Nature's 10
Ten people who mattered in science in 2019.
2019年の科学界に重要な影響を与えた10人の人々



=============

グレタ・トゥンベリ;季候活動家

スウエーデンの十代少女、季候科学の抱える世界的問題を、若い世代の中心に据え置いた

これまで科学者達が気候変動の脅威を数十年も世界に伝えることが出来なかったジレンマ。
16歳のグレダはいとも容易に世界を揺り動かした。



At a US congressional hearing on climate change in September, Greta Thunberg slid a slim bundle of papers across the table towards lawmakers. It was a special report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, predicting dire consequences as the world warms. “I don’t want you to listen to me, I want you to listen to the scientists,” she told the legislators. “I want you to unite behind the science and I want you to take real action.”
Scientists have spent decades warning about climate change, but they couldn’t galvanize global attention the way that Thunberg did this year. The Swedish 16-year-old has outshone them — and many are cheering her along.
“Some may wonder why a teenage girl should get more credit and attention for publicly lamenting a well-known dilemma than most climate researchers get for years of hard work and effort,” says Sonia Seneviratne, a climate scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. But Thunberg is candid and her outrage unvarnished, and that is powerful, says Seneviratne. “As scientists, we normally don’t dare to express the truth in such heartfelt simplicity.”
Many researchers hail Thunberg in particular for focusing attention on climate change and its catastrophic impacts. What she has achieved should motivate climate researchers to carry on with their science despite slow political action, says Seneviratne.
“Greta has inspired scientists along with activists and policymakers,” says Angela Ledford Anderson, director of the Climate and Energy programme at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington DC. In July, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced sweeping measures to reduce carbon emissions, and acknowledged that the protests Thunberg ignited “drove us to act”.
But perhaps Thunberg’s biggest influence will be on the next generation of scientists, Anderson says. “Her mobilization of young people shows the rising generation expects science to inform policy,” she says, “and may inspire many to become scientists themselves.”

 2019年9月のアメリカ議会に於ける気候変動に関するヒアリングで、グレタ・トゥンベリは書類の薄い束をテーブル越しに議員達に向けてずらした。
 それは気候変動に関する政府間パネル(IPCC)からの特別報告であった。警告されているように悲惨な結果を予知していた。
 ”私の話に耳を傾けることをあなた方に望まない。それよりも科学者達の声に耳を傾けて欲しい”
 グレタ・トゥンベリはそのように国会議員達に語った。
 ”私はあなた方に科学的事実を背景に連携して欲しいのです。現実的行動を起こして欲しいのです”

 科学者達は数十年間も気候変動について警告し続けたが、トゥンベリが今年行ったような世界的注意を引き起こすことは出来なかった。
 16歳のスウエーデンの少女は科学者達よりも優れており、多くが彼女を応援している。
  …


19 December 2019


=============
ウエンディー・ロジャース: Transplant ethicist 
移植倫理学者

An academic revealed ethical failures in China’s studies on organ transplants.
 中国における臓器移植で非倫理的手段を用いた研究論文から、多くの非人道的事実を明らかに

中国臓器移植の実態を明るみに
     国際生命倫理学者達の苦闘




For two decades, controversy has swirled around the origin of some livers, hearts and kidneys used for organ transplants in China. First, the government denied that organs had been taken from prisoners; then, it admitted it. It now says the practice has been banned since 2015, and that organs all come from volunteers. But researchers have questioned that, too.

Wendy Rogers, a bioethicist at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, found a new way to prise open the issue: examining research publications by Chinese transplant doctors. Her team’s investigation, published in February (W. Rogers et al. BMJ Open 9, e024473; 2019), triggered more than two dozen retractions of reports of transplants, after doctors couldn’t prove that donors gave consent. “If you think about what’s really happening, it’s unbearable,” Rogers says.

The retractions help to place the practice among the world’s major bioethical scandals, says Yves Moreau, a computational biologist at the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium — and show how seriously scientists and publishers should take research ethics.

Rogers’s shift from academic to activist started at a 2015 conference that screened a documentary, Hard to Believe, discussing forced organ donations from political prisoners. Rogers had studied Australia’s transplant system, and was shocked by what was going on in China. In 2016, she became the unpaid chair of the international advisory committee of the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China (ETAC), a non-profit advocacy group in Sydney. Following an anonymous lead, she investigated a 2016 paper in Liver International, in which she found the documentation of donors lacking; the paper was retracted in 2017.

Rogers knew there must be many more problematic papers. She worked over nights and weekends with a team of researchers and volunteers to sift through thousands of papers. They found more than 400 that Rogers’s team concluded had probably used organs from prisoners and didn’t make their source clear. Those papers, published between 2001 and 2017, reported more than 85,000 transplants. The team spotlighted 17 journals that had published 5 or more papers. Two reacted. PLoS ONE retracted 19 of the 21 papers on Rogers’s list; an investigation into the other two is ongoing. Transplantation retracted seven: five of six on Rogers’s list and two it identified on its own. The retraction notices say that the authors didn’t respond or couldn’t give satisfactory explanations.

Joerg Heber, editor-in-chief of PLoS ONE, says he is grateful to Rogers’s team. His journal has now strengthened its reporting requirements for transplantation papers. For the journals that haven’t responded, Rogers says, “I really urge them to take this seriously.”

ETAC approached Geoffrey Nice, a lawyer with experience prosecuting war criminals in The Hague, the Netherlands, to write about what was happening. Nice suggested an international panel, which he chaired and to which Rogers gave evidence. The panel also considered a paper published this year that questioned data from China’s organ donation programme (M. P. Robertson et al. BMC Med. Ethics 20, 79; 2019).

In June, the panel concluded that people imprisoned for their religious or political views had been killed for their organs in China, and that the practice probably continues. That report and Rogers’s work were both met with silence from China. Rogers is not optimistic that China will ever be fully transparent about its transplants, but the scrutiny might stop any forced harvesting of organs, she says.

意訳

 この20年間、中国で行われている肝臓、心臓、腎臓移植の提供源について多くの論争があった。最初に政府は臓器が囚人から得られたものであることを否定した。しかし、その後それは認めた。現在は2015年以来実行されていないと言っている。そして臓器は全てボランティア由来としている。しかし研究者達はそれに対しても疑問視している。

 
 Wendy Rogersは研究者から活動家に変わり、中国で行われている臓器移植のドナー調査を開始した。
 これまで科学論文として同国から雑誌に投稿された医師達の論文を分析し、臓器提供元の同意を得ているか調べると、驚くことに同意が得られていない、政治的囚人が多いことが判明した。

 2016年、Wendy Rogersは、中国に於ける非倫理的臓器移植を中止させる連合会の国際諮問委員会の座長となった(EATC)。彼女は2016年の論文の中に使われた臓器のドナーに関する記述が欠けている論文を見つけたが。論文は2017年に撤回された。

 2017年6月、委員会は中国で宗教的、または政治的理由で刑務所に収監されてきた人々は、臓器提供のために殺害されてきたと結論し、そうした政策は今後も続くだろうと結論した。委員会の報告やRogersの研究に関して中国政府は何ら反応していない。
 Rogersは、詳細が透明にされることはないだろうが、精査を行うことにより強制的臓器摘出は停止されるかも知れない、と語っている。