Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Chinese Version)


biotechnology; ethics governance

Document Type

Governance Strategy on Science and Technology Ethics


Biotechnology is changing greatly over recent years, providing huge benefits to human society. However, the ethics, safety, and negative externalities of biotechnology have become increasingly prominent. Currently, biotechnology is still in the early stage of development, and full of high uncertainty. Technological changes in this field have the characteristics of stronger subversiveness, complexity, and social relevance. The world is facing a process of great development of biotechnology, new outbreaks of ethical challenges, and ethical governance reforms. China should take this opportunity to promote the high-quality development of biotechnology on the one hand, and on the other hand, adopt a multi-pronged approach to achieve comprehensive, flexible, and sustainable governance of ethical issues by conducting forward-looking ethical risk research and judgment, improving regulatory system, encouraging the participation of multiple stakeholders, and taking part in global governance, etc.

First page


Last Page





Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences

Original Submission Date



1 Mejlgaard N, Bloch C. Science in society in Europe. Science and Public Policy, 2012, 39(6):695-700.

2 National Academies of Sciences. Engineering, and Medicine. Safeguarding the Bioeconomy. Washington DC:The National Academies Press, 2020.

3 Zettler P J, Guerrini C J, Sherkow J S. Regulating genetic biohacking. Science, 2019, 365:34-36.

4 彭耀进. 合成生物学时代:生物安全、生物安保与治理. 国际安全研究, 2020, 38(5):29-57.

5 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, et al. Biodefense in the Age of Synthetic Biology. Washington DC:National Academies Press, 2018.

6 Hyun I, Wilkerson A, Johnston J. Embryology policy:Revisit the 14-day rule. Nature, 2016, 533:169-171.

7 Langlois A. The global governance of human cloning:The case of UNESCO. Palgrave Communications, 2017, 3:17019.

8 Robert J S, Baylis F. Crossing species boundaries. The American Journal of Bioethics, 2003, 3(3):1-13.

9 Streiffer R. At the edge of humanity:Human stem cells, chimeras, and moral status. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 2005, 15(4):347-370.

10 彭耀进, 李伟. 生命科技伦理问题与治理策略——以人-动物嵌合体研究为例. 科技导报, 2020, 38(5):42-49.

11 Chen H I, Wolf J A, Blue R, et al. Transplantation of human brain organoids:Revisiting the science and ethics of brain chimeras. Cell Stem Cell, 2019, 25(4):462-472.

12 Koplin J J, Savulescu J. Moral limits of brain organoid research. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2019, 47(4):760-767.

13 Hyun I, Scharf-Deering J C, Lunshof J E. Ethical issues related to brain organoid research. Brain Research, 2020, 1732:146653.

14 Aach J, Lunshof J, Iyer E, et al. Correction:Addressing the ethical issues raised by synthetic human entities with embryo-like features. eLife, 2017, 6:e20674.

15 European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (European Commission). The ethics of synthetic biology. (2009-11-17). https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c9b00815-2268-4ba7-bdfe-59d96dfb1f5d.

16 Cho M K, Magnus D, Caplan A L, et al. Ethical considerations in synthesizing a minimal genome. Science, 1999, 286:2087-2090.

17 Cello J, Paul A V, Wimmer E. Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA:Generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science, 2002, 297:1016-1018.

18 Tumpey T M, Basler C F, Aguilar P V et al. Characterization of the reconstructed 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic virus. Science, 2005, 310:77-80.

19 Noyce R S, Lederman S, Evans D H. Construction of an in-fectious horsepox virus vaccine from chemically synthesized DNA fragments. PLoS One, 2018, 13(1):e0188453.

20 Sylvia P W. Ebola virus could be synthesized. New Scientist, (2002-07-17). https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2555-ebola-virus-could-be-synthesised/.

21 Dando M. The impact of the development of modern biology and medicine on the evolution of offensive biological warfare programs in the twentieth century. Defense Analysis, 1999, 15(1):43-62.

22 Tucker J B, Zilinskas R A. The promise and perils of synthetic biology. The Atlantis News, 2006, 12:29-45.

23 Mulvihill J J, Capps B, Joly Y, et al. Ethical issues of CRISPR technology and gene editing through the lens of solidarity. British Medical Bulletin, 2017, 122(1):17-29.

24 Sonia S M. A brave new world of designer babies?. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2007, 27:897.

25 Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Genome Editing and Human Reproduction:Social and Ethical Issues. London:Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2018.

26 Gregory M. Nanotechnology governance. Alabama Law Review, 2008, 59(5):1323-1384.

27 薛澜, 赵静. 走向敏捷治理:新兴产业发展与监管模式探究. 中国行政管理, 2019, (8):28-34.

28 刘银良. 美国生物技术的法律治理研究. 中外法学, 2016, 28(2):462-485.

29 Mandal G N. Gaps, inexperience, inconsistencies, and overlaps:Crisis in the regulation of genetically modified plants and animals. William and Mary Law Review, 2004, 45(5):2167-2259.

30 Hurley E A, Hull D, Shriver S P. The next phase of human gene-therapy oversight. The New England Journal of Medicine, 2018, 379:1393-1395.

31 US Department of Health and Human Services. United States government policy for institutional oversight of life sciences dual use research of concern. (2014-09-24). https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/documents/oversight-durc.pdf.

32 樊春良, 张新庆, 陈琦. 关于我国生命科学技术伦理治理机制的探讨. 中国软科学, 2008, (8):58-65.

33 李正风. 从当代科技治理看公民科学素质. 科普研究, 2020, 15(1):5-10.

34 陈海丹. 伦理争论与科技治理——以英国胚胎和干细胞研究为例. 自然辩证法通讯, 2019, 41(12):40-46.