The call for “a lab of our own” has emerged in the environmental movement in recent years. Take, for instance, the environmental breast cancer movement launched by the Silent Spring Institute and other environmental groups in the US in response to the fact that breast cancer research was either funded by the government or by the cosmetics industry, such as the well-known Pink Ribbon.
Most mainstream epidemiological research places too much emphasis on individual lifestyles, while ignoring the impact of environmental toxins.
The environmental breast cancer movement relies on funding from donations, rather than government or industry, and supports research on environmental toxicity as it builds its own laboratories.
The most well-known laboratory supported by small donations is located in an Italian castle — the Ramazzini Institute. Founded in 1970, the toxicology lab is the world’s second-largest animal lab, after the US National Toxicology Program.
Because it has a sufficient budget to support long-term research, the lab does not have to act as both a player and a referee in its research efforts, and can thus avoid conflicts of interest.
Both academia and governments attach great importance to its research, and it is also well-regarded by the public.
However, the controversy over environmental and occupational health hazards often requires — apart from evidence provided by toxicological research — evidence provided by epidemiological research results, as well as health risk assessments.
Establishing a toxicology laboratory that supports the environmental movement requires purchasing equipment, breeding guinea pigs and recruiting scientists, which requires money. However, setting up an environmental and occupational epidemiology lab or research office also involves another set of difficulties.
For epidemiological research and health-risk assessments, budget and space requirements are not too high. The real problems lie in the difficulty of obtaining research data.
Research on environmental and occupational health hazards are often closely related to significant business interests.
Whether it involves staff information, data on chemical substances used during the production process or waste emissions data, the data stored at government agencies are usually incomplete.
Most companies refuse to provide such information, claiming that it has been destroyed, that the law does not require them to provide such information or that the information constitutes a commercial secret.
If Taiwan’s environmental movement wants to build its own laboratory, it not only needs to raise funds and find a proper site, it also needs to seek support from the relevant government agencies. Only by creating laws requiring that data be stored and made public will Taiwan be able to remove opaqueness and uncertainty and embrace the arrival of spring.
Lin Yi-ping is an associate professor at National Yang-Ming University’s Institute of Science, Technology and Society.
Translated by Eddy Chang
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
RSS