After the first edition in 2024 focused on AI and governance, this year’s program turned to life sciences. Over five days, a  Swiss delegation traveled from Shanghai to Beijing, meeting leading hospitals, universities, startups, genomics centres, museums and think tanks. Instead of discussing ethics in theory, the program encouraged participants to examine how it manifests in real contexts, such as digital infrastructure, data policies, clinical routines, and cultural norms.

From the beginning, it was clear that China brings scale, speed, and the capacity to test new technologies in real-world settings, while Switzerland brings strong traditions of research integrity and a decentralised oversight ecosystem. The aim was not to compare systems, but to learn how these differences can generate synergy and create practical pathways for working together.

Shanghai: Where Ethics Becomes Infrastructure

The week opened at Zhongshan Hospital in Shanghai, where ethical questions around medical AI are closely tied to the hospital’s data systems. Years ago, Zhongshan Hospital realised that patient information was scattered across many incompatible databases. Building a unified platform was more than a technical task, as it required addressing fundamental questions such as who can access data, under what conditions, and with which safeguards.

Today, Zhongshan Hospital supports AI-assisted clinical pathways and serves as a national test base for medical AI. The hospital also collaborated closely with tech companies to test and improve their tools directly inside the clinical environment. The delegation also visited the Meta Medical Simulation Laboratory, where they showcased how AI could be used in different phases of the patient journey. Questions on integrity quickly rose from the delegation; How should tools developed outside the hospital be validated? Who bears responsibility when an AI-assisted decision goes wrong? How can the benefits arising from such collaborations be fairly shared with patients and the institution? Zhongshan Hospital’s answer has been to insist on AI as augmentation, not replacement: AI handles automation for repetitive tasks, while human clinicians handle judgment and accountability. Generative models are grounded in curated medical knowledge and systematically checked by physicians before reaching patients.

Leaving Zhongshan Hospital, the delegation carried forward a first insight: ethics in life sciences often starts upstream, embedded in technical design choices that quietly structure power and responsibility.

That afternoon, the focus shifted from systems to ideas at Fudan University, where Swissnex in China, in collaboration with the Institute of Technology Ethics for Human Future and the School of Philosophy at Fudan University, co-hosted the forum “Sino-Swiss Dialogue: Tech & Ethics in Life Sciences—Between Tradition and Innovation.” Bringing together early- and mid-career scholars from China and Switzerland, the forum addressed a wide range of frontier topics, including precision medicine, artificial intelligence, brain–computer interfaces, large language models, neurotechnology, data governance, vaccine equity, and patient-safety-oriented design.

Interdisciplinary discussions on ethics, law, medicine, and the arts explored how to develop responsible innovation frameworks across diverse cultural and value systems. The discussion highlighted the importance of practical issues such as governance, care, and equity, rather than just abstract ethical principles. It emphasized how emerging life science technologies can be guided by humanistic values, enhanced through cross-cultural dialogue, and advanced through global collaboration to tackle the ethical challenges that arise from rapid technological change.

The combination of the visits to Zhongshan Hospital and the public forum at Fudan University set the tone for the rest of the week: ethics are simultaneously coded into infrastructure and shaped by cultural narratives. Neither dimension is sufficient on its own. On the following day, the delegation visited NeuroXess, a neurotechnology startup developing implantable neurochips for high-resolution brain–computer interfaces. Here, informed consent becomes particularly complex. Neuro-implants may alter not only motor function but also aspects of mood or agency, creating changes that are hard to anticipate fully. The discussion quickly moved beyond standard risk–benefit assessments to questions of mental privacy, identity, and long-term responsibility. Who controls data generated inside the brain? How should patients be supported years after implantation? What happens when new devices develop faster than the current regulations can keep up?

For the Swiss delegation, familiar with highly codified medical device frameworks, NeuroXess illustrated both the promise and the pressure of China’s fast-moving innovation environment. For Chinese partners, Swiss practices in patient protection and long-term follow-up offered a complementary reference point. The conversation circled back to a central theme: high-risk innovation in life sciences needs both the courage to experiment and the safeguards that ensure people remain participants, not test subjects.

Beijing: Integrity, Genomics, and the Futures We Imagine

The second part of the program took the delegation to Beijing, where the main focus shifted from the frontlines of clinical innovation to the systems that define what counts as responsible science.

At Peking University’s School of Health Humanities, discussions focused on how AI is stretching existing governance frameworks. National guidelines on medical AI and health data are evolving rapidly, but institutions still face practical dilemmas: how to validate adaptive algorithms, how to keep humans accountable when AI assists diagnosis, how to balance individual consent with family-based decision-making traditions. Participants on both sides recognized the same need: professionals who can move seamlessly between clinical practice, legal requirements, data governance, and AI literacy.

This emphasis on hybrid expertise resurfaced later that day at BGI Genomics. Standing in front of high-speed sequencing machines and massive data systems, it became clear that the ethical questions now affect whole populations, not just individuals. Genomic data is inherently identifiable and long-lasting, making it necessary to rethink consent, anonymization, and long-term stewardship. Once data is integrated into massive research ecosystems, how can individuals retain meaningful control? How can the benefits, from new diagnostics to targeted therapies, be shared fairly with the communities that made them possible?

Here again, the Sino–Swiss contrast became productive. Switzerland’s strong data protection regimes and patient advocacy traditions intersect with China’s capacity for large, coordinated genomic initiatives. Both sides agreed that neither strict rules nor total freedom will work. Instead, governance models must cultivate trust with the public while promoting scientific progress.

The third Sino-Swiss Research Integrity Workshop, co-organized with the National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences ，China Science and Technology Exchange Center and supported by Frontiers, was the focal point of the Beijing program. Building on earlier editions, this workshop confronted a new reality: AI is not just another research tool, but is actively reshaping the conditions under which integrity is maintained or eroded.

Participants explored the rise of AI-generated manuscripts, automated paper mills, and complex computational processes. Misconduct is no longer just an issue of individual actions; it has become increasingly systemic, driven by the pressure to publish and the proliferation of automated workflows. Swiss and Chinese institutions compared their approaches: decentralized integrity offices versus more centralized oversight. They reached the common conclusion that AI can aid in detection and monitoring, yet cannot substitute for human judgment. Maintaining research integrity will rely on institutions that promote cultures of transparency, critical reflection, and the responsible use of AI.

The program concluded with a closed-door dialogue at the Berggruen Institute China. Prior to this final discussion, the delegation visited The Natural Contract exhibition at the Tsinghua University Art Museum, where artworks exploring human–non-human entanglements, artificial organisms, and ecological fragility offered a different entry point into the program’s core questions. A guided tour led by the curator provided critical context and inspiration for reflection.

Building on the themes raised during the exhibition visit, the closed-door dialogue with invited Chinese scholars  “Living Systems, Dying Data: Bioethics at the Edge” tied together the week’s threads. Rather than treating biomedical AI, digital immortality, bio art, or artificial wombs as separate topics, the discussion used them as lenses to approach a shared question: how far can we reconfigure life, death, and embodiment before losing sight of the values we seek to protect?

Looking Ahead: Ethics as a Design Principle

By the time the delegation left Beijing, Tech&Ethics II had guided the group through three layers of ethical governance in life sciences:

• Infrastructure: where data platforms, AI workflows, and testbeds silently distribute power, risk, and responsibility.
• Culture: encompasses the philosophies, social norms, and artistic practices that influence how new technologies are perceived and evaluated.
• Practice: hospitals, laboratories, and ethics offices that apply these principles to make daily decisions under the pressures of real-world scenarios.

The program showed that Switzerland and China have complementary strengths. China’s ability to test at scale and Switzerland’s solid safeguards and integrity frameworks form approaches that can reinforce each other.

Tech&Ethics II ultimately suggests that ethical innovation is not an obstacle to progress; it’s a guiding principle in the design process. The most significant ethical decisions are made during the construction of infrastructures, the shaping of narratives, and the establishment of incentives long before a technology reaches patients or consumers.

Read more about the full program