Posted on March 4, 2019 at 1:29 PM
By Neil Skjoldal
In a provocative article entitled, “China Uses DNA to Track its People, With the Help of American Expertise,” The New York Times tells the story of how the Chinese government is using DNA information in part to make the Uyghurs, “a predominantly Muslim ethnic group, more subservient to the Communist Party.”
To accomplish this task, The Times states that the Chinese government used technology made by Thermo Fisher and “genetic material from people around the world” provided by Dr. Kenneth Kidd, a Yale University geneticist. Apparently, the assumption was that the Chinese would follow the ethical norms followed around the world. Ethicist Dr. Arthur Caplan is quoted in the piece: “Honestly, there’s been a kind of naiveté on the part of American scientists presuming that other people will follow the same rules and standards wherever they come from.” Recently, under heightened scrutiny, Thermo Fisher stopped its sales of genetic sequencing equipment in Xinjiang.
The abuse of technology for autocratic purposes was strongly condemned by Senator Marco Rubio of Florida: “The use of this technology allows the Chinese government to commit truly egregious invasions of privacy and other human rights abuses, including the internment of over a million ethnic Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities. The sale of DNA sequencers to agents of Chinese state security should never have been approved in the first place and I believe the Commerce Department needs to establish clearer licensing requirements on technology and other items used by the Chinese government to censor, detain, and surveil.”
The ability to do DNA research is an incredible scientific and technological achievement. But this case raises a question that must be answered, specifically, What is the ethical responsibility of the corporate world with regard to the abuse of the technology? If they naively continue to follow these practices in similar cases, we must ask who will defend the voiceless against governments that want to make them “more compliant.”