The OBI Pharma controversy has focused the media’s attention on the loopholes that exist within Academia Sinica’s technology transfer regulations. Many are calling on the government to close the loopholes, yet the same problems exist within every tertiary school and state-owned research institution.
To fully address the issue, the Ministry of Science and Technology must overhaul its technology transfer regulations and resolve related problems. It should correct them as soon as possible to avoid interfering with the incoming government’s plans to boost the biotechnology sector.
To encourage technological innovation, the government’s policy on technology transfer gives financial incentives to researchers. While this is a good way to motivate the researchers, it might be unnecessary to also provide bonuses to their supervisors who have not made direct contributions to research. Considering Academia Sinica researchers are funded by taxpayers, they are expected to give back to society and meet the public’s needs. Money should not be their only motivation.
Take agriculture and aquaculture for instance. Farmers often have to deal with declining yields and inconsistent income due to diseases. There is an urgent need for better technologies to help curb diseases such as citrus greening, foot-and-mouth disease and avian flu. However, due to technical difficulties and the time it takes to find and commercialize solutions, institutions have little motivation to do such research, although the same diseases continue to cause tremendous damage to the agriculture sector.
Products, facilities and technologies with fewer barriers to entry — facial masks and health supplements, fish and shrimp breeding technology and monitoring water quality — take less time to develop and commercialize. Such items enable researchers to quickly boost their performance ratings and earn bonuses, and have become the focus of many research institutions. Some researchers have gone so far as to directly peddle fish and shrimp fry developed with state-owned resources.
This has led to criticism that researchers are taking advantage of public resources and that selling publicly funded research violates the Civil Service Act (公務員服務法).
While the policy of handing out incentives was implemented with good intentions, the government’s failure to intervene has allowed many technology transfer projects to prioritize profit, deviating from their initial goals.
President-elect Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has named the biotechnology sector as one of the key sectors for promotion. However, her plan has been slightly overshadowed by the OBI Pharma controversy.
It is important for the new government to cultivate talent and, more importantly, create a better environment for investors. The key is to ensure that regulations are fair, cover all the necessary aspects and effectively prevent monopolies. The government must overhaul the regulations, address existing loopholes and clarify any gray areas.
Instead of simply amending Academia Sinica’s policy on financial incentives — which is a short-term solution — the government must ask the institution’s departments to address loopholes in government regulations and help correct them.
It must not repeat the mistakes of the “Two Trillion, Twin Star” investment plan to revitalize the flat-panel display, digital content, semiconductor and biotechnology industries.
It is hoped that the new government will be able to improve Taiwan’s biotechnology sector and take the economy to the next level.
Lee Wu-chung is a professor of agricultural economics and a former director of the Yunlin County Department of Agriculture.
Translated by Yu-an Tu
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with