This is a conversation through blogs by two Chinese intellectuals Chai Jing and Fang Zhouzi was published on global voiceonline, and has been re-published here with their permission

By John Kennedy

Chai Jing

On the plane.Old Fan and I are going to do a program on traffic in Chong-qing: where the problems in the system are, which depart-ments 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-technol-ogy 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 re-lies on embryo research.

[b]“In China there are no ethical restric-tions, no religious demands, and the use of embryos in experiments is relatively unproblematic as most people don't con-sider embryos to be alive.”[eb

In China there are no ethical restrictions, no religious de-mands, 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 le-gal committee's “political declaration banning human clon-ing” 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 uncon-sciously 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 tech-nology 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 photo-graph 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.

Fang Zhouzi

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

Within Chai Jing's piece retelling a conversation with a re-searcher at the Academy of Military Medical Sciences carry-ing 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 con-gress on regenerative medicine” as proof of his own authori-ty) contains some basic errors relating to stem cells, which could easily mislead the public into misunderstanding stem cell technology:

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. “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.”

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 indi-vidual sperm cell to be given the same consideration.

The majority of the controversy over embryo stem cell re-search 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 al-ready 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 con-tinue as a leader in this issue. Would the related administra-tive 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 sen-timent which misleads the public. How can China's scientists still have hope?

Chai Jing

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. “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 infor-mation came from a story [zh] found on my own internet search. I hope nobody misunderstands.

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, disre-gard theoretical boundaries and boundaries and considera-tions 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 mus-cles, 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. 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 re-search, 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 re-search 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.

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 verifica-tion. If Mr. Fang is thinking of carrying out a discussion on specific scientific problems, everything I've written is insuffi-cient 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.

Fang Zhouzi

“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, disre-gard theoretical boundaries and boundaries and considera-ions 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 atti-tude 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 main-stream views in the scientific world, at least a little more suit-able 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: blog.sina.com.cn/u/47406879010005dq blog.sina.com.cn/u/47406879010005rs “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 re-consider the necessity of continuing to fund their research project”, then I think such a conclusion would be both outra-geous and unfair, as well as underestimating the intelligence of the public."

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 every-one'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 question-ing and criticism, but it also calls for these questions and criticisms to have foundation; not any old nonsensical balo-ney 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?

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 re-quirement for people leading such tasks, nothing outrageous and unfair about it. Einstein never led research and develop-ment into the atom bomb. If he had taken on the task yet was opposed to the development of the atom bomb, he defi-nitely 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. “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 verifica-tion. If Mr. Fang is thinking of carrying out a discussion on specific scientific problems, everything I've written is insuffi-cient 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.”

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 anoth-er. If journalist Chai is completely mistaken on researcher Pei's views then it's journalist Chai's problem and not reser-acher 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.