Close

Support Global Voices

To stay independent, free, and sustainable, our community needs the help of friends and readers like you.

Donate now »

See all those languages up there? We translate Global Voices stories to make the world's citizen media available to everyone.

Learn more about Lingua Translation  »

China: Splitting hairs over stem cells

Stem cell research—it's an old topic, but it's also a top topic, at least for today as two key Chinese public intellectuals—one a tv news personality and the other a crusader against intellectual fraud and traditional Chinese medicine—battle it out on their PhoenixTV blogs.

It started with this post yesterday from Chai Jing:

每一项技术的背后都是生命

Behind all technology there lies life

飞机上。
我跟老范聊要作的重庆公交的节目—体制的问题在哪儿,到底采访哪个部门,拿支笔在纸上划来划去聊得正热闹。
坐在我右边的先生说”对不起,我能插句嘴么?”
我们有点吃惊地看着他。
“你是新闻调查的吧,你们报道这样的事故,我们已经麻木了”
我跟老范对视一眼,小心翼翼地问”是因为太多了么?”
“不是”他说,”是你们从来没有让我们意识到,那些死去的人其实就是我们身边的人”
“嗯?”
“前两天弗吉尼亚大学枪击案,美国的媒体采访了每一个家庭,每个人都有故事和照片,包括凶手。还有纪念的人群写给枪手的留言,'我对你的同情胜过对你的憎恨”,只有让观众意识到灾难中的人其实就活在我们身边,大家才会关心”
“嗯…是,这当然,但我们刚才只是在讨论具体的技术问题”
“不”他说”每一项技术的背后都是生命”
我转过身子,看着这人。
他解释说,”我是做干细胞克隆技术研究的,在军事科学院工作”
他二十多年全部投注其中,曾是狂热的技术论者”这个领域里最谁能掌握干细胞研究的主导权,谁就会在未来生物科技领域的竞争中占据有利地位,这是事关国计民生的大事”
他得了世界再生医学大会的最高奖。
“然后”他说”我才遇到不得不面对的问题”。
再生医学的核心是干细胞,需要胚胎研究。
在中国,没有伦理的限定,没有宗教的要求,用胚胎作试验是比较顺利的,因为常人认为胚胎不算生命。联合国大会法律委员会关于”禁止克隆人的政治宣言”,我国政府和比利时、英国等国家是投反对票的。
但是,2003年,他去香港演讲,面对一个佛教徒的提问,”生命到底从何时起算?”
他被那个问题问住了。
其实,他是清楚的”一个十四天的胚胎细胞,就会有神经系统的反应,就能够感知光与热。”
他曾经认为这种感知是没有意义的。
后来,某一天,他在工作的时候,不自觉停下来,盯着克隆羊看。
“从它的眼神里是可以看见人的眼神的”。
他说”想到这里,就不能不去想自己的工作—–人这样贪婪地想要活下去是对还是错,甚至会想,人这样的做法到底是在拯救人类还是毁灭人类,人类的文明轮回是不是与此有关,狮身人面像难道不可能是上一次克隆人的遗迹?”

在当天的笔记里,我记下这段对话”君子不器,技术上的修为不仅仅是为了建功立业,甚至不是为了服从于国家利益,而是服务于生命本身。”
在重庆的这7天,在近乎无望中,我们能找到那些早已逝去的人,那个欢笑着拍打着妈妈遗照的婴儿,那个每个假日仍然到楼下等着女儿回来的母亲…与这场对话有关。

On the plane.
Old Fan and I are going to do a program on traffic in Chongqing: where the problems in the system are, which departments to interview, as I put our plan down on paper we start chatting up a storm.
The man sitting on my right says, “sorry, may I cut in?”
We look at him in surprise.
“You're from News Probe, right? Let me tell you, you report stories like these, but we're numb to them all.”
Old Fan and I look at each other, then I carefully ask, “because there's too many stories?”
“No,” he says, “it's that you never give us the feeling that these people who die could just as well be people we know.”
“Huh?”
“Two days ago there was the Virginia Tech shootings, and the American media interviewed every single family involved, telling every single person's story, showing their pictures, including the killer's. Those commemorating even wrote the shooter a letter: ‘our sympathy for you is stronger than our hate”. The only way to get people to care is to let viewers feel that those in the midst of the tragedy could be sitting there right next to them.”
“Yeah, you're right, of course, but we were only talking about specific technical issues just now.”
“No,” he says, “behind every technology there lies life.”
I turn to look at this man.
He explains, saying “I work in stem cell cloning technology research, at the Academy of Military Medical Sciences.”
Having invested twenty years in the subject, this ex-technology fanatic says, “in the future, who will be able to dominate research into stem cell research, who will be able to occupy an advantageous position in the competitive field of biotech, these will be major matters related to national economies and people's livelihoods.”
He's the recipient of the highest award given out by the world congress on regenerative medicine.
“And then,” he says, “I came across a problem I had no choice but to deal with.”
Stem cells are the core of regenerative medicine, which relies on embryo research.
In China there are no ethical restrictions, no religious demands, and the use of embryos in experiments is relatively unproblematic as most people don't consider embryos to be alive. The vote on the United Nations General Assembly legal committee's “political declaration banning human cloning” was opposed by China, Belgium, England and several other countries.
But in 2003, in Hong Kong for a lecture, he was asked by one Buddhist: “from which point does life begin?”
He was stumped by this question.
Actually, he was clear in that “a fourteen day-old embryo cell has a responsive nervous system, is able to perceive light and heat.”
He once believed this kind of perception was meaningless.
Later, one day, at work, he suddenly stopped and unconsciously began staring at a cloned sheep.
“From the look in its eyes you could tell that it could see people.”
He said, “with this in mind, I couldn't go on not thinking about what I was doing at work, whether people wanting greedily to keep on living via these means was right or wrong, even wondering if we were actually saving people or destroying them, if this had something to do with human samsara; what if the Sphinx was a remnant of the last time humans were cloned?”

In my notes that day, I wrote the following line: “using technology when people fall short in healing people isn't just to build a successful career or to serve a nation's interests, but to serve life itself.”
Seven days in Chongqing, bordering on hopelessness, to able to find those people who passed away long ago, that photograph of a smiling baby slapping her mother, the mother who every holiday goes downstairs and waits for the daughter to show up but never does, that's what this conversation was about.

Next on the blog.PhoenixTV page set up especially for this blog battle comes Fang Zhouzi's retort:

并非每一项技术的背后都是生命

No, behind all technology there doesn't lie life

昨天晚上有网友转来央视名记柴静的博客文章《每一项技术的背后都是生命》,我当即写了0一篇反驳,拟留到报纸专栏上发表。今天见到此文已被广泛转载且有了不小的影响,觉得有必要先说几句。

Last night one netfriend posted a blog post from the renowned CCTV reporter Chai Jing, ‘Behind all technology there lies life’ and I immediately wrote a rebut for a newspaper column. Today I see this column has already been reprinted abroad and had great impact, so I feel the need to say a few more lines.

柴静文中转述军事医学科学院负责干细胞研究的研究员(即裴雪涛,喜欢对行外人士说自己获得”世界再生大会的最高奖”以证明自己的权威的就这么一位。行内人士都知道这种奖的含金量)有关干细胞的话有根本的错误,很容易引起公众对干细胞技术的误会:

Within Chai Jing's piece retelling a conversation with a researcher at the Academy of Military Medical Sciences carrying out stem cell research (namely, Pei Xuetao, the one who likes to introduce himself to people outside the profession as a recipient of “the highest award given out by the world congress on regenerative medicine” as proof of his own authority) contains some basic errors relating to stem cells, which could easily mislead the public into misunderstanding stem cell technology:

一、14天的胚胎的细胞刚刚开始分化形成三个胚层,神经组织此时还没有出现,是不可能像裴研究员所说有什么神经系统的反应的。

二、人的胚胎干细胞的研究材料用的是5天的胚胎,只是一团针尖大小、没有分化的细胞。除了狂热的宗教人士和对人的胚胎发育过程一无所知的人,没有谁会认为那样的一团没分化、没感觉的细胞是一个人。每年有数以万计的这种胚胎在生育诊所被扔掉,不知为何没有人对此也煽情一把。如果有人要以这些胚胎细胞如果植入母体有可能发育成人为由认为它们是人,那么以同样的理由我也要求把每一个精子都当成人来看待。

1. At fourteen days an embryo's cells begin to split and form three embryonic layers, nervous tissue at this time has yet to appear, so it's impossible as researcher Pei has said for there to be any nervous system response.
2. Human embryo stem cell research makes use of day five embryos which are just a glob no thicker than a needle and have yet to split cells. Except for religious fanatics and those ignorant of the process of embryonic development, nobody would believe that an undivided, feelingless glob of a cell is a person. Every year tens of thousands of these embryos are thrown away at fertility clinics, so I don't know why nobody's getting worked up over those. If someone were to want to see these embryo cells as people on the grounds that if they were implanted into a mother's body they might grow into people, then with the same reasoning I demand every individual sperm cell to be given the same consideration.

目前有关人胚胎干细胞研究的争论主要是在美国发生,是美国宗教界中的极端保守派在小布什的支持下挑起的,全世界都在看美国的笑话。这是其他国家在这一研究领域赶上美国的良机,美国科学界对此痛心疾首。美国社会的主流、美国国会的大多数也是支持胚胎干细胞研究的,只不过小布什为了自己的宗教信仰在滥用其总统否决权。中国科学的发展受到的阻碍已经够多了,难道还有人嫌不够,为了显示自己的崇高,还想再加一道宗教的束缚?

鉴于裴研究员对干细胞研究的目的心存疑虑,甚至怀疑是否会”毁灭人类”,显然没有足够的信心和意愿来尽力推进干细胞研究,不适合于继续领导这一课题,请国家有关管理部门重新考虑有无必要继续资助裴研究员的干细胞研究项目,否则中国宝贵的科研经费、纳税人的钱就有可能被滥用掉,中国干细胞研究有可能受到重大挫折。

连国家重大科研项目的主持人都在怀疑该研究的合理性,发无厘头的感慨误导公众,中国的科学怎么还会有希望?

The majority of the controversy over embryo stem cell research at present takes place in the United States, started by the ultra-conservative faction of the American religious world with Little Bush's support. The whole world sees America as a joke. It's given other countries in the world a chance to overtake America in research in this field, and a source of hate for America's scientific community. The majority of mainstream American society and the American Senate are in support of embryo stem cell research, it's just Little Bush has abused his presidential veto for his own religious beliefs. Development in the Chinese scientific community has already receives enough obstruction; it's hard to believe that some people still feel there's not enough, and in order to demonstrate their own propriety, are still willing to add a religious constraint?
In light of researcher Pei's misgivings over the goal of stem cell research, even wondering if it amounts to “destroying people”, it's clear he lacks the confidence and desire to do all he can in promoting stem cell research and is unfit to continue as a leader in this issue. Would the related administrative departments please reconsider the necessity of continuing to fund researcher Pei's stem cell research project? Lest China's precious funds for scientific research and taxpayers’ money be squandered away and China's stem cell research possibly given a major setback.

Even directors of China's major scientific research projects doubt the rationale of research and express nonsensical sentiment which misleads the public. How can China's scientists still have hope?

Then Chai Jing's response to that:

回应方舟子

Responding to Fang Zhouzi

很晚回到家,才知道方舟子先生就上一篇文章写了评论,把他的文章转贴如下,并作一些相应的解释。

I didn't get home until quite late and only then did I see the criticism Fang Zhouzi has written. I've copied it below, but first, my own explanations:

1 “世界再生大会的最高奖”,在我的文章里并不是直接引语。裴先生没有提过这个话题,这个消息来自我在网上查到的文章 http://news.tom.com/1002/20050607-2199463.html 。

希望大家不要误会。

1. “The highest award given out by the world congress on regenerative medicine” I mentioned in my blog post was not a direct quotation. Mr. Pei did not bring this up. This information came from a story [zh] found on my own internet search. I hope nobody misunderstands.

2
方先生担心”中国的干细胞研究遇到重大挫折”,关切之情可以理解。
但是我想,把科学问题唯技术化,而忽视对伦理学的边界,生物安全的边界的思考,忽视科学研究的终极目的,带来的危险要更大。否则爱因斯坦不会为他自己曾在1939年8月2日,向罗斯福总统建议,应抢在纳粹之前研制出原子弹,而感到懊悔。
晚年时,他说过”别把理智看成我们的上帝,它当然有强健的肌肉,但没有人格,它只能服务…理智对方法和工具有独到的眼光,但对于目的和价值却是盲目的”,

2. Mr. Fang is worried that “China's stem cell research has been dealt a major setback”, and I understand his feeling of concern.
But I think that to only technologize scientific issues, disregard theoretical boundaries and boundaries and considerations of biological safety, to overlook the ultimate goal of scientific research is to bring about a much bigger danger. Otherwise Einstein wouldn't have made the suggestion he did to President Roosevelt on August 2, 1939, to develop the atomic bomb before the Nazis did, and feel the later regret.
In his later years, he once said, “We should take care not to make the intellect our god. It has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality. It cannot lead; it can only serve… The intellect has a sharp eye for methods and tools, but is blind to ends and values.”

3
科学研究的重要前提是自知无知,并且勇于质疑和批判,如果一个人仅仅因为对自己研究有疑问和自省,就被认为是”误导公众”,甚至要”请国家有关管理部门重新考虑有无必要继续资助裴研究员的干细胞研究项目,”那么我想这个结论可能是粗暴和不公正的,而且也可能低估了公众的智慧。
我不敢说中国科学的希望在哪里,但我想它并不在于对效率和成功的狂热崇拜。

3. The main premise of scientific research is to be know one's own ignorance, and bravely question and criticize it. If one, just for having questioned and examined one's own research, is to be considered “misleading the public” and gives rise to the need for “the related administrative departments to reconsider the necessity of continuing to fund their research project”, then I think such a conclusion would be both outrageous and unfair, as well as underestimating the intelligence of the public.
I don't dare say where the hope for China's scientists lies, but I don't think it's in the mad worship of efficiency and success.

4
这只是一场在飞机上的私人谈话,我本人并非科技记者,而且因为不是报道,只是博客,所以谈话的某些细节根据记忆而写,发这篇文章之时也未得到裴先生的核实,如果方先生是想就具体的科学问题进行讨论,那么我所写的东西不足以作为裴先生全部观点的凭据,您需要从更多的途径来作更准确的了解。需要的话我也可以帮助您联系裴先生本人。

This was just a private conversation on an airplane. I'm not a science reporter, and this wasn't a news report, this is just a blog, that's why certain details were written from memory, and when I posted this I had not received Mr. Pei's verification. If Mr. Fang is thinking of carrying out a discussion on specific scientific problems, everything I've written is insufficient to act as proof of any of Mr. Pei's views. You [v. formal usage] need to come to a more accurate understanding by way of far more channels. If you [v. formal usage] need, I can help you get in touch with Mr. Pei himself.

And Fang's re-retort, unresponded to by Chai Jing as of early morning May 24, day three:

反对胡扯不等于反对反思——回应柴静

Opposition to baloney does not equal opposition to reconsideration: a response to Chai Jing

“方先生担心'中国的干细胞研究遇到重大挫折',关切之情可以理解。
但是我想,把科学问题唯技术化,而忽视对伦理学的边界,生物安全的边界的思考,忽视科学研究的终极目的,带来的危险要更大。”

忽视这类思考究竟会有多大的危险,这是另一个问题。但是我从来并没有反对、而是在支持做这方面的思考,我只不过是希望大家在思考科学问题时,要依据可靠的事实而不是道听途说,要抱着严谨的态度而不是危言耸听。对干细胞技术涉及的伦理问题,我自己就也做过思考,依据的是科学界主流的观点,至少要比裴研究员的神吹胡侃靠谱些:

“Mr. Fang is worried that “China's stem cell research has been dealt a major setback”, and I understand his feeling of concern.
But I think that to only technologize scientific issues, disregard theoretical boundaries and boundaries and considerations of biological safety, to overlook the ultimate goal of scientific research is to bring about a much bigger danger.”

Just how big a danger there would actually be in overlooking these kinds of considerations is another question. But I've never had any problem with such, in fact I support carrying out these kinds of considerations. I only hope everyone, as they consider scientific questions, will rely on dependable facts and not hearsay, that they will maintain a cautious attitude and not resort to sensationalism. With regards to where embryo technology touches upon theoretical issues, I myself have considered this, and my views are based upon mainstream views in the scientific world, at least a little more suitable than researcher Pei's hogwash:

Here Fang gives links to two articles he's had published in mainstream Chinese media, also found on his Sina blog:

  《布什再掀干细胞风波》(《中国青年报·冰/点周刊》2006.7.26.)  http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/47406879010005dq
  《胚胎与人》(《经济观察报》 2006.8.19)   http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/47406879010005rs
Again Bush Stirs Up the Stem Cell Storm, Freezing Point, China Youth Daily, July 26, 2006
Embryos and People, Economic Observer, August 19, 2006

“科学研究的重要前提是自知无知,并且勇于质疑和批判,如果一个人仅仅因为对自己研究有疑问和自省,就被认为是'误导公众',甚至要'请国家有关管理部门重新考虑有无必要继续资助裴研究员的干细胞研究项目,'那么我想这个结论可能是粗暴和不公正的,而且也可能低估了公众的智慧。”

“The main premise of scientific research is to be know one's own ignorance, and bravely question and criticize it. If one, just for having questioned and examined one's own research, is to be considered “misleading the public” and gives rise to the need for “the related administrative departments to reconsider the necessity of continuing to fund their research project”, then I think such a conclusion would be both outrageous and unfair, as well as underestimating the intelligence of the public.”

科学研究的重要前提是什么?这是个大问题,最好交给科学界自己去处理,不要根据自己朴素的理解就给下断言。即使要”自知无知”,也不等于自己无知就以为别人也都和你一样无知,就要把科学确知的、已知的都当成”无知”来看待。裴研究员在”14天胚胎”问题上也许”自知无知”,难道我们必须跟着他一样也无知起来才能搞科学研究?”自知无知”也许是一种美德,但是以为别人都和自己一样无知就是无德了。科学研究提倡质疑和批判,但是也要求质疑和批判必须是有理有据的,不是什么无厘头的胡扯都算得上质疑和批判的。如果有人在克隆人问题研讨会上大谈”狮身人面像难道不可能是上一次克隆人的遗迹”,不怀疑其精神状态就够客气的了,扯得上什么质疑和批判的勇气?

What is the main premise of scientific research? This is a big question, best left for the scientific world to take care of on its own and not according to your assertions based on sparse understanding. Even if it is to “know one's own ignorance”, that doesn't mean just because you're ignorant that everyone's just as ignorant as you are, taking what science knows as proven and treating it as “ignorance”. Researcher Pei might know his own ignorance on the “day fourteen embryo” issue, but as if we must be just as ignorant when it comes to scientific research? “Knowing one's own ignorance” might be a kind of virtue, but to see others as just as ignorant as one's self is to lack morality. Scientific research calls for questioning and criticism, but it also calls for these questions and criticisms to have foundation; not any old nonsensical baloney can simply be considered questioning or criticism. If at a conference on human cloning someone starts talking about the Sphinx being a remnant of the last time humans were cloned, not questioning his mental state would already be polite enough, but wouldn't questioning and criticizing it be brave?

一个科研项目要获得公共资助的重要前提,在于其领导者对该项目的正当性和必要性有清楚的认识,有尽力推进它的决心和意愿,如果他自己有疑问、要反省,就先退出来再说,交给更合适、更胜任的人去做。这是起码的专业素质和职业道德,也是对课题领导人的起码要求,不是什么粗暴和不公正。爱因斯坦并不曾主持过原子弹的研发,如果他承担了原子弹的研发任务却又反对起研发原子弹,肯定会被换下来。一个科学家有质疑、反对某个科研项目的自由,却没有承担着该项目却又质疑、反对它的权利。公共科研项目是在花公众的钱的,不是某个科学家的私事,这点智慧,我想公众还是有的。

A main prerequisite for a scientific research project to gain public funding is in its conductor's clear understanding of the appropriateness and necessity of this project, as well as being determined and wanting to do their best in carrying it out. If he himself has doubts, has reconsiderations, then his first step should be to back out and hand it over to a more appropriate and competent person to complete it. This is basic professional behavior and ethic, as well as a basic requirement for people leading such tasks, nothing outrageous and unfair about it. Einstein never led research and development into the atom bomb. If he had taken on the task yet was opposed to the development of the atom bomb, he definitely would have been replaced. A scientist has the freedom to doubt or oppose any research and development project, but not the right to question or oppose projects that they've taken on. Public R&D projects spend public money, it's not a scientist's private affairs. This much intelligence I think the public at least has.

“这只是一场在飞机上的私人谈话,我本人并非科技记者,而且因为不是报道,只是博客,所以谈话的某些细节根据记忆而写,发这篇文章之时也未得到裴先生的核实,如果方先生是想就具体的科学问题进行讨论,那么我所写的东西不足以作为裴先生全部观点的凭据,您需要从更多的途径来作更准确的了解。需要的话我也可以帮助您联系裴先生本人。”

“This was just a private conversation on an airplane. I'm not a science reporter, and this wasn't a news report, this is just a blog, that's why certain details were written from memory, and when I posted this I had not received Mr. Pei's verification. If Mr. Fang is thinking of carrying out a discussion on specific scientific problems, everything I've written is insufficient to act as proof of any of Mr. Pei's views. You [v. formal usage] need to come to a more accurate understanding by way of far more channels. If you [v. formal usage] need, I can help you get in touch with Mr. Pei himself.”

裴研究员在正式场合发表的观点我是知道的,但是有时候私人谈话更能反映出一个人的真实想法。细节有出入是一回事,整体观点是否传达有误是另一回事。如果柴记者完全搞错了裴研究员的观点,那就是柴记者的问题而不是裴研究员的问题了。不过我对柴记者的新闻素质还是有信心的,何况里面一些话不像是一个非科技记者能够编造出来的。

I know all about the views researcher Pei has published in proper venues, but sometimes private discussions are best able to reflect a person's real thoughts. Inconsistent details are one thing, but an entirely misguided viewpoint is another. If journalist Chai is completely mistaken on researcher Pei's views then it's journalist Chai's problem and not reseracher Pei's. However, I have confidence in journalist Chai's news judgement, all the more so as some things don't seem like something a non-science reporter would be able to come up with.

Who are these people? In absence of English-language wikipedia entries on either of these nationally-known public figures, the self-introductions from their PhoenixTV blogs read:

Fang Zhouzi
方舟子,本名方是民,1967年9月生于福建云霄县。1995年获美国密歇根州立(Michigan State)大学生物化学博士学位,先后在罗切斯特(Rochester)大学生物系、索尔克(Salk)生物研究院做博士后研究,研究方向为分子遗传学。目前定居美国加利福尼亚州,从事互联网开发、写作和兼任美国生物信息公司的咨询科学家。为中文互联网的先驱者之一。2000年创办中文网上第一个学术打假网站”立此存照”,揭露了多起科学界、新闻界等学术腐败现象,美国《科学》曾两次专文介绍。

Fang Zhouzi, born Fang Shimin in September, 1967 in Yunxiao county, Fujian province. In 1995 he earned his PhD in Biology from America's Michigan State University, from there going to the biology department at Rochester University and later, post-PhD research at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in molecular genetics. Currently residing in California and working in internet development, as a writer and part-time as a consulting scientist for the American D'Trends Bioinformatics corporation[*see below]. A pioneer in the Chinese internet. In 2000 created the first Chinese-language fake science debunker website, exposing many cases of corruption from the science, news and academic worlds as mentioned in two feature articles in the American magazine Science.

And Chai Jing?
现为《新闻调查》出境记者 主持人。记者不仅是我的职业身份,做新闻也是我生存的一种方式,记者的天职就是调查事实的真相。以前,做电台的时候,我喜欢说,这是一个像流沙一样的世界。那是非常文艺和情绪的字眼,而 2000 年接近 25 岁的时候,我在一本书的扉页上写下:现在是时候该蹲下来观察地面上的沙粒了,观察它们的湿度、密度、结构、流向和探究为什么这样流向的原因。我庆幸,在迈入成年的门槛时,从自我的世界里走了出来,开始关心他人,关心社会公共事务,关心将自己和这个世界联系在一起的东西。

Current on-the-spot reporter and announcer for News Probe. Journalist is not just my professional identity, news work is just part of the way I live my life; a journalist's vocation is just to investigate the facts and the truth. Before when I was working in radio, I liked to say that this world is like quicksand. Such literary and emotional wording, in 2000 when I was nearly 25, I wrote this line: now is the time to get down and observe the grains of sand on the ground, observe their moisture levels, their density, their makeup and direction flow, explore the reasons why they move thus. I'm grateful, that on the threshold of mid-age, I'm walking out from the world of my ego and paying care to society's public affairs, the things that connect me and this world together.

[Nov. 12, 2007 update: it has been pointed out that Mr. Fang has never worked for the D'Trends corporation, and a correct introduction would describe Mr. Fang as “an independent consulting scientist for an American bioinformatics company.”]

3 comments

  • anobody

    Just want to point out a typo in Cai Jing small bio, “出镜记者” (on-the-spot reporter) appeared as “出境记者” which lead to your rendition as “foreign correspondent”.

  • Thanks asomebody!
    I remember thinking, it’s interesting that these two people work (mostly) outside China yet have so much influence within the country. Seems not the case! Thanks again.

  • […] [Inside story] Bullog has been attacked, fans of Fang Zhouzi [an IT professional living in the US who just the day prior was booted from Bullog following a […]

Join the conversation

Authors, please log in »

Guidelines

  • All comments are reviewed by a moderator. Do not submit your comment more than once or it may be identified as spam.
  • Please treat others with respect. Comments containing hate speech, obscenity, and personal attacks will not be approved.