Concerns have been raised that academic publishers may not be doing enough to vet the ethical standards of research they publish, after a paper based on genetic data from China’s Uyghur population was retracted and questions were raised about several others including one that is currently published by Oxford University Press. In June, Elsevier, a Dutch academic publisher, retracted an article entitled “Analysis of Uyghur and Kazakh populations using the Precision ID Ancestry Panel” that had been published in 2019. The study by Chinese and Danish researchers used blood and saliva samples from 203 Uyghur and Kazakh people living in Ürümqi, the capital of Xinjiang, to evaluate the use of genetic sequencing technology developed by Thermo Fisher Scientific, a US biotech company, on the two minority ethnic groups. Outlining the need for the research, the authors suggested that better DNA sequencing could help the police identify suspects in cases. “A clear knowledge of the genetic variation is important for understanding the origin and demographic history of the ethnicity of the populations in Xinjiang … [which] may offer an investigative lead for the police.” The retraction notice said the article had been withdrawn at the request of the journal that had published it, Forensic Science International: Genetics, after an investigation revealed that the relevant ethical approval had not been obtained for the collection of the genetic samples. Mark Munsterhjelm, a professor at the University of Windsor, in Ontario, who specialises in racism in genetic research, said the fact that the paper had been published at all was “typical of the culture of complicity in forensic genetics that uncritically accepts ethics and informed consent claims with regards to vulnerable populations”. Concerns have also been raised about a paper in a journal sponsored by China’s ministry of justice. The study, titled Sequencing of human identification markers in an Uyghur population, analysed Uyghur genetic data based on blood samples collected from individuals in the capital of Xinjiang, in north-west China. Yves Moreau, a professor of engineering at the University of Leuven, in Belgium, who focuses on DNA analysis, raised concerns that the subjects in the study may not have freely consented to their DNA samples being used. He also argued that the research “enables further mass surveillance” of Uyghur people. It appeared in the June 2022 issue of the journal Forensic Sciences Research (FSR), which was acquired by Oxford University Press in 2023. The research was partly supported by a research grant from Xinjiang Police College, and was authored by three of the same scientists as the retracted Elsevier paper. It has not been formally placed under ethical review by the journal’s editors, or by OUP, which hosts the journal. Duarte Nuno Vieira, the co-editor-in-chief of FSR, denied that financial support from China’s ministry of justice had any impact on the journal’s editorial policies, calling the suggestion “ethically objectionable”. Both papers are based on research conducted in Xinjiang, where there are widespread reports of human rights abuses. As well as a widespread system of detention camps, people in the region – who are mostly Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and other minority ethnic people – are subject to high levels of state surveillance. People walk past a sign with political propaganda People walk past a sign with political propaganda in Kashgar, Xinjiang. Photograph: Pedro Pardo/AFP/Getty Images Uyghurs are a Turkic ethnic group who are mainly found in Xinjiang, which is part of China, but whose ancestry hails from central Asia as well as mainland China. They have long had a fractious relationship with Beijing, which accuses many of them of wanting to break away from Chinese rule. Experts say that people in Xinjiang may not be able to freely consent to participating in research studies. In both papers, one of the researchers, Halimureti Simayijiang, was affiliated with China’s state security apparatus via the Xinjiang Police College, exacerbating these concerns. Maya Wang, an associate Asia director at Human Rights Watch, said: “Given how coercive the overall environment has been for the Uyghurs [in China], it’s not really possible for Uyghurs to say no [to the collection of DNA].” The Biden administration recently lifted sanctions on the Chinese ministry of public security’s institute of forensic science in an attempt to ease cooperation on fentanyl control. The institute had been subject to sanctions since 2020 because of the alleged abuse of Uyghur people. Questions over links to China On 19 November, Moreau formally raised concerns about the study on Uyghur DNA published in Forensic Sciences Research. The article states that “written informed consent” was obtained from each of the 264 Uyghurs who provided blood samples. In an email to Irene Tracey, the vice-chancellor of Oxford University, which was seen by the Guardian, Moreau said: “The standard for informed consent is free informed consent,” which he argues is impossible in the context of Xinjiang. A spokesperson for OUP noted that the paper was accepted and published by FSR before OUP began publishing the journal. They said: “While the article was peer reviewed, and ethical research statements and disclosures are included on the article page, we will work with the journal’s editors to investigate the concerns raised and the information we have received.” The authors of the paper are listed as Simayijiang, Niels Morling and Claus Børsting from the forensic genetics department of the University of Copenhagen. Simayijiang is listed as being jointly affiliated with Xinjiang Police College. Those three scientists are the authors of the paper that was retracted by Elsevier in June, along with Torben Tvedebrink, a data scientist. The University of Copenhagen said Simayijiang was no longer affiliated with the university, having left in 2020. Both the retracted paper, and the paper about which Moreau raised concerns, were submitted before Simayijiang left the university. Nuno Vieira said FSR was “completely impartial and transparent” and that the journal’s editorial board included “some of the most recognised and respected forensic professionals and academics in the world”. He said he would highlight the ethical concerns with the relevant staff at the journal, adding: “There has never (I repeat, never) been any interference or action” from China’s ministry of justice. Police stand guard at the main square in Kashgar, Xinjiang. Police stand guard at the main square in Kashgar, Xinjiang. Photograph: Pedro Pardo/AFP/Getty Images Hans Bräuner, the vice-dean for research at the University of Copenhagen’s faculty of health and medical sciences, said that since concerns were first raised about the ethics of data collection in Xinjiang in 2020, the university had introduced a number of measures to enhance checks on sensitive research, including the establishment of a data management unit and a security checklist for risk assessments of international research. Two other papers about Uyghur and Kazakh genetic data by Simayijiang, Morling and Børsting, along with a fourth author, Vania Pereira, also from the University of Copenhagen, are officially under ethical review by the journal in which they have been published. Bräuner said his faculty was only made aware of the concerns about these papers, which are published in Forensic Sciences International: Genetics, in December, but was in touch with the journal’s editor-in-chief to clarify the matter. None of the researchers responded to requests for comment. Experts say the papers are the tip of the iceberg of scientific research that may not meet ethical standards for data collection, and which, in some cases, may help to develop surveillance technologies that can be used to breach human rights, particularly among minority groups. Thermo Fisher, which owns the DNA sequencing kit that was being evaluated in the paper retracted in June, said in 2019 that it would stop selling its equipment in Xinjiang. In recent years there has been increased scrutiny of scientific research based on material from populations in China who may not have the ability to freely consent, particularly minority ethnic people. Bioethicists first started raising concerns in 2019, which led to respected journals retracting several articles based on genetic material from minorities. Scientists say publishers are still too willing to accept research that may raise ethical concerns, and too slow to respond to complaints. Moreau has raised concerns about dozens of papers. In November, he was awarded the Einstein Foundation prize for “forcefully” advocating for “ethical standards in the utilisation of human DNA data”, according to the judging committee. According to Moreau’s analysis, more than 20% of published research on forensic population genetics in China between 2011 and 2018 focused on Uyghurs, despite the fact that they make up less than 1% of the population. Tibetans have an even higher “surveillance ratio”. Moreau said: “Although Uyghurs are interesting to study from a genetics perspective because they are a mixed population with both east Asian and Eurasian heritage, and Tibetans are interesting because of their adaptation to high altitude, research on these groups is surprisingly intense.” A spokesperson for the Chinese government said: “China is a country governed by law. The privacy of all Chinese citizens, regardless of their ethnic backgrounds, are protected by law.”