Recent public relations efforts by Taiwanese scientific elites to relaunch the Taiwan Biobank have included the signing of an agreement by five universities including Kaohsiung Medical University, which proclaimed its highest commitment to the Biobank's ELSI (Ethical, Legal and Social Implications) considerations while pledging to help improve Aboriginal health -- a familiar PR line.
But let us consider Ko Ying-chin (
A National Health Research Institute member, he has co-authored more than 180 articles in scientific journals, including more than 20 on Aboriginal health issues. He has received awards for advancing Aboriginal health from President Chen Shui-bian (
Yet Ko has for years promoted implicitly racist biomedical conceptions of Aborigines as genetically dysfunctional, such as in an April 23, 1998, Central News Agency story in which he claimed Aborigines were "genetically predisposed to alcoholism" as part of his support for government anti-alcoholism intervention in Aboriginal communities.
Furthermore, a little-known but major precedent for Taiwan Aboriginal genetics research -- which results in a severe conflict of interest for Ko's participation in the Biobank -- is his US Patent Application Number 20050170387 filed with Li Shu-chuan (
The application begins: "The present invention relates to a gout related gene locus located in the genomic region of about 90 cM to about 150 cM on chromosome 4, which region is flanked by genome markers D4S2361 and D4S1644."
The patent application claims this genetic location and a method of testing in this region for "propensity to gout." The application does not identify which Aboriginal people is involved, only that: "The present invention provides the findings of a genome-wide linkage study on 21 multiplex gouty pedigrees from an isolated highland aboriginal tribe in Taiwan."
The application is based on research findings described in a 2004 paper in The American Journal of Human Genetics entitled "Genomewide Scan for Gout in Taiwanese Aborigines Reveals Linkage to Chromosome 4q25."
This paper also doesn't specify which Aborigines were involved in the research, only that an earlier 2004 article, "Complex Segregation and Linkage Analysis of Familial Gout in Taiwanese Aborigines," dealt with this group. This earlier article states the subjects were Atayal Aborigines.
All of this raises crucial questions: While claiming Atayal participants gave informed consent to participate, did Ko and Li gain their consent before filing the patent? If not, would that constitute a violation of Section 21 of the Aboriginal Basic Law, seeing as Aboriginal consent to take part in academic research is different from being research subjects in a patent application? What rights do the Aboriginal participants have?
Ko and Li's patent application, which may have significant commercial potential, is the first to my knowledge that is based primarily on Taiwan Aboriginal genetics research. Is this not a crucial precedent containing a conflict of interest and therefore in need of debate?
But scientific elites will protect each other for what they really want to achieve in Biobank public relations: compliance from Aboriginal donors, not social justice for Aborigines.
Mark Munsterhjelm
Windsor, Canada
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations