Article Text
Abstract
Recent calls for retraction of a large body of Chinese transplant research and of Dr Jiankui He’s gene editing research has led to renewed interest in the question of publication, retraction and use of unethical biomedical research. In Part 1 of this paper, we briefly review the now well-established consequentialist and deontological arguments for and against the use of unethical research. We argue that, while there are potentially compelling justifications for use under some circumstances, these justifications fail when unethical practices are ongoing—as in the case of research involving transplantations in which organs have been procured unethically from executed prisoners. Use of such research displays a lack of respect and concern for the victims and undermines efforts to deter unethical practices. Such use also creates moral taint and renders those who use the research complicit in continuing harm. In Part 2, we distinguish three dimensions of ‘non-use’ of unethical research: non-use of published unethical research, non-publication, and retraction and argue that all three types of non-use should be upheld in the case of Chinese transplant research. Publishers have responsibilities to not publish contemporary unethical biomedical research, and where this has occurred, to retract publications. Failure to retract the papers implicitly condones the research, while uptake of the research through citations rewards researchers and ongoing circulation of the data in the literature facilitates subsequent use by researchers, policymakers and clinicians.
- prisoners
- research ethics
- donation/procurement of organs/tissues
- transplantation
- publication ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors All authors contributed to refining the research topic, performing research and drafting content. WCH and WAR led on drafting the penultimate version. All authors contributed to revisions and approved the final version for submission.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests WAR reports being a Director of the NGO 'International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China' and is chair of its international advisory committee. AB reports being a member of the International Advisory Committee and the New Zealand Advocacy & Initiatives Committee (NZAIC) of the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China. WL reports grants from National Health & Medical Research Council, grants from Australian Research Council, outside the submitted work.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement There are no data in this work
Linked Articles
Other content recommended for you
- Responding to unethical research: the importance of transparency
- Is it unethical to publish data from Chinese transplant research?
- Why unethical papers should be retracted
- Compliance with ethical standards in the reporting of donor sources and ethics review in peer-reviewed publications involving organ transplantation in China: a scoping review
- Applying safeguards of research integrity to unethical organ donation and transplantation
- Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central
- Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey
- Coping with scientific misconduct
- Ethical and legal aspects of stem cell practices in Turkey: where are we?
- Reducing the residue of retractions in evidence synthesis: ways to minimise inappropriate citation and use of retracted data