The authors argue that in preventing and controlling the pandemic of Covid‐19, we should have taken an offensive or proactive strategy rather than a defensive or reactionary one because the former type of approach can bring about more health benefits and fewer harms than can the latter. The offensive or proactive approach consists of two parts: The first part is to preemptively establish a barrier between a novel virus and humans in order to prevent the spillover of the virus into (...) humans, and the second part is that, when a spillover fails to be prevented, we should take public interventions, such as contact tracing, social distancing, and quarantine and isolation, as early as when there are several dozens or one hundred or more cases that manifest symptoms with an unknown etiology in order to prevent an epidemic that is still limited to relatively small groups from developing into an outbreak. (shrink)

This article consists of four parts. In the first part it briefly describes the history of body‐to‐head transplantation (BHT) and the surgical plan proposed by Drs. Sergio Canavero and Ren Xiaoping on a human subject. In the second part it argues that the BHT procedure that they propose is scientifically invalid and technically infeasible so therefore would end in failure. In the third part it argues that the present conceivable procedure of BHT cannot be ethically justified because it would bring (...) great harm to the human subject, it is uncertain who would be the possible beneficiary, and valid informed consent cannot be obtained. In the fourth part it argues that the action of performing the procedure of BHT might violate China’s current criminal and civil laws. The conclusion that follows from the arguments above is that BHT should be prohibited now and also in the near future. However, this conclusion does not preclude scientists, neurosurgeons and bioethicists doing research into scientific, technical, surgical and ethical issues raised by BHT. (shrink)

This paper provides an ethical analysis of the controversy that arose from the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing research involving human embryos that was conducted by a research team in Guangzhou, China, in 2015. It is argued that the researchers involved did not overstep ethical boundaries. This was confirmed to be the case in an international meeting of experts that was convened following the controversy. It is further argued that the controversy highlights the tension between two fundamentally different policies on developing genome (...) editing technology – one proactionary and the other precautionary. This paper argues for a third approach, based on the policy of “crossing the river by probing stones”. Such an approach is consistent with current international recommendations to prioritise basic and pre-clinical research, and to allow the application of genome editing technology to somatic human cells. However, the application of the technology in germline genetic modification for human reproduction or enhancement for medical purposes should not be allowed at present. This is because the attending risks are not well understood and could be excessive or extraordinary, with little or no prospect of benefit. In addition, this paper calls for norms and regulations to be developed for genetically modifying non-human living things. [End Page 307] Finally, the paper concludes with a letter that was sent by the author to the New York Times, setting out China’s fundamental stance on genetic modification involving humans and human derivatives. (shrink)