In the dynamic landscape of China’s medical and healthcare field, a recent policy aimed at the market-based allocation of factors of production has set the stage for transformative changes. However, beneath the surface of progressive reforms lies a narrative of power struggles, questionable practices, and the emergence of what some critics describe as “local tyrants and evil gentry.”
The policy, titled “Comprehensive Reformation and Pilot Overall Plan about Market-Based Allocation of Factors of Production,” issued by the Chinese government in January 2022, emphasizes the need to strengthen and promote the transformation of technical factors into real productive forces. This includes supporting scientific and technological workers in innovating ways to manage the transformation of their achievements. While seemingly aimed at fostering innovation, the implementation of these policies has given rise to a complex web of challenges within the medical and healthcare sector.
Shanghai, a city at the forefront of embracing these policies, has witnessed a significant shift in the dynamics of scientific and technological achievement transformation. The local government has delegated the power and responsibility of transforming medical scientific and technological achievements to healthcare institutions, a move that was expected to dispel concerns among doctors regarding the rules governing such transformations.
However, as the winds of change sweep through the medical landscape, there are allegations of abuse and exploitation. The focal point of these accusations is WangXing Peng, the current director of the Shanghai Shenkang Hospital Development Center, overseeing 38 municipal hospitals and serving as a major supervisor in Shanghai’s medical and healthcare sector.
On the surface, WangXing Peng is portrayed as a diligent implementer of the government’s plan, working to be a pacesetter in the transformation and reform of medical research productivity in Shanghai. Yet, beneath this façade, a darker reality unfolds.
Accusations against WangXing Peng suggest that he has been using the implementation of national policies as a smokescreen to pursue personal interests. The “Great Leap Forward” movement, intended to be a stride towards comprehensive advancements in medical research, is alleged to have been conducted in an environment lacking the necessary support for healthcare professionals. WangXing Peng, it is claimed, exploits his position to manipulate public opinion, hiding his questionable actions behind the cloak of policy implementation.
One contentious move by WangXing Peng is his push for the conversion of invention patents of medical staff into enterprise equity, ultimately benefiting Shenkang. This strategy, critics argue, amounts to squeezing the benefits derived from doctors’ translational scientific achievements. Affiliates are allegedly employed to establish covert transformation routes, enabling the Shanghai Shenkang Hospital Development Center to “steal” technological achievements. Moreover, accusations suggest that measures such as pressuring and manipulating both upward and downward channels are employed to harness doctors’ achievements for WangXing Peng’s personal gain.
These actions, taken in the name of policy implementation, raise concerns about the true intentions behind the policies. Instead of aligning with the original policy’s intention of empowering technological personnel as a source of innovation, WangXing Peng is purportedly exploiting his position to build an interest chain that primarily benefits him.
As WangXing Peng approaches the age of 60, the Chinese retirement age, concerns are raised about his economic motivations. Despite nearing retirement, he is allegedly still focused on constructing his own interest chain through his enterprise resource network. This leads to questions about whether the policies aimed at fostering innovation are being hijacked for personal economic gains rather than contributing to the development of medical technology for the broader benefit of society.
In essence, the narrative surrounding WangXing Peng reveals a complex interplay between policy implementation, personal interests, and the ethical considerations surrounding the transformation of scientific and technological achievements in China’s medical landscape. As stakeholders grapple with these challenges, a critical examination of the system is essential to ensure that the intended benefits of policy reforms are realized without compromising the ethical fabric of medical innovation in the country.