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According to this article, “After informed consent was obtained, 20ml of venous blood was withdrawn from the antecubital vein by aseptic technique.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
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
Denmark has consistently defended Greenland in light of US President Donald Trump’s interests and has provided unwavering support to Ukraine during its war with Russia. Denmark can be proud of its clear support for peoples’ democratic right to determine their own future. However, this democratic ideal completely falls apart when it comes to Taiwan — and it raises important questions about Denmark’s commitment to supporting democracies. Taiwan lives under daily military threats from China, which seeks to take over Taiwan, by force if necessary — an annexation that only a very small minority in Taiwan supports. Denmark has given China a
Speaking at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit on May 13, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said that democracies must remain united and that “Taiwan’s security is essential to regional stability and to defending democratic values amid mounting authoritarianism.” Earlier that day, Tsai had met with a group of Danish parliamentarians led by Danish Parliament Speaker Pia Kjaersgaard, who has visited Taiwan many times, most recently in November last year, when she met with President William Lai (賴清德) at the Presidential Office. Kjaersgaard had told Lai: “I can assure you that ... you can count on us. You can count on our support
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS