On 13 November 2026, a Shanghai municipal investigation team announced that it had dismissed two researchers, Qiu and Yang, after concluding that a Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine team failed on safety reporting, clinical review and disclosure of financial conflicts of interest in an experimental gene-editing study in which a six-year-old girl died. The investigation, which followed Science and Retraction Watch reporting in July, found no data fabrication in the related Nature paper but did find other academic irregularities, according to Shanghai Daily.
What was announced on 13 November 2026
Shanghai Daily reports that the municipal investigation team released its statement on 13 November 2026. Caixin Global, in a report dated 14 November, describes the same findings and identifies the dismissed lead researcher as Qiu Zilong, deputy director of the Songjiang Research Institute at Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine. The earlier coverage of the case on CASRAI is in our July-August report on the investigation. A second, separate China gene-editing death is covered in our report on the HuidaGene Duchenne trial.
Who was penalised
As reported by Shanghai Daily (the statement gives surnames only for most individuals):
- Qiu, deputy director of the Songjiang institute and responsible for preclinical research: dismissed, barred for five years from science and technology programmes and from awards and honours, and entered in a database of serious research-integrity violations.
- Yang, first author and co-corresponding author of the paper: dismissed, with the same five-year bar and database entry.
- Yu, leader of the clinical study: removed as head of Xinhua Hospital’s research department, demoted two grades, given five-year restrictions on promotion, projects, awards and postgraduate recruitment, and entered in the database.
- Zhang and Yuan: administrative warnings.
- Hospital officials responsible for ethics review and clinical research oversight: removal from posts, demotions and Party disciplinary penalties.
Corrective action was ordered at the medical school, the Songjiang institute and Xinhua Hospital. District health authorities imposed administrative penalties on Xinhua Hospital and Songjiang District Central Hospital; the statement, as reported, did not specify them.
What the investigation found
- Qiu’s team did not promptly tell the clinical study leader about warning signs in a nonhuman primate safety report. When publishing, the team did not disclose in a timely way either that February 2025 report or the child’s death.
- Qiu, Yang, Zhang and Yuan did not accurately disclose conflicts of interest.
- The hospital’s scientific review did not independently assess the study’s design and safety. The ethics committee approved the study despite insufficient toxicology evidence and missing requested materials.
- The consent form mentioned serious complications but did not prominently warn the family of the risk of death.
Shanghai Daily’s timeline: the ethics committee approved the study on 2 January 2025, the child was treated on 24 March and died on 31 March 2025, and an emergency review on 2 April attributed the death to thrombotic microangiopathy, a complication of the therapy, and ordered the study halted.
Money from the family
According to Shanghai Daily, the family contributed 5.337 million yuan: 3.458 million for viral vector production, 1.379 million for large-animal toxicology and 500,000 as a donation to an education foundation. The researchers received about 1.06 million yuan in money and gifts from the family (Qiu about 100,000 yuan in premium liquor and electronics; Yang 900,000 yuan plus premium liquor; Zhang and Yuan 30,000 yuan each). The statement said the money and gifts were returned or handed over as required.
What happens to the Nature paper
The team submitted the paper to Nature on 21 December 2024, and it was published on 18 February 2026 after several revision rounds with additional animal experiments and data, Shanghai Daily reports. The investigation found no data fabrication, but did find that methods differed from those described and that same-batch data were presented in separate portions without explanation.
Nature’s own process is separate. Retraction Watch reported on 30 July 2026 that Nature had placed an editor’s note dated 29 July on the paper stating that concerns had been raised, including with the data presented, and that further editorial action would be taken if appropriate once its investigation was complete and all parties had responded. Deputy editor Victoria Aranda said the manuscript described preclinical feasibility work only, in a mouse model and non-human primates, and that no information about a planned human trial was shared with the journal. Whether Nature will correct or retract the paper in light of the Shanghai findings has not been reported in the coverage cited here.
What it means for trial oversight, disclosure and journals
These are editorial interpretations, not findings of the Shanghai statement.
- Oversight bodies. The reported findings place responsibility on institutional review, not only on investigators: scientific review that did not assess design and safety independently, and an ethics approval granted with missing materials. Research offices can test their own processes against the same points, including how reportable events reach the committee and the sponsor.
- Adverse-event and safety-data disclosure. An internal primate safety report and a death were both withheld from a publication. Journals that rely on author statements have no way to see such material unless it is declared, which is why clinical trial transparency and registration matter and registration; China’s registry is described in the ChiCTR entry.
- Financial conflicts. Family funding of preclinical work and personal gifts to researchers were found not to have been accurately disclosed. Funding by a patient’s family of the therapy that patient later receives is a structure institutions may want an explicit policy on.
- Journals. The case shows a gap between a preclinical paper and the clinical activity around it. Whether editorial policies should require disclosure of related human use is an open question that the Nature investigation may address.
Sources
- Shanghai Daily, “Shanghai Dismisses Researchers After Probe Into Child’s Death in Gene Therapy Study”: citynewsservice.cn
- Caixin Global, “Shanghai Fires Gene-Editing Researcher After Child’s Death”, 14 November 2026: caixinglobal.com
- Retraction Watch, “Journal, university investigations launched into gene-editing death following Science-Retraction Watch reporting”, 30 July 2026: retractionwatch.com
