Between 2014 to 2017, 23 semi-structured interviews and 12 focus groups were conducted with Chinese policy-makers, ethicists, scientists and civil society actors in three Chinese cities: Beijing, Wuhan and Xi’an. These three cities were chosen for they are all important regional research hubs and provide complimentary insights on how scientific dialogues are organised in different socio-economic contexts. As the national capital, Beijing is a well-resourced and highly globalised north-eastern city. Wuhan is the moderately well-off southern provincial capital of Hubei and is a main hub for agroindustry research. Xi’an is the capital of the north-western Shaanxi province, which is less innovation-driven and financially less advantaged than Beijing or Wuhan. China's rise as a 'leading influence' in the organization and delivery of scientific innovation is Janus-faced (FCO and BIS, 2013). On the one hand, China presents new opportunities of maximizing the uptake and application of science in a climate of sluggish economic growth. On the other hand, a persistent deficiency in ensuring responsible research conduct casts a shadow on the public attitude towards research conducted in, and with, China. Cases such as locally authorized stem cell therapy and unsupervised GM food trials not only has the effect of damaging China's own scientific reputation, but also impairs global public trust of biotechnologies (Moreno, 2010, Qiu, 2012). This project proposes a timely and ambitious study on the accountability problem in China's life science governance through a comparative study of stem cell research and GM foods. This draws on my extensive network and previous research in both fields. Through a combination of semi-structured interviews, focus groups and international workshops, this project engages with regulators, scientists and civil society actors in both China and the UK. It makes an important contribution to the co-production of alternative ways to address public accountability in the life sciences. The analytical focus will be on the following questions: RQ1: What are the regulatory standards and procedures used in defining, selecting and sustaining accountable research practice in stem cell research and GM foods in China? How are the development of the 'legitimation devices' shaped by domestic and international debates? RQ2: How are the power dynamics among scientists, regulators and bioethisists constructed in stem cell and GM food regulations? What are the similarities and differences in the legitimisation of research practice in both fields? RQ3: What forms of communication are needed to make stem cell and GM research more accessible to, and assessable by, the public? How can China improve its effective accountability to its potential research users and collaborators? Stem cell research and GM foods make for excellent case studies. They provide complementary views on the project's three core research questions. Stem cell and GM technologies are both highly visible and controversial fields in China, but they represent the opposite ends of risk framing. While China's GM food regulation consists of a 'strong precautionary element', China's stem cell regulation arguably resembles a 'proactionary' approach (Tiberghien, 2010; Zhang, 2012). Despite these differences, stem cell and GM technologies in China share a similar regulatory history and governing structure. Both are predominately regulated by the Ministry of Health, the China Food and Drug Authority and the Ministry of Science and Technology. This difference in regulatory rationales and overlap in governance structures will provide rich comparable data for the research questions. Addressing the accountability problem is not only crucial for China's goal of becoming a trusted player in the competitive and skeptical global community, but is also important for enabling efficient international collaborations and promoting research integrity in the life sciences. Thus, this research will be important to a number of non-academic users, such as 1) regulators and research funders in both China and Europe; 2) transnational scientific societies; 3) international civil society organisations, such as patient advocacy groups, environmental NGOs and 4) hospitals and biotechnology enterprises. Given the interdisciplinary nature this research, this project also enriches academic debates in a variety of disciplines, such as sociology, governance studies, bioethics, China studies and the life sciences. Planned outputs includes 1 academic monograph, 6 articles in science and social science journals, 1 policy report in both English and Chinese, 1 regularly updated project website for public audiences and 2 international workshops.

The fieldwork of this study mainly focused on two most contentious areas of China's scientific governance: GM technology and stem cell research. For the interviews, this study took a combination of purposeful and snowballing sampling techniques. To recruit scientist interviewees, we primarily contacted universities’ research offices for recommendations of staff with at least 5 years of working experience after completing their PhDs, and who are currently working in the areas of stem cell research or genetically modified organisms. In addition, this study interviewed key staff working for local food NGOs to provide additional insight on how food-related trust crisis has been managed on the ground. We then relied on a few interviewees to recruit further contacts. For the focus groups, the project relied on university research offices, aforementioned NGOs, individual interviewees and other fieldwork contacts to send out focus group descriptions and invitations through online social media (Weibo and Wechat). Interested individuals were then asked to fill in an online form which consists of basic details (e.g. age, gender, monthly expenditure) so to create mixed groups. The resulting 12 focus groups consisted of 6-9 people each. For both the interviews and the focus groups, semi-structured discussions were focused on interviewees' or participants' views on the trust crisis in China, their experiences in re-building trust relations in scientific advancements, their views on academics’ and government’s role in establishing and maintaining institutional accountability, and how to promote rational public debates.