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According to this article, “After informed consent was obtained, 20ml of venous blood was withdrawn from the antecubital vein by aseptic technique.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
On March 22, 2023, at the close of their meeting in Moscow, media microphones were allowed to record Chinese Communist Party (CCP) dictator Xi Jinping (習近平) telling Russia’s dictator Vladimir Putin, “Right now there are changes — the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years — and we are the ones driving these changes together.” Widely read as Xi’s oath to create a China-Russia-dominated world order, it can be considered a high point for the China-Russia-Iran-North Korea (CRINK) informal alliance, which also included the dictatorships of Venezuela and Cuba. China enables and assists Russia’s war against Ukraine and North Korea’s
After thousands of Taiwanese fans poured into the Tokyo Dome to cheer for Taiwan’s national team in the World Baseball Classic’s (WBC) Pool C games, an image of food and drink waste left at the stadium said to have been left by Taiwanese fans began spreading on social media. The image sparked wide debate, only later to be revealed as an artificially generated image. The image caption claimed that “Taiwanese left trash everywhere after watching the game in Tokyo Dome,” and said that one of the “three bad habits” of Taiwanese is littering. However, a reporter from a Japanese media outlet
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
RSS