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According to this article, “After informed consent was obtained, 20ml of venous blood was withdrawn from the antecubital vein by aseptic technique.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
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS