Scandal Must Not Halt Biotech Development

Scandal Must Not Halt Biotech Development
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 1, 2010

Next week the Academia Sinica will hold its biennial members meeting. Veteran academics from home and abroad will gather. It will be a major event within the academic community. The Academia Sinica however has been dogged by misfortune for the past six months. A series of controversies have left it struggling to cope. Two months ago, the Academia Sinica attempted to develop a small plot of land belonging to Arsenal Number 202. Some environmentalists have accused it of encroaching on wetlands. It was eventually shown that the Academia Sinica Biotech Park was far removed from any wetlands. But by then an unfavorable atmosphere had already formed. putting future plans for a National Health Technology Park in doubt.

Then, last week, the director of the Academia Sinica Biomedical Institute became a suspect in a procurement scandal. He was interrogated, searched, and released on bail. This is probably the first time a member of the Academia Sinica has ever been a defendant in a criminal case. The incident has harmed the reputation of the institution. The case pertains to biotechnology and technology transfers. Therefore it has affected the prospects for Taiwan's biotechnology industry. This incident, along with the controversy over the aforementioned Arsenal Number 202 Biotechnology Park, may make the road ahead a bumpy one. This newspaper has commented on the Park environmental dispute. We now have some comments on the procurement scandal.

We have no desire to comment on the case per se. We merely wish to comment on the manner in which prosecutors and investigators have handled the case. The Academia Sinica is the Republic of China's foremost research institute. Being made a member of the Academia Sinica is considered the highest possible honor. Prosecutors and investigators made a great show of searching the institution, including members' laboratories. They seized evidence and leaked information to the press. This constitutes a violation of the prohibition against publicizing an ongoing investigation. It can also be considered prosecutorial excess. Consider the evidence seized. Couldn't the court have subpoenaed the Academia Sinica, asking it to provide information pertaining to technology transfers and industrial cooperation? Would the Academia Sinica really have dared to defy a court order? Would it really have refused to provide the information? Instead, prosecutors seized evidence. This implies that the suspect might destroy evidence. Why did prosecutors assume that an Academia Sinica scholar would stoop so low? Was there really no civilized way of dealing with the nation's foremost academic institution and its esteemed scholars? Were prosecutors eager to throw their weight around, to convey the thuggish message that "We are unafraid to prosecute anyone." Prosecutors have searched the media. They have searched the nation's foremost academic institute. They have leaked information to outsiders. When will we outgrow such Neanderthal handling of cases?

Secondly, we are concerned about the eventual impact of these cases on technology transfers and industrial cooperation. Keen observers note that research on Taiwan has borne considerable fruit. But it is wrong to credit decentralized industry research efforts alone. Chinese society traditionally regards scholarship as a lofty pursuit. It is not accustomed to technical cooperation between academia and industry. As a result, scholars on Taiwan are not accustomed to transferring the fruits of their R & D efforts to industry. Over a decade ago the "Basic Laws Governing Science and Technology" were passed. They finally established intellectual property incentives for technology transfers. But changing the culture of the research community on Taiwan is not easy. The "Basic Law Governing Science and Technology" has still left many technology transfer related concepts undefined.

We hope the outside world will judge the Academia Sinica technology transfers and procurement scandals on a case by case basis. We hope they will deal with systemic defects separately. Biotechnology industry R & D, follow-up industry research, and the eventual development of a marketable product, can take a decade or more. During this long gestation period, research institutes, researchers, manufacturers, and the government must interact with each other. The process involves information disclosure, the avoidance of conflicts of interest, rules for price negotiations, distinctions between new patent rights and old patent rights, investment returns on government subsidies, and other considerations. The more variables, the more complex the potential benefits.

Logically speaking, each step in the process should abide by international precedents, thereby establishing explicit norms which researchers may follow. Unfortunately, many areas remain a blank. Researchers have neglected to disclose information and avoid conflicts of interest. Even the authorities are still feeling their way through the fog. When the rulebook for the transfer of original R & D and technology remains a blank, then logically we must return to the Procurement Act. Once technological research is defined as conventional research, all sorts of legal disputes are inevitable. The good intentions of decentralized industrial R & D will also come to naught.

Taiwan's biotech industry has a rosy future. But the Academia Sinica faces many dangers and obstacles as it attempts to promote the biotech industry on Taiwan. Some, inevitably, will complain. For the sake of Taiwan's industrial future, we hope the Academia Sinica will not be negatively affected by the controversy over the Arsenal Number 202 Biotech Park and the Biomedical Procurement scandal. It must continue promoting biotechnology. It must overcome any and all difficulties. It must solve any and all problems. It must boldly confront any and all scandals. It must never allow repeated blows to forestall the development of the biotech industry.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2010.07.01
社論－別讓弊案影響生技產業推動
本報訊

中央研究院下周將召開兩年一度的院士會議，海內外學界大老將齊聚一堂，當然是一場學界盛會。但是，中研院最近半年似乎運氣不佳，先後出現了一些動見觀瞻的紛爭，讓該院疲於應付。兩個月前，中研院試圖開發的一小塊二○二兵工廠用地，被部分環保人士質疑侵犯濕地。雖然最後證實真正的溼地與中研院的園區用地之間相隔甚遠，但壓力氣氛已然形成，對將來國家生技園區計畫是否會有所衝擊，也在未定之天。

接著，則是上周中研院生醫所所長因涉入可能的採購弊案而被約談、搜索、交保；這大概是中研院院士有史以來首次以被告身分捲入刑事案件，對該院聲譽有相當的衝擊。由於這個案件與生技技轉有關，故事件的發展也對台灣生技產業的前景有所影響。此事與先前二○二廠生技園區建設一事合在一起，則不免令人憂心台灣生技產業的坎坷發展前景。對於生技園區的環保爭議，本報先前已做過評論；現在則要對前述採購弊案，提出一些看法。

我們在此不想對於這件個案的內容表示意見，但卻要對檢調辦案的程序做些評論。中央研究院是台灣最高的學術研究機關，中研院院士是華人學術圈最高的學術榮譽；檢調以大動作搜索該院與院士研究室、扣押證據、再洩露消息給媒體，不但違反偵察不公開，也有處置過當的嫌疑。就拿扣押證據來說吧：法院不能去函中研院，請其提供相關技轉或產業合作資料嗎？中研院膽敢違背法院命令，不提供資料嗎？既要「扣押」證據，就表示懷疑當事人會「湮滅」證據。檢察官為什麼會事前就懷疑中研院院士會低劣到湮滅證據呢？難道對於最高學術機關與學界清望人士，就沒有「文明」一點的辦案方式了嗎？還是檢察單位想要藉此立威，傳達「我們誰都敢動」這樣的粗魯訊息呢？檢調單位以前搜索媒體、現在搜索最高學術機構，再對外放話，這樣原始的辦案態度，什麼時候才能改進呢？

其次，我們對於此次案件對於爾後技轉與推廣產業合作的影響，也感到憂心。許多有識之士均指出；台灣的研究成果相當豐碩，但是將研究成果下放到產業的努力，則相對不足。華人社會傳統上將做學問視為清高的行業，不習慣學術界與產業界的技術結合。也因為如此，台灣學者甚少有將其研發成果下放產業的習慣。十數年前《科技基本法》通過之後，總算是對於智財權下放產生了一些誘因。但是，要改變台灣研究社群的風氣並不容易；《科技基本法》推動至今，還有相當多的技轉環節與概念，都還需要釐清。

不論中研院技轉、採購有無弊案，我們都希望外界能夠以「個案歸個案，制度歸制度」的態度，來看待此事。生技產業從研發成果、經後續加工研究、到最終產品上市，鑽研過程動輒超過十年。在這漫長的孕育過程中，研究單位、研究者、廠商、政府之間，必然有一系列的互動過程。這過程裡有資訊揭露的問題、有利益迴避的倫理、有價格協商的程序規範、有新增專利與舊專利之間的權益切割、有政府投資的報酬考量等；變數既多，潛在利益的切割也十分複雜。

照理說，上述這些過程中每個步驟都要參酌國外先例，做成明白清楚的規範原則，以便研究人員遵循。但是遺憾的是，國內在許多環節上都還一片空白，不但研究人員疏於揭露資訊與迴避利益，就連機關本身對許多事也都處於摸索狀態。當原應專屬於研發技轉的規範一片空白時，則所有的法律邏輯就回到處理一般事務的「採購法」。一旦「科研」又回歸「一般」，則不但種種法律爭議難以避免，也將使科技研發下放產業的美意落空。

台灣的生技產業有美麗的前景，但目前中研院推動台灣生技產業卻面對一連串的險阻，難免有些怨歎。為了台灣產業前景計，我們希望該院不要被二○二廠園區興建與生醫所採購疑案的荊棘所干擾，仍然要努力推動生技開發。有困難就排除困難，有問題就解決問題，有弊案質疑就勇敢地面對其質疑，千萬不要在種種打擊下，挫折了台灣生技發展的銳氣。