The Revised Biotechnology Park Deserves Affirmation

The Revised Biotechnology Park Deserves Affirmation
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 6, 2010

Last week the Academia Sinica submitted a revised plan for converting a portion of the Number 202 Munitions Plant into a biotech park. The media gave the modified plan widespread coverage. Compared to the original plan, the Academia Sinica's revised plan is much improved. The area to be developed has been significantly reduced, from 9.6 hectares to 4 hectares. The number of buildings has also been reduced. Several hectares of grassland will be restored to wetlands. But no matter how hard the Academia Sinica tries, it cannot mollify the environmentalists. If anything, their rhetoric is more extreme than before.

On Taiwan, champions of economic development and champions of environmental conservation have virtually no room for dialogue, no area of overlap. This is deeply troubling. Consider technology development projects proposed by the Academia Sinica for example. Chang Hsiao-feng subjected the Academia Sineca to intense criticism. It is our understanding that the Academia Sineca, in response, formed a committee consisting of a dozen or so conservation, wildlife, and plant experts. They spent considerable time discussing how to strike a balance between biotechnology development and environmental protection. After several months of study, the Academia Sineca presented its revised plan. But a handful of environmentalists summarily rejected it, with virtually no discussion. Their "no concessions whatsoever" attitude shrinks the room for dialogue. Worse, it frustrates the earnest efforts of those determined to make environmental improvements in the technology industry. The lesson of the Number 202 Munitions Plant seems to be that no matter how hard the Academia Sinica might try, its efforts will be for naught. That being the case, why bother to compromise with the conservationists at all? Perhaps in the future everyone will adopt more uncompromising positions in the beginning, on the premise that it would allow more room for negotiation later on.

Actually, the facts behind the Nankang Number 202 Munitions Plant case remain little understood by many members of the public. Most regrettably, some people neither understand, nor have any desire to understand. They merely want to dig in their heels, and vent their spleen. They allege that the project would encroach upon wetlands. A quick glance at the Academia Sinica's regional development plans for the Lien Ching Munitions Plant shows that this is a misunderstanding. The picturesque ponds on the Number 202 Munitions Plant site are situated to the west. The Academia Sinica intends to develop the area to the northeast, several kilometers from the two ponds. Many members of the public have looked at the photos of the ponds published in the media, and mistakenly assumed that the Academia Sineca intends to develop those areas. This is a case of mistaken identity.

Secondly, during a press conference the Academia Sinica made clear that not only has the total floor area been reduced, more importantly, most new contruction would be located in areas that already have concrete buildings on them. These abandoned factories are no longer being used by the Number 202 Munitions Plant. These concrete structures are already there. It makes no difference whether the Academia Sinica moves into them or not. Wetlands are not about to spring miraculously out of concrete structures. That being the case, why is it alright to use the site for a munitions plant, for the manufacture of explosive devices? Why is it not alright to use the site for a biotechnology research laboratory?

Thirdly, let us compare the two plans before and after the Academia Sinica became involved. One of the biggest differences is that the Academia Sinica decided not to build on land that "100 years ago might have been wetlands." This substantially reduced the volume of the buildings and the area they could be bulit upon. Not only that, the new plan recovers wetlands. Grasslands already filled in and underground excavations such as water storage facilities and drainage systems will be restored to wetlands. This is tantamount to creating a giant wetland, to increasing the size of Taipei's "lungs," to increasing Taipei's breathing capacity. These changes are direct responses to concerns environmentalists originally expressed about the wetland conservation. Who knew that after increasing the amount of wetlands, that after increasing the lung capacity of the city, this lung would suddenly be depicted as another portion of the human anatomy, and that the Academia Sinica would be treated like a sex offender? How can anyone reach a rational accomodation, given the environmentalists' irrational attitude?

Some people want the proposed biotechnology parks moved to Linkou. These laymen fail to understand the nature of the biotechnology industry. The number of successful biotech industry parks around the world can be counted on one hand. The common denominator is "clustering." The incubation center and science research units must be adjacent to each other. Even the associated financial services must be located nearby, to provide support. If one were to stuff the biotechnology park in Linkou, not only would the Academia Sinica be uninterested, not a single biotech incubation center would move in. The site would end up as yet another vast "mosquito park." It one sacrifices technological development for environmental protection, so be it. But if one creates yet another building complex that serves no purpose, other than to breed mosquitoes, then that is an unforgiveable sin.

On the whole, we feel the revised plans for the Academia Sinica Biotechnology Research Park deserve praise. Rational environmentalists should offer their views, expectations, and any recommended course corrections for the plan. They must not adopt an uncompromising posture, as if they were the supreme arbiters. After all, if the Academia Sinica does not use the 25 hectares, the Defense Department will continue using them. If one refuses to allow the construction of laboratory buildings, then one is retaining them for use as a munitions plant. Just exactly how does one wish to use the Number 202 Munitions Plant site? The public on Taiwan must think clearly about the choice between conservation and development.

生技園區修正案值得肯定
2010-10-06
中國時報

上周，中央研究院提出在二○二兵工廠部分用地興建生技園區的修正案，媒體也給予大篇幅的報導。相較於原方案，中央研究院的修正案做了相當多的改善：開發面積予以大幅縮小，由九．六公頃縮小至四公頃，建築量體也減少甚多，更規畫將數公頃的草地「復育」成溼地。但是，即使中研院這麼努力做環保考量，似乎也完全不能打動或改變環保人士，甚至連遣詞用字都比原先更激化。

對於台灣這種經濟發展與環境保育幾乎全無對話空間、全無交集的情況，我們甚感憂心。以中研院生技開發案為例，據了解，該院在張曉風女士先前的激烈批評之後，就由各研究所派代表組成了一個數十人的委員會，成員包含保育與動植物專家，花了相當多的時間討論要如何在環保與生技發展中尋得平衡。經過數個月的研商，該院提出了其修正案，但幾乎未經討論就被少數環保人士否決。這種「全不退讓」的態度，不但壓縮了對話空間，也使有心做環保改善的科技業者備感挫折。二○二廠開發案的教訓似乎是：不論中研院如何做努力，橫豎最後還是被全面否定。既然如此，何必要做保育的妥協呢？以後也許大家都想，乾脆彼此拉高底線，最後反而有利於討價還價。

其實，南港二○二廠案有若干事實，社會上不少人似乎都還一知半解。但令人遺憾的是，有些人似乎不必了解、也不想了解事實，也能夠對事情強烈表態。首先，只要攤開聯勤兵工廠與中研院預定開發區域的平面圖就會發現，說這個案子侵犯溼地，恐怕是有誤解的。二○二廠真正的美麗埤塘在正西邊，而中研院打算開發的面積在東北方，兩地相距數公里。有許多人單單從媒體所登池塘照片就誤以為中研院會在該處開發，恐怕是張冠李戴的錯誤。

其次，中研院在說明會中表示，除了建築面積與量體縮小之外，更重要的是其興建所在地大部分都已經存在水泥建築，現在是二○二廠的火工設施或廢棄廠房。就算中研院不進駐，這些水泥建築還是座落在該處，永遠也不可能在水泥上冒出溼地。既然如此，我們不了解為什麼同一個地點可以做砲彈工廠、可以建火工設備，就偏偏不能做生技研究的實驗室？

第三，比較中研院前後兩開發規畫案可知，其中最大的差別，就在於該院決定不再在一塊「一百年前可能是溼地」的大草地上建大樓，故量體面積因面大幅縮小。不只如此，新的規畫案甚至要在該已然填平的草地下開挖、蓄水、引流，將該處「復育」成溼地。這樣的努力等於是「製造」出一大片溼地，使台北呼吸吐納「肺」的面積增加。這些修正顯然是呼應原本保留溼地環保人士的主張而做的變更。沒想到，在擴大溼地、增加肺功能的方案提出之後，這一片「肺」又忽然變成了身體的其他器官，而中研院竟然變成了「性侵者」。這樣不理性的討論，怎麼會有交集？

有些人再提出將生技園區遷往林口的意見，我們認為是完全不懂生技產業特性的外行話。全世界成功的生技業園區其實屈指可數，其共同特性就是「群聚」，不但育成中心、學研單位相互毗鄰，甚至連金融服務等支援體系都伴隨就近。如果硬要把生技園區塞在林口，則我們幾敢斷言，不但中研院全無興趣，全台灣也沒有生技育成中心願意進駐，將來又將是一個超大「蚊子園區」。為了環保而犧牲科技也就罷了，如果還要額外製造一大群全無功能的奇怪蚊子建築，那就罪孽深重了。

整體而言，我們認為中研院生技研園區修正案的改變方向是值得肯定的。理性的環保人士應該要對這個方案提出他們的看法、期待、修正方向等意見，而不能永遠擺出一副絕不妥協的高姿態，彷彿自己是至高無上的裁判者。畢竟，如果中研院不使用那廿五公頃，就是國防部續用；如果不准在該地建實驗室，那麼就是要在原址留下彈藥火工廠。二○二廠究竟要怎麼用，全台灣人民都得把保育與發展的取捨想清楚。