Harvard Genetic Research Team Collected and Transferred China Blood and DNA Samples Back to the US

Introduction by Michel Chossudovsky


We bring to the attention of  Global Research readers, excerpts from an important study entitled “An International Collaborative Genetic Research Project Conducted in China”  which has a bearing on our understanding of China’s  coronavirus epidemic.

At this juncture of the CoVid-19 pandemic there is no firm evidence that the virus is “Man Made”.

At the same time, we should not rule out a priori the possibility that the CoVid-19 coronavirus was “man made” in a laboratory. 

The study below pertains to a US initiative by an unnamed “renowned University” involved in collecting blood and DNA samples in China’s Anhui province in the 1990s. The unnamed university is Harvard University.

Blood samples were collected. In turn, the US scientists “acquired DNA samples of the target group for research purposes.   

“The principal investigator himself admitted that for the asthma research alone, 16,400 DNA samples had been transferred to the US.“.  These DNA samples collected by the Harvard research team were then shipped to the US. 

 makes a plea for justice for some 200,000 [? ] Chinese farmers [exact figures to be confirmed] who were used in 12 genetic experiments without their informed consent. The experiments were conducted by Harvard researchers and funded by the US government.


The underlying purpose of collecting Chinese DNA samples was not mentioned, nor was the relationship of Harvard University to several entities of the US government.

As documented by the authors, the Harvard study and “theft” of Chinese DNA (biopiracy) was also supported by Big Pharma. In this regard, the blood and DNA samples of Anhui province constitute a potential goldmine for the pharmaceutical companies which provided financial support to the Harvard team.

The authors do not openly condemn the renowned [Harvard] University or more specifically the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (HSPH) which was involved in “biopiracy”. They nonetheless confirm the coverup:


On 2 May 2003, the US university [Harvard] published the investigation results of the US government, which stated that there had been some procedural errors in supervision and record-keeping, but no participant was found to have been harmed in any way, so the school would not be penalized (HSPH 2003). Some biomedical experts and ethicists in China expressed regret about these results. They insisted that the studies had apparently violated basic research ethics, and called for a joint US-Chinese review of the experiments

And now the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (HSPH)  has announced that it is collaborating in curbing the coronavirus pandemic. (click above)

There is money to be made.  According to Harvard Magazine: “The U.S. efforts will be spearheaded by scientists at Harvard Medical School and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health”.

In turn, Harvard will collaborate with “the Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health as well as Zhong Nanshan, a renowned pulmonologist and epidemiologist.  Zhong is also head of the Chinese 2019n-CoV Expert Taskforce and a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering.”

Harvard University and the Guangzhou Institute will share in a $115 million research budget generously funded by the China Evergrande Group, a Fortune Global 500 company in China.

“Evergrande is honored to have the opportunity to contribute to the fight against this global public health threat,” said Hui Ka Yan, chair of the China Evergrande Group.


The Evergrande Group will be operating through its Evergrande Health subsidiary based in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province.

The important question: Will Harvard’s extensive GNA data bank of Chinese samples from Anhui province be used in the context of Harvard’s current coronavirus project in collaboration with the Guangdong Institute and the Evergrade Group? The names of the US pharmaceutical companies which supported Harvard’s Anhui project are not mentioned.


Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, February 24, 2020


Data on the Covid-19 pandemic:

The World Health Organization (WHO) reported Sunday, February 22, 2020 78,811 confirmed cases of COVID-19 as of 10 a.m. CET (4 a.m. ET), with nearly all cases (98% or 77,042) having occurred in China. WHO has also reported 2,462 deaths, all but 17 of which have occurred in China.

As of midnight Sunday (11 a.m. ET), China’s National Health Commission reported 77,150 confirmed cases and 2,592 deaths, with 24,734 patients designated as cured and discharged from hospital.
These figures confirm that the pandemic is largely limited to Mainland China. The media hype and disinformation campaign regarding the spread of the virus have created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation following the launching of the global public health emergency by the WHO on January 30th. According to the WHO, 1769 cases were reported outside China.

 by  Zhao Yandong and Zhan Weixia

[Excerpts, emphasis added]
In 1995, a research team from a renowned US university started collecting blood samples from villagers living in Anhui province, China, with the cooperation of local research institutes and the Chinese government.
In 2000, the US university team was accused of violating research ethics principles by not adequately informing the participants about the research and not sharing benefits fairly. Subsequent investigations by American and Chinese media and authorities showed that the US research institute, its research personnel and a pharmaceutical company involved were benefiting substantially from the project, while the Chinese research participants and the government were not.
Genetic studies in urban and rural areas in Anhui province are the topic of this case study.
Specific Case and Analysis, Excerpts

On 20 December 2000, a Washington Post article titled “An isolated region’s genetic mother lode” (Pomfret and Nelson 2000) disclosed that a Chinese American researcher of a renowned US University had been collecting blood samples from villagers living in the Dabie Mountains region of China’s Anhui province since 1995 with the financial support of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and biopharmacy companies.

The blood samples were transferred to the US university’s genetic bank for research into asthma, diabetes, hypertension and other diseases. Because of the value of these carefully selected blood samples to the research and development of new drugs, the US team received a large amount of research funding from international organizations. The report exposed the loss of China’s genetic resources and triggered a stir both in China and worldwide.

The US university’s genetic harvest project, conducted in Anqing city in Anhui province between 1994 and 1998, involved tens of thousands of farmers in eight counties. The project, led by an associate professor at the US university as the “chief scientist” conducted genetics studies on multiple diseases, including asthma, high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes and osteoporosis, while the experiments on asthma and hypertension were funded by the NIH (Pomfret and Nelson 2000; Xiong and Wang 2001, 2002).

The principal investigator from the US team also collaborated with a US pharmaceuticals company, and received its financial support. The project had three Chinese partners, Beijing Medical University, Anhui Medical University (AMU) and Anqing Municipal Bureau of Public Health.

The US-based principal investigator started working with the AMU School of Public Health in 1993, and set up the Anhui Meizhong Bio-medicine and Environmental Health Institute in Anqing. The institute chose the Anqing Bureau of Public Health as its local partner, and selected the population groups suitable for taking samples based on grass-roots investigation.

It collected blood samples through physical examination and acquired DNA samples of the target group for research purposes. The joint research project, which was conducted under the guise of free physical examinations for the farmers, mobilized the local population with the help of the local government. Blood samples were collected from farmers in the eight counties of Anqing city: Zongyang, Huaining, Qianshan, Tongcheng, Taihu, Wangjiang, Susong and Yuexi.

Media reports and the complaints of research personnel from the US university later exposed details of certain parts of the project that were suspected of compromising research ethics. …

According to the investigation by Chinese journalists, the collection of genetic samples had not been sanctioned by the relevant ethics committee in China (Xiong and Wang 2002).

There were also serious breaches of the requirements to keep the participants informed. Many farmers who participated in the physical examination were not aware they were taking part in research. They were never shown or briefed about the “letter of informed consent” , and did not sign or put their fingerprints on any such document.

They did not even know which institution they had given their blood samples to, and nobody told them about the real purpose and results of their “physical examination” or the rights and benefits they were entitled to as part of their contribution to research.

The asthma project was only one of the dozen human genetic research projects conducted by the US team in China. Other projects also involved the genetic screening of blood samples collected from Chinese farmers for the purpose of establishing the genetic links behind diseases like hypertension, diabetes, obesity and osteoporosis. Many of these projects were first supported by the US pharmaceutical company before NIH funds flowed in (Xiong et al. 2003).

In March 1999, the US University sent a team to China to ensure that the Anhui research was ethically and scientifically sound. Five months later, regulators from the US Department of Health and Human Services launched an investigation into the US university’s genetic research in China.

In March 2002, the department found that the genetic project in China seriously violated the regulations in multiple respects, including medical ethics, participant safety, and supervision and management (Yangcheng Evening News 2002). On 2 May 2003, the US university [Harvard] published the investigation results of the US government, which stated that there had been some procedural errors in supervision and record-keeping, but no participant was found to have been harmed in any way, so the school would not be penalized (HSPH 2003). Some biomedical experts and ethicists in China expressed regret about these results. They insisted that the studies had apparently violated basic research ethics, and called for a joint US-Chinese review of the experiments (Pomfret and Nelson 2000).

In this international research cooperation on a “genetic harvest”, the actors and participants included both international and Chinese research institutes and research personnel, international companies, local government and the local residents who participated in the study.

During this cooperation, the US university [Harvard], from its commanding position as a world-famous, authoritative international scientific research institute with first-class research personnel and advanced technologies, attracted the participation of Chinese partners and sold them the idea of building partnerships and the opportunity for co-authorship with US research personnel in return for the provision of genetic resources used for research purposes. As a result, they obtained access to a valuable pool of research data resources.

In 2003, the Chinese Ministry of Health and the Chinese Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine jointly issued regulations limiting the export of special medical articles involving human genetic resources. However, most of the DNA samples the US team had collected in Anhui had already been shipped to the US. The principal investigator himself admitted that for the asthma research alone, 16,400 DNA samples had been transferred to the US (Zhao and Cai 2013). In 2002 and 2003, he set up a biopharmaceutical company and a biopharmaceutical research institute in China. Several Chinese research personnel who had participated in the genetic project in Anhui became his partners.

The US pharmaceutical company became the ultimate beneficiary after supplying research funds. As part of the agreement signed with the US university, they obtained the genetic information of Anhui farmers and claimed that it owned the relevant patents. In July 1995, the company announced that it was in possession of a large collection of asthma genetic samples from China. Soon afterwards, a large Swedish pharmaceutical company, invested USD 53 million in the pharmaceutical company for research into respiratory disease. The company’s control of obesity and diabetes genes from China attracted another commitment of USD 70 million from a pharmaceutical giant. The stock price of the company soared from USD 4 per share, when it was listed in May 1995, to more than USD 100 per share in June 2000. Several of the company’s senior executives earned a net profit of over USD 10 million each through trade in stocks (Xiong et al. 2003).

In striking contrast, the research participants from China received very few benefits from the project. Chinese research institutes and research personnel did gain the opportunity of working with renowned international research institutes, access to research funds and the co-authorship rights to scientific papers published in international academic journals – all of which appeal to most Chinese scientists – but the local residents who participated in the studies received nothing but a free meal and an insignificant sum of money in travel and job leave allowances. In the words of a Chinese journalist, it was China’s national interests and the unprotected Chinese farmers that were most harmed by the project, and it was the big US companies, research institutes and research personnel that received the real benefits (Xiong et al. 2003).

In November 1998, the Chinese Ministry of Health established the Committee of Ethical Review on Bio-medical Research Involving the Human Body. To regulate international cooperation in genetics, China promulgated the Provisional Methods for the Management of Human Genetic Resources in 1998, which clearly stipulated that international cooperation on China’s genetic resources must be conducted on the basis of equality and mutual benefit, with a formal agreement or contract, the approval of the Chinese government and informed consent in the collection of samples.

In 2003, the Chinese Ministry of Health and the Chinese Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine jointly issued a notice which prescribed that special medical articles involving human genetic resources were not to be taken abroad without authorization. The Methods for the Ethical Review of Humaninvolved Biomedical Research (Provisional) were promulgated in 2007.

Part of the Springer Briefs in Research and Innovation Governance book series (BRIEFSREINGO)

Zhao Y., Zhang W. (2018) An International Collaborative Genetic Research Project Conducted in China. In: Schroeder D., Cook J., Hirsch F., Fenet S., Muthuswamy V. (eds) Ethics Dumping. Springer Briefs in Research and Innovation Governance. Springer, Cham


  1. 1These documents (and others referred to later) are not available in English and have therefore not been included in the reference list.


  1. Anhui (2016) Statistical bulletin on national economic and social development in Anhui province in 2015. Anhui Provincial Bureau of Statistics, 25 February [in Chinese]. http://www.ahtjj.gov.cn/tjj/web/info_view.jsp?strId=1461911669310505&_indextow=8
  2. Cheng Y, Liu Y, Wang W (2015) Empirical research on international S&T cooperation promoting the Annual Conference of China Soft Science. BeijingGoogle Scholar
  3. HSPH (2003) HSPH issues the US government’s findings on the school’s genetic research in China. Medicine and Philosophy 24(9):46Google Scholar
  4. Hubei (2016) Statistical bulletin on national economic and social development in Hubei province in 2015. Hubei Provincial Bureau of Statistics, 26 February. http://www.stats-hb.gov.cn/tjgb/ndtjgb/hbs/112361.htm
  5. Jiangsu (2016) Statistical bulletin on national economic and social development in Jiangsu province in 2015. Jiangsu Provincial Bureau of Statistics, 29 February. http://www.js.gov.cn/jszfxxgk/tjxx/201602/t20160229492951.html
  6. Jin X (2012) China’s internationalization strategy for science and technology and current status of international scientific and technological cooperation [in Chinese]. Science & Technology Industry Parks 11:25–27Google Scholar
  7. Pomfret J, Nelson D (2000) An isolated region’s genetic mother lode. Washington Post, 20 December. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/01/AR2008100101158.html
  8. Witze A (2016) Research gets increasingly international. Nature, 19 January. http://www.nature.com/news/research-gets-increasingly-international-1.19198
  9. Xiong L, Wang Y (2001) A suspicious international project of genetic studies. Outlook Weekly 13:24–28Google Scholar
  10. Xiong L, Wang Y (2002) Harvard University’s genetic research in China is illegal. Outlook Weekly 15:48–50Google Scholar
  11. Xiong L, Wang Y, Wang C (2003) Poaching China’s genetic resources: re-investigating the Harvard genetic project. Outlook Weekly 38:22–25Google Scholar
  12. Yangcheng Evening News (2002) US government: there are serious moral problems in human studies of Harvard. 5 April. http://news.sohu.com/13/95/news148409513.shtml
  13. Zhao X, Cai Z (2013) Social process and development mechanism on biopiracy; case studies from the perspective of constructivism. Studies in Science of Science 31(12)Google Scholar
  14. Zhejiang (2016) Statistical bulletin on national economic and social development in Zhejiang province in 2015. Zhejian Provincial Bureau of Statistics, 24 March. http://www.zj.gov.cn/art/2016/3/24/art_5497_2075286.html

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]