Governing Scientific Accountability in China

Dr Joy Zhang recently attended the ChinaReproTech conference organised by the Reproductive Sociology Research Group at Cambridge.

A most intriguing theme related to the governance of scientific accountability in China was the twin discourses on ‘insurance’ and ‘assurance’. Both papers in the opening session dwelled on quality ‘assurance’ and the ‘insurance’ of good birth/good life. The idea of ‘insuring’ good birth is incredible. It of course immediately triggers a classic ‘risk society’ question – how can one ‘insure’ the quality of a future being when some genetic and epigenetic risks remain unknown or disputable? This point was further highlighted in later discussions on the ‘illogical’ quick normalisation of IVF technology in China when its first IVF child is merely 27 years old.

Another fascinating point is why ‘insurance’ and ‘assurance’ are needed at all in the regulatory discourse, and why both seem to have received increasing attention from the medical institutions. If it were true that the popularity of IVF is a result of the government re-orientating its population policy and of a social adherence to Confucian culture, then one would suspect that with the centrally enforced and deeply rooted commitment to reproduction, IVF clinics and the services they provide should not expect much social scrutiny and skepticism. Yet a number of talks suggested that this is not the case. Both the Chinese public and doctors have developed heightened awareness of the financial, physical and social risks these new technologies expose them to. Underlying doctors’ active ‘empowerment’ of their patients, is a redistribution of risk and responsibilities. Similarly, underlying the wider family’s support and participation in the ‘making’ of a child is a renegotiation of gender relations and the ‘burden’ of motherhood. Both of the discourses on ‘insurance’ and ‘assurance’ can be seen as reactionary towards the fact that the reproduction business becomes a venue for arbitrating rights and responsibilities at different levels.

The study on reproductive technologies offers insight on the bigger social stratification China is going through. It is an imbalanced process which is often described as the already-vulnerable being subjected to ever greater physical & emotional exploitation (eg. reproductive rights of young single female). This has some truth to it. But the dissemination of scientific facts and availability (and increasing affordability) of new technologies also forms a democratisation of science, in which the once-vulnerable may be equipped with expanded life options and be enlightened (and incentivised) to redefine the terms and conditions of social relations (eg. doctor-patient relation, family relation, role of gender, migrant workers etc).

To expand on this point, one interesting anecdote is that a number of Chinese participants challenged a ‘default’ portrayal of Chinese female as submissive and Chinese society as repressive. The underlying dispute is not so much that the Chinese regime is no longer repressive or that gender tensions are already resolved. But there is a subtle but important difference in framing. For most ‘outside observers’, i.e. North American & European academics, they often treat these facts as the (relatively stable) social condition that these sciences operate in. But Chinese stakeholders see the same facts as a social situation that enlightened scientific progress/education may help to evade.

The discussions in Cambridge reconfirmed one imperative for research on bioethics in China. That is, the implementation, popularisation, and administration of reproductive technologies begs a systematic ‘re-cognition’ of contemporary Chinese values. Here ‘re-cognition’ means two things. One is that just as new biotech is used (by various Chinese authorities) to re-assemble a Chinese identity through DNA sequencing and genetic propensities, academic inquiries need to be willing to ‘cognise’ Chinese values in the making. The other is that the alleged scale, extent and condition in which these new social values (including old Confucian values that reincorporated into fashion) exert their impact need to be empirically substantiated and recognised.

The social stratification challenge faced by China repro-tech is not limited to the negotiation of ‘who should be responsible for what?’, which itself is complicated enough. But a more critical question for an authoritarian regime known for its fragmented and under-institutionalised administrative practice is this: how can different layers and divisions of responsibilities be pined down to an arrangement that ‘insures’ or ‘assures’ accountability of all stakeholders?

GSA-China’s first phase of data collection in China is now complete. The research focus has been on how scientific accountability has been problematised and responded to in China.

Thanks to NGOs staff, bioethicists and government administrators who have provided invaluable help. Special thanks to Prof Chenggang Zhang and his PhD students at the Department of Sociology, Tsinghua University. They provided stimulating discussions on what ‘being healthy’ means to contemporary Chinese.

Dr Joy Zhang is invited to give a talk at the Collège d’études mondiales‘ annual seminar, ‘Social Sciences at the Age of Second Modernity’, this coming Monday. This event is a tribute to Ulrich Beck.

Zhang’s talk, Cosmopolitan Communities and the Reworking Of Boundaries, draws on her ongoing research on China’s governance of environmental and biomedical sciences. It argues that cosmopolitan belonging is a form of performative identity. Its key characteristic lies in a ‘liberating prerogative’, which enables individuals to participate in the solution of common problems creatively. It is this liberating prerogative that coerces the state out of political monopoly and marks the cosmopolitan moment.

Event Programme

A Tribute to Ulrich Beck -Social Sciences at the Age of Second Modernity 
Monday May 18th, 2015
Maison de l’Amérique latine, 217, boulevard Saint-Germain, Paris 75007

9.00 Welcome with café and croissants
9.30-9.45 Opening by Michel Wieviorka and Elisabeth Beck
9.45-10.00 A Visual Tribute To Ulrich Beck

10.00-11.30 Round table “For A Cosmopolitanisation Of Social Sciences”

– Nancy Fraser (New School for Social Research/Collège d’études mondiales), moderator, Introduction
– Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim (Universität München): Why Methodological Cosmopolitanism? Because It Makes A Difference
– Daniel Levy (Stony Brook University, New York): Cosmopolitan Catastrophism: Remembering the Future
– Sabine Selchow (London School of Economics and Political Science): With Beck Into The Future Of Political Studies: Introducing A ‘Cosmopolitan’ Approach To Global Politics

11.30-12.45 Round Table “Regionalism and Globalization”

– Yvon Le Bot (Collège d’études mondiales), moderator
– Alain Touraine (CADIS/EHESS): A Global Approach Of Regional Problems
– Ernesto Ottone (Universidad Diego Portales / Collège d’études mondiales): Ulrich Beck en Amérique latine : l’aventure tronquée
– Joy Zhang (University of Kent): Cosmopolitan Communities and the Reworking Of Boundaries

Lunch

14.30-15.30 Round Table “Beck’s Concept of Second Modernity and East Asian Development”

– Michel Wieviorka (Collège d’études mondiales), moderator
– Sang-Jin Han (Seoul National University): Why Is The Idea Of Second Modernity More Appealing To East Asia Than The West?
– Young-Hee Shim (Hanyang University): Second Modernity And Individualization: An East Asian Experience
– Emiko Ochiai (Kyoto University): The Logics Of Compressed And Semi-compressed Modernity In Asia

15.30-16.00 Guest Lecture “The Web Revealing Social Reality”

– Maurizio Ferraris (Università di Torino)
– René Frydman (Collège d’études mondiales), moderator

16.00– 16.30 Coffee break

16.30-17.45 Round Table “New Technologies and Social Sciences”

– Hervé Le Bras (Collège d’études mondiales)/ Anne Boyer (Université de Lorraine), moderators
– Elisabeth Beck, (Universität München): Global Technologies, Local Values
– Vincent Duclos (Collège d’études mondiales): Information Technology And Health: Ethical, Clinical And Political Implications
– Daniel Andler (Université Paris-Sorbonne): Technology-Enhanced Learning And Natural Cognition: Principles And Practices
– Christian Walter (Collège d’études mondiales): Framing Finance: Technology, Risk, Ethics

17.45-18.00 Conclusions and prospects

In early March, Dr Joy Zhang attended the ChinaRepro Tech Workshop organised by the Reproductive Sociology Research Group at Cambridge University.

The workshop kicked off with small group discussions on two manuscripts: Good Quality: The Routinization of Sperm Banking in China by Dr. Ayo Wahlberg and Infertile Futures: Producing and Reproducing the Chinese Environment by Dr. Janelle Lamoreaux. These two groundbreaking empirical studies offer socio-historical insights on the role bioscience plays in China’s imagination and (re)production of the future. The workshop also highlighted epistemological challenges in conducting and interpreting empirical studies on China’s life sciences. More conversation is on the way. This workshop was a first step toward future endeavours in the research of reproductive technologies in China.

China’s poor enforcement of legal and ethical regulations has repeatedly been highlighted by many studies as a major hurdle both to the responsible application of new bio-technologies in China and to sustaining public confidence in life science research globally. Recently a journalist from the French newspaper, Ouest-France, interviewed Dr Joy Zhang on China’s green governance. Law enforcement was a central issue of their discussion.

Dr Zhang expressed cautious optimism towards Chinese institutions’ recent efforts in promoting regulatory compliance. In the past decade, there has been a visible change of attitudes among Chinese regulators and scientific practitioners towards improving accountability. However, issues such as ambiguous legislative wording and an ignorance of local practicalities have often lead to consequent discretionary implementation of the rules. There remain challenges in China’s pursuit of improving public accountabilities.