The Gene-Edited Babies Controversy in China: Field Philosophical Questioning

Abstract

The concept of field philosophy challenges a common self-understanding in Western philosophy. One question regarding this challenge is the extent to which it might be relevant to a philosophical and cultural tradition other than that in which it originated. The birth of gene-edited babies in late 2018 in Shenzhen and subsequent response within China offer an occasion for considering such a question. A narrative review, emphasizing how discussions in China itself have unfolded, rather than the course of international discussions of this real-world problem, suggests a need to qualify the applicability of field philosophy beyond American and European contexts. Many English language reports fail to note the broad involvement from government agencies, scientific institutions, professional organizations, news media, and netizens (both academics and the public). What we called field philosophical journalism can help identify limitations in some non-Chinese perspectives and complement if not directly contribute to field philosophy.

Comparison of public discussions of gene editing on social media between the United States and China

“…The discussion of scientific issues on social media has facilitated public understanding of scientific advancements [ 6 ], influenced public engagement in science policies [ 7 ], and created a diverse environment for scientific discussions [ 8 ]. For example, a survey in China found that the gene-edited babies event triggered public concerns over government regulation on clinical experiments and public interest toward the technology [ 9 ]. However, few studies have investigated the details of how the public reacted toward the ethics of bioresearch or discussed the technology on social media.…”

The Geographies and Politics of Gene Editing: Framing Debates Across Seven Countries

“…The recent special issue titled "Communicating gene editing: Agriculture, humans, and the environment" edited by Brossard and Scheufele in Environmental Communication (2020) provides a broad overview of public debates, opinions and engagements, and discusses various forms of communication about gene editing. Several authors have focused their analysis on the controversy sparked by He Jiankui, and studied how responsible research is demarcated from irresponsible research (Meyer 2018), what philosophical traditions can be mobilised for analysis (Yan and Mitcham 2020), and the public reactions on social media (Zhang et al, 2021). While much academic work has looked at the politics, publics, ethics and controversies around gene editing, there have also been some studies analyzing the continuities and discontinuities of gene editing in relation to existing biotechnology (Martin et al, 2020) as well as patenting (i.e., Mali 2020).…”