Beyond 2018

Shared bicycle

One after another bicycle-sharing companies have gone bankrupt last year, with many of them going bust in November, when Ofo, one of the largest of such companies, delayed refunding users' deposits.

?Expert: Liu Yuanju, a researcher at Shanghai Institute of Finance and Law
Ofo still cannot refund the deposit of 99 yuan ($14.3) or 199 yuan of all the 10 million users who have applied to get it back.

Also, there has been a drastic drop in the number of shared-bike users this year and a number of bike-sharing companies have exited the market.

Every user pays close to the price of an ordinary bicycle before he or she can use a bike-sharing service. And most of the bike-sharing companies promise to deposit the amount in a special bank account so that it can be withdrawn upon request. But most of the companies used the money to buy more bicycles in order to expand their businesses and get a larger share of the market.

But the bankruptcy of some companies is not necessarily bad. The exit of incompetent companies means the bike-sharing market is undergoing self-correction and the survivors will be those with the lowest risks. Which means consumers can use the bikes in the future without the fear of losing their deposit.

Medical Ethics

On Nov 26, He Jiankui, a Chinese research fellow in genetic studies, announced the birth of gene-edited twins, sparking nationwide concern on whether the human gene editing violates medical ethics.

? Expert: Tang Cheng, a doctoral candidate and research fellow at the Institute for Neuroscience, Chinese Academy of Sciences

He has set a very bad example for other researchers in genetics by violating medical ethics in the name of science. However, his is not a scientific breakthrough, because he only conducted an experiment that other scientists dared not do out of respect for medical ethics.

He has received little punishment for his unethical modifying of the genes of two babies, which could encourage other researchers to follow his example and cross the bottom line of medical ethics. His action has made scientists engaged in genetics research more suspectful in the eyes of the public.

Many netizens have raised doubts about human gene editing, which might make it more difficult for scientists to apply the technology in the future.
That's why I believe He's action could curb the progress of gene editing.
People are not likely to make a distinction between serious scientists or science institutes and the wrong deeds of a single scientist.