No minister ban
I wish to clarify a recent report in the Taipei Times (“Canberra reportedly bars official visits,” March 28, page 3).
There is no ban on Australian ministers visiting Taiwan. Australia has no formal or informal undertaking to Beijing not to send government ministers to Taiwan.
In the past, Australian ministers have traveled unofficially to Taiwan when there has been a need to discuss aspects of the bilateral trade and investment relationship.
Taiwan and Australia’s bilateral trade and investment relationship is proceeding very well. There are no current plans for any ministers to travel to Taiwan.
RICHARD MATHEWS
Deputy Representative
Australian Commerce and Industry Office, Taipei
Gene database correction
I would like to provide more background and correct an error in a recent article by explaining some of the history of the Sediq (often called “Atayal”) and Ami Aborigines’ samples that have been sold by Coriell Cell Repositories since 1995 (“Activists urge CIP to protect Aboriginal gene database,” March 28, page 1).
The samples were taken from Sediq and Ami Aboriginal donors by Lu Ru-band of Tri-Services Hospital in 1993 or 1994 (the project was funded by a 1994 Taiwan National Science Council grant). In an article published in 1996 in the journal Biological Psychiatry, Lu et al described the process through which these samples were acquired as part of an alcoholism research project: “In addition, from the villages of Hualien County on the East Coast of Taiwan, 42 Atayal males (21 alcoholics and 2l normal controls), and 40 Ami males (20 alcoholics and 20 normal controls) were sampled” (Lu et al, 1996:420).
According to this article, “After informed consent was obtained, 20ml of venous blood was withdrawn from the antecubital vein by aseptic technique. The blood was divided into two parts: one for direct DNA extraction and the other for establishing cell lines” (Lu et al, 1996:421).” Of the 42 Sediq and 40 Ami Aborigines who were sampled, 10 Sediq cell-lines and 10 Ami cell-lines were given to Coriell Cell Repositories, where they have been grown and marketed since 1995.
Your article is erroneous as the samples were not sold to Coriell Cell Repositories. Rather Lu cooperated with the research (either as a postdoctoral fellow or visiting scientist) with Kenneth and Judith Kidd, two important genetic researchers at Yale University. Either Lu or one of the Kidds (I have not yet determined who) contributed the Sediq and Ami samples to Coriell Cell Repositories where these have been sold since 1995.
According to a 1995 American Journal of Human Genetics article “The Coriell Institute for Medical Research (NIGMS Human Genetic Mutant Cell Line Repository) in Camden, New Jersey has available for distribution 5-10 cell lines from nine of the populations in this study: Ami, Atayal, Biaka, Mbuti, Druze, Han(S), Maya, Karitiana, and R. Surui” (Castiglione et al, 1995:1448).
As a part of the Coriell Cell Repositories’ “Human Variation Collection,” products derived from these Sediq and Ami donors can be individually purchased by commercial or academic researchers over the Internet for US$55 for a DNA sample and US$85 for a cell line. Coriell’s list of the Ami and Sediq cell lines and those of Indigenous peoples from elsewhere can be found at : http://ccr.coriell.org/Sections/BrowseCatalog/Populations.aspx?PgId=4.
Controversies over what is allowed after informed consent is given are significant as the Brazilian government has sharply criticized Coriell Cell Repositories for continuing to sell cell lines taken from Karitiana Indigenous peoples but the Taiwan government has been mute on the sales of the Sediq and Ami Aboriginal cell lines for the last 15 years. As well, in a very recent controversy, Ko Ying-chin (a well known researcher on Taiwan Aboriginal health issues) and the Taiwan National Health Research Institutes were forced to withdraw a US patent application involving 1522 Atayal Aboriginal participants that had been filed without proper informed consent.
In closing, it is important to reconsider what informed consent means when privileged scientists funded by the Taiwan government transform genetic research involving Taiwan Aborigines into genetic commodities.
MARK MUNSTERHJELM
Windsor, Canada
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
RSS