
    The cost should be paid by those who allowed the organs to be provided in this way, not by destroying the learnings that came from the science.
    - asib 8y ago
      Er, the people conducting the research who took the organs were at the very least not following ethical guidelines. This is sufficient grounds for punishment in my eyes.
    - anigbrowl 8y ago
      You know if someone ignored ethical guidelines about organ donations in performing medical research it's equally possible that they fudged the results or cut other corners. They've already decided to value expediency over integrity so why do you assume they're being rigorous in every other respect? The whole peer review enterprise depends on a baseline level of probity, and given the questions raised by the reproducibility crisis we could probably benefit from a more skeptical approach.
  - sigstoat 8y ago
    > What is the point of having ethical standards if there isn't a high cost for breaking them? society is already harmed by the initial crime, and now it has to pay the price a second time by forgetting? strip the researchers' names and institutions from all copies of the articles, and adjust bibliographic standards of all reputable journals to require citations say the articles were authored by "Ethical disgrace" or whatever.
crb002 8y ago
Retraction is a coverup. They should publish how they did it.
99_00 8y ago
Horrifyingly, Ground Baby Pills Are a Real Thing In news that will make you want to shut the blinds, go back to bed until next week ... there's disturbing news out of South Korea that since August, officials have found over 17,000 pills filled with human flesh, in particular the placentas and ground up bodies of dead Chinese babies. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/horrifyingly-ground-baby-pills-are-real-thing/328490/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/ho...
aaron695 8y ago
> 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. Other than racism this statement is absolute total junk. China doesn't even execute murderers close to that rate. They are not a primative society without phones or closed in without foreigners having the ability to visit. How do they hide it? Are they executing in a multiverse? One also where Chinese citizens are monsters not humans who allow it. This is purely straight for the racist arm chair brigade. The same ones who don't do real science, just try to destroy it.

51 points by howard941 8y ago

This is disgusting. What is the point of sacrificing so much? A few more years?

Horrific, not surprising, but horrific. It’s a little slice of Niven-esque sci-fi hell, here and now. Still, while a crackdown on the groups that based their research on these organs is a must, I’m not sure that retracting the research is the way to do it. Suspend their licenses to practice, cut their funding and subject them to scrutiny, but if the research is good it should be agnostic as to the source. It should be possible both to set an example which discourages this practice in the future, without the loss of the research itself.

krastanov 8y ago
I understand your suggestion about not retracting the research and I am certain reasonable people would fall on both sides of this question. But it is not unreasonable to destroy something useful that appeared thanks to something horrible, in a show of moral leadership and an absolutist refutation of the horrible practice. For a much lower stakes example: The bounty confiscated from poachers (ivory for instance) is destroyed instead of being legally sold to fund the anti-poaching efforts.
- gotocake 8y ago
  Of course destruction of ivory makes the remaining ivory more rare, more valuable, and desireable. The issue with ivory poaching isn’t going to be solved by Drug War tactics, and just like burning a pile of cocaine it does nothing to solve the problem, it just makes people feel better.
  - krastanov 8y ago
    Experts tend to find the question much more complicated than your armchair economics would suggest. The real world rarely follows what you learn in the first week of Econ 101. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/wildlife-watch-ivory-crush-elephant-poaching/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/wildlife-watch-i... Mind you, I am not saying that your thesis has no value, rather that you have way more confidence in it than it deserves.
    - gotocake 8y ago
      Did you even read the opinion presented in the article you posted? I don’t think it’s quite the comeback the tone of your post would suggest. The two camps seem to break down in terms of “signaling” or “sending a message”, and the argument I represented which is grounded in the evidence. For spice we have the person pointing out that in fact these burns/crushes present a ripe opportunity to steal the ivory. In some corrupt countries, ivory burns and crushes can act as a way to steal ivory because it is not all carefully recorded in its destruction. Although initially these acts made a statement as a cry for help, such as with the first Kenya burn in 1989 that helped put ivory out of fashion in the U.S. and Europe, many in Asia find destruction to be against their culture and think the ivory could be used for making an artistic monument as a long-term statement instead. It is the Asians, especially the Chinese, whose viewpoints on this issue count the most, as they are the main consumers of ivory. Ivory crushes can detract from what is really needed to save elephants: much greater efforts on law enforcement and improving ways to protect elephants in their natural habitat. Experts clearly disagree, but I find arguments about sending messages or deterrence unconvincing, as they tend to come from the gut rather than the evidence. It’s just that kind of sloppy thinking that death penalty advocates often use when confronted with evidence as well.
- lowry 8y ago
  The ivory example is bad. Aside from being illogcal, it is also wasteful. It profits only politicians and impostors.

tombert 8y ago

Maybe I'm missing something; it mentioned it was using organs from executed prisoners. Is that a bad thing? Again, I feel like I missed a part of this article, so I'm genuinely confused. EDIT: I was under the (erroneous) impression that these people were being executed for other crimes, like murder or rape or something. I didn't realize people were being executed on demand. That's terrifying.

quotha 8y ago
Dude, you need to consent to having your organs donated.
- mooman219 8y ago
  This 100%. And there's a non-zero chance that a prisoner is only kept alive long enough until one of their organs is needed.
  - bdamm 8y ago
    Far from non-zero, that appears to be exactly what is happening.
xiii1408 8y ago
Yes, that's a bad thing. The Chinese state has a documented history of executing people on demand in order to harvest their organs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Go.... Even if you were going to be executed anyway, you obviously have a right to determine what happens to your organs, particularly in cultures like China's, where it's seen as very important that the body remain whole.
- tombert 8y ago
  Ah, I wasn't aware that they were being executed for that reason. Then I definitely agree it's horrifying.

toss1 8y ago

>>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. This indicates between 50,000 and 90,000 'prisoners of conscience' EVERY YEAR are executed and have their organs harvested. That is 1,000 to 2,000 people per week executed essentially for opposing the govt. Yet we continue to do business with this government and allow them into world trade and govt organizations as if they were somehow ethical or legitimate. This needs to be re-thought.

p1esk 8y ago
Do you use products made in China? If so, you indirectly (or in some cases, directly) support Chinese government. Are you going to stop, now that you think they are unethical?
- reallydude 8y ago
  If I can (know), I avoid it. Same with a number of other organizations (mostly companies).
- bdamm 8y ago
  That's ridiculous, it's the same fallacy as believing that a single person's choice to drive less somehow helps reduce global warming. The massive systemic abuses completely overshadow the noise of individual selection. It's not even clear to me that a social-media storm resulting in a global boycott of "Made in China" goods within developed nations would have much of a long-term dent in the Chinese economy or domestic policy.
  - p1esk 8y ago
    Can you propose something more effective, that you personally can do? Or are you suggesting we ignore (alleged) dozen of people executed every hour for organ harvesting?
    - 8y ago

lbj 8y ago

Destroying the knowledge now is counter productive and if anything it makes all lives lost in vain

anigbrowl 8y ago
The corollary of this argument is that the deaths contribute to some noble purpose and and are thus justified to some degree. That instinct to engage in retroactive bargaining is understandable but dangerous. What is the point of having ethical standards if there isn't a high cost for breaking them?
- maccio92 8y ago
  The cost should be paid by those who allowed the organs to be provided in this way, not by destroying the learnings that came from the science.
  - asib 8y ago
    Er, the people conducting the research who took the organs were at the very least not following ethical guidelines. This is sufficient grounds for punishment in my eyes.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    You know if someone ignored ethical guidelines about organ donations in performing medical research it's equally possible that they fudged the results or cut other corners. They've already decided to value expediency over integrity so why do you assume they're being rigorous in every other respect? The whole peer review enterprise depends on a baseline level of probity, and given the questions raised by the reproducibility crisis we could probably benefit from a more skeptical approach.
- sigstoat 8y ago
  > What is the point of having ethical standards if there isn't a high cost for breaking them? society is already harmed by the initial crime, and now it has to pay the price a second time by forgetting? strip the researchers' names and institutions from all copies of the articles, and adjust bibliographic standards of all reputable journals to require citations say the articles were authored by "Ethical disgrace" or whatever.

crb002 8y ago

Retraction is a coverup. They should publish how they did it.

99_00 8y ago

Horrifyingly, Ground Baby Pills Are a Real Thing In news that will make you want to shut the blinds, go back to bed until next week ... there's disturbing news out of South Korea that since August, officials have found over 17,000 pills filled with human flesh, in particular the placentas and ground up bodies of dead Chinese babies. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/horrifyingly-ground-baby-pills-are-real-thing/328490/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/ho...

aaron695 8y ago

> 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. Other than racism this statement is absolute total junk. China doesn't even execute murderers close to that rate. They are not a primative society without phones or closed in without foreigners having the ability to visit. How do they hide it? Are they executing in a multiverse? One also where Chinese citizens are monsters not humans who allow it. This is purely straight for the racist arm chair brigade. The same ones who don't do real science, just try to destroy it.