Bowing to an outcry from local human rights groups, the National Science Council (NSC) recently froze its project to create a national genetic database. The ethical, legal and social issues resulting from genetic research have generated much debate in Taiwan over the past 10 years. There has been a lack of communication between the NSC and the nation's research institutes, and there remains a lack of awareness among research institutes of the gravity of the issues involved.
It is this lack of awareness and communication that brought about the scandal over falsified stem-cell research results sparked by South Korean cloning expert Hwang Woo-suk. The public outcry in Taiwan underlines the need for adjustments in the way we think about the issues surrounding a genetic database.
Since human genetic research is bound to be highly controversial, it is an area which must be regulated through legislation. Legislation won't solve every problem, but it can regulate and encourage certain patterns of behavior, as well as clarify the main issues in the controversy.
Currently, the tendency is to use the principles of intellectual property rights (IPR) management, and the concepts of informed consent and rights to privacy, as the basis for the consideration of genetic research. But the intention of IPR is to protect exclusive rights within the marketplace, and so is perhaps not best suited for use when we are considering genetic research that deals with the secrets of life itself. In such a field, the full majesty of the law should be used to strike a balance between public and private interests.
At first, it might seem that the principle of informed consent should apply to the establishment of a genetic database. But if we look at the issue more closely, such a principle alone is not suitable for dealing with issues relating to the establishment of a highly centralized genetic database. Such a database presents a basic tension between the public interest and the constitutional rights of the individual.
As to the concept of privacy, under US law, this is linked to the freedom of action and individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution. In Taiwan, under Constitutional Interpretation No. 603, an emphasis is placed on access to information. However, the concept of privacy is limited when dealing with issues relating to the obtaining and transfer of genetic information.
Constitutional Interpretation No. 603 and a public debate about the idea of a genetic database should guide the government and research centers' decisions. For example, the ban on a photo database or personal files of all citizens should stay in place, especially as regards the building of a DNA database. Even if information is catalogued in such a way that the donor remains anonymous, it would remain possible through gathering information from various sources to create complete or at least partial dossiers on individuals. This must be prevented, so that individuals do not incriminate themselves or get labeled based on such a databank. Any attempt to link the genetic database to medical records or household registrations must be strictly forbidden.
The effort to complete a genetic map of all human beings was undertaken to get a better picture of how human life evolved. To achieve this, we should consider what role the Legislative Yuan, the Executive Yuan and the Judicial Yuan are going to play and what citizens can do in order to reach consensus on this matter.
In short, adequate public communication prior to the enactment of a law is crucial to preserving social order. In our quest to penetrate the mysteries of life, we should not discard a basic respect for the public will and individual rights.
Yen Chueh-an is a law professor at National Taiwan University
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military
RSS