A UK government ‘Global Watch Mission’ returned from a two-week trip to China, Singapore and South Korea in September with a glowing report on the state of stem-cell research there. A press release announcing the report, released last month, noted that these countries were “bringing their ethical standards more in line with the UK model” and suggested that “the quality and international standing of UK-based stem cell organisations would provide an ideal opportunity for UK–Far East collaboration”.

All set then. But is this just wishful thinking?

Each of these countries recently put national regulatory frameworks in place, with South Korea's coming into effect just last month (see Nature 433, 186; 2005). But are they observed and enforced?

Members of the UK party visited some top-class laboratories in China (http://www.globalwatchonline.com/missions/tmsmrep.aspx). But can their observations be generalized to the whole country? After noting that in China there is “much less resistance than would be met in the West to pursuing experimental therapies into clinical practice”, the summary follows: “This is not to imply that clinical research is either unethical or unregulated.”

Nor should it be taken as a sign that all is well. There are stories of Chinese trials that fail to get informed consent and take advantage of desperate patients. China has regulations, but how well they are observed across the country is another question — indeed, many of those trials are said to involve local government officials. We have only to remember the blood-collection scandals in which uncounted numbers of Chinese were infected with HIV to know what local governments can do without anyone noticing — until it all blows up.

Anyone considering collaborations in a country with a questionable record on ethical regulation should snoop around first. The UK mission in China encountered repeated obstacles to inspecting informed-consent forms. The South Korean researchers who carried out last year's famed cloning experiments have also consistently refused to show the types of forms they used (Nature 429, 3; 2004). These are warning signs.

The new regulations may snap researchers into shape in the same way that China's political measures ensure conformity. This strictness would then, it is hoped, extend to international collaborations. But the odds are that some researchers will take advantage of lax enforcement in China or other countries. Some will get away with it. Others might sink their careers in a project gone awry.