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According to this article, “After informed consent was obtained, 20ml of venous blood was withdrawn from the antecubital vein by aseptic technique.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
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS