Recommendation of the Regulations on the Legal and Effective Access to Taiwan’s Biological Resources
Preface
Considering that, many countries and regional international organizations already set up ABS system, such as Andean Community, African Union, Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN), Australia, South Africa, and India, all are enthusiastic with the establishment of the regulations regarding the access management of biological resources and genetic resources. On the other hand, there are still many countries only use traditional and existing conservation-related regulations to manage the access of biological resources.
Can Taiwan's regulations comply with the purposes and objects of CBD? Is there a need for Taiwan to set up specific regulations for the management of these access activities? This article plans to present Taiwan's regulations and review the effectiveness of the existing regulations from the aspect of enabling the legal and effective access to biological resources. A recommendation will be made on whether Taiwan should reinforce the management of the bio-resources access activities.
Review and Recommendation of the Regulations on the Legal and Effective Access to Taiwan's Biological Rersearch Resources
（1）Evaluate the Needs and Benefits before Establishing the Regulation of Access Rights
When taking a look at the current development of the regulations on the access of biological resources internationally, we discover that some countries aggressively develop designated law for access, while some countries still adopt existing regulations to explain the access rights. Whether to choose a designated law or to adopt the existing law should depend on the needs of establishing access and benefit sharing system. Can the access and benefit sharing system benefit the functioning of bio-technological research and development activities that link closely to the biological resources? Can the system protect the interests of Taiwan's bio-research results?
In Taiwan, in the bio-technology industry, Agri-biotech, Medical, or Chinese Herb Research & Development are the key fields of development. However, the biological resources they use for the researches are mainly supplied from abroad. Hence, the likelihood of violating international bio-piracy is higher. On the contrary, the incidence of international research houses searching for the biological resources from Taiwan is comparatively lower, so the possibility for them to violate Taiwan's bio-piracy is very low.
To look at this issue from a different angle, if Taiwan establishes a separate management system for the access of biological resources, it is likely to add more restrictions to Taiwan's bio-tech R&D activities and impact the development of bio-industry. Also, under the new management system, international R&D teams will also be confined, if they wish to explore the biological resources, or conduct R&D and seek for co-operation activities in Taiwan. Not to mention that it is not a usual practice for international R&D teams to look for Taiwan's biological resources. A new management system will further reduce their level of interest in doing so. In the end, the international teams will then shift their focus of obtaining resources from other countries where the regulation on access is relatively less strict.
Before Taiwan establishes the regulations on the legal and effective access to bio-research resources, the government should consider not only the practical elements of the principal on the fair and impartial sharing of the derived interests from bio-research resources, but also take account of its positive and negative impacts on the development of related bio-technological industries.
Even if a country's regulation on the access and benefit sharing is thorough and comprehensive enough to protect the interests of bio-resource provider, it will, on the contrary, reduce the industry's interest in accessing the bio-resources. As a result, the development of bio-tech industry will be impacted and the resource provider will then be unable to receive any benefits. By then, the goal of establishing the regulation to benefit both the industry and resource provider will not be realized.
To sum up, it is suggested to evaluate the suitability of establishing the management system for the access to biological resources through the cost-effect analysis first. And, further consider the necessity of setting up regulations by the access the economic benefits derived from the regulation for both resource provider and bio-tech industry.
（2）The Feasibility of Managing the access to Bio-research Resources from existing Regulations
As analysed in the previous paragraphs, the original intention of setting up the Wildlife Conservation Act, National Park Law, Forestry Act, Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, and Aboriginal Basic Act is to protect the environment and to conserve the ecology. However, if we utilize these traditional regulations properly, it can also partially help to manage the access to biological resources.
When Taiwan's citizens wish to enter specific area, or to collect the biological resources within the area, they need to receive the permit from management authority, according to current regulations. Since these national parks, protection areas, preserved areas, or other controlled areas usually have the most comprehensive collections of valuable biological resources in a wide range of varieties, it is suggested to include the agreements of access and benefit sharing as the mandatory conditions when applying for the entrance permit.
Therefore, the principal of benefit sharing from the access to biological resources can be assured. Furthermore, the current regulations already favour activities of accessing biological resources for academic research purpose. This practice also ties in with the international trend of separating the access application into two categories - academic and business.
Australia's practice of access management can be a very good example of utilizing the existing regulations to control the access of resources. The management authority defines the guidelines of managing the entrance of control areas, research of resources, and the collection and access of resources. The authority also adds related agreements, such as PIC (Prior Informed Consent), MTA (Material Transfer Agreement), and benefit sharing into the existing guidelines of research permission.
In terms of scope of management, the existing regulation does not cover all of Taiwan's bio-research resources. Luckily, the current environmental protection law regulates areas with the most resourceful resources or with the most distinctive and rare species. These are often the areas where the access management system is required. Therefore, to add new regulation for access management on top of the existing regulation is efficient method that utilizes the least administrative resources. This could be a feasible way for Taiwan to manage the access to biological resources.
（3）Establish Specific Regulations to Cover the Details of the Scope of Derived Interests and the Items and Percentage of Funding Allocation
In addition to the utilization of current regulations to control the access to biological resources, many countries establish specific regulations to manage the biological resources. If, after the robust economic analysis had been done, the country has come to an conclusion that it is only by establishing new regulations of access management the resources and derived interests of biological resources can be impartially shared, the CBD (Convention of Bio Diversity), the Bonn Guidelines, or the real implementation experiences of many countries can be an important guidance when establishing regulations.
Taiwan has come up with the preliminary draft of Genetic Resources Act that covers the important aspects of international access guidelines. The draft indicates the definition and the scope of access activities, the process of access applications (for both business and academic purpose), the establishment of standardized or model MTA, the obligation of disclosing the sources of property rights (patents), and the establishment of bio-diversity fund.
However, if we observe the regulation or drafts to the access management of the international agreements or each specific country, we can find that the degree of strictness varies and depends on the needs and situations. Generally speaking, these regulations usually do not cover some detailed but important aspects such as the scope of derived interests from biological resources, or the items and percentage of the allocation of bio-diversity fund.
Under the regulation to the access to biological resources, in addition to the access fee charge, the impartial sharing of the derived interests is also an important issue. Therefore, to define the scope of interests is extremely important. Any interest that is out of the defined scope cannot be shared. The interest stated in the existing regulation generally refers to the biological resources or the derived business interests from genetic resources. Apart from describing the forms of interest such as money, non-money, or intellectual property rights, the description of actual contents or scope of the interests is minimal in the regulations.
However, after realizing the importance of bio-diversity and the huge business potential, many countries have started to investigate the national and international bio-resources and develop a database system to systematically collect related bio-research information. The database comprised of bio-resources is extremely useful to the activities related to bio-tech developments. If the international bio-tech companies can access Taiwan's bio-resource database, it will save their travelling time to Taiwan. Also, the database might as well become a product that generates revenues. The only issue that needs further clarification is whether the revenue generated from the access of database should be classified as business interests, as defined in the regulations.
As far as the bio-diversity fund is concerned, many countries only describe the need of setting up bio-diversity funds in a general manner in the regulations. But the definition of which kind of interests should be put into funds, the percentage of the funds, and the related details are not described. As a result, the applicants to the access of bio-resources or the owner of bio-resources cannot predict the amount of interests to be put into bio-diversity fund before they actually use the resources. This issue will definitely affect the development of access activities.
To sum up, if Taiwan's government wishes to develop the specific regulations for the access of biological resources, it is advised to take the above mentioned issues into considerations for a more thoroughly described, and more effective regulations and related framework.
Conclusion
In recent years, it has been a global trend to establish the regulations of the access to and benefit sharing of bio-resources. The concept of benefit sharing is especially treated as a useful weapon for the developing countries to protect the interests of their abundant bio-research resources.
However, as we are in the transition period of changing from free access to biological resources to controlled access, we are facing different regulations within one country as well as internationally. It will be a little bit disappointing for the academic research institution and the industry who relies on the biological resources to conduct bio-tech development if they do not see a clear principal direction to follow. The worse case is the violation of the regulation of the country who owns the bio-resources when the research institutions try to access, exchange, or prospect the biological resources without thorough understanding of related regulations.
For some of Taiwan's leading fields in the bio-tech industry, such as Chinese and herbal medicine related products, agricultural products, horticultural products, and bio-tech products, since many resources are obtained from abroad, the incidence of violation of international regulation will increase, and the costs from complying the regulations will also increase. Therefore, not only the researcher but also the government have the responsibility to understand and educate the related people in Taiwan's bio-tech fields the status of international access management regulations and the methods of legally access the international bio-research resources.
Currently in Taiwan, we did not establish specific law to manage the access to and benefit sharing of bio-resources. Comparing with the international standard, there is still room of improvement for Taiwan's regulatory protection to the provider of biological resources. However, we have to consider the necessity of doing so, and how to do the improvement. And Taiwan's government should resolve this issue.
When we consider whether we should follow international trend to establish a specific law for access management, we should always go back to check the potential state interests we will receive and take this point into consideration. To define the interests, we should always cover the protection of biological resources, the development of bio-tech industry, and the administrative costs of government. Also the conservation of biological resources and the encouragement of bio-tech development should be also taken into consideration when the government is making decisions.
In terms of establishing regulations for the access to biological resources and the benefit sharing, there are two possible solutions. The first solution is to utilize the existing regulations and add the key elements of access management into the scope of administrative management. The work is planned through the revision of related current procedures such as entrance control of controlled areas and the access of specific resources. The second solution is to establish new regulations for the access to biological resources. The first solution is relatively easier and quicker; while the second solution is considered to have a more comprehensive control of the issue. The government has the final judgement on which solution to take to generate a more effective management of Taiwan's biological resources.
Taiwan Has Passed “Statute of Human Biobank Management” to Maintain Privacy and Improve Medicine Industries Due to lack of regulations, divergent opinions abounded about the establishment of Biobanks and collection of human biological specimen. For example, a researcher in an academic research organization and a hospital-based physician collected biospecimens from native Taiwanese. Although they insisted that the collections were for research only, human rights groups, ethics researchers, and groups for natives´ benefits condemned the collections as an invasion of human rights. Consequently, the Taiwanese government recognized the need for Biobanks regulation. To investigate the relationship between disease and multiple factors and to proceed with possible prevention, The Legislative Yuan Social Welfare and Healthy Environment Committee has passed "the draft statute of human biobank management" through primary reviewing process on December 30, 2009 and subsequently passed through entire three-reading procedure on January 7, 2010. Therefore, the medical and research institute not only can set up optimal gene database for particular disease curing, but also can collect blood sample for database establishment, legally. However, the use of sample collections will be excluded from the use of judiciary purpose. In the light of to establish large scale biobank is going to face the fundamental human right issue, from the viewpoint of biobank management, it is essential not only to set up the strict ethics regulation for operational standard, but also to make the legal environment more complete. For instance, the Department of Health, Executive Yuan had committed the earlier planning of Taiwan biobank establishment to the Academic Sinica in 2006, and planned to collect bio-specimen by recruiting volunteers. However, it has been criticized by all circles that it might be considered violating the Constitution article 8 provision 1 front paragraph, and article 22 rules; moreover, it might also infringe the personal liberty or body information privacy. Therefore, the Executive Yuan has passed the draft statute of human biobank management which was drafted and reviewed by Department of Health during the 3152nd meeting, on July 16, 2009, to achieve the goal of protecting our nation’s privacy and promoting the development of medical science by management biomedical research affairs in more effective ways. Currently, the draft statute has been passed through the primary review procedure by the Legislative Yuan. About the draft statute, there are several important points as following: (1) Sample Definition: Types of collected sample include human somatic cell, tissues, body fluids, or other derivatives; (2) Biobank Establishment: It requires not only to be qualified and permitted, but also to set up the ethical reviewing mechanism to strengthen its management and application; (3)Sample Collection and Participant Protection: In accordance with the draft statute, bio-specimen collecting should respect the living ethics during the time and refer to the "Medical Law" article 64 provision 1; before sample collection, all related points of attention should be kept in written form , the participant should be notified accordingly, and samples can only be collected with the participant’s consent. Furthermore, regarding the restrained read right and setting up participants’ sample process way if there were death or lost of their capacity; (4) Biobank Management: The safety regulation, obligation of active notification, free to retreat, data destruction, confidentiality and obligation, and termination of operation handling are stipulated; and (5) Biobank Application: According to the new draft statute, that the biological data can’t be used for other purposes, for example, the use of inquisition result for the "Civil law", article 1063, provision 2, prosecution for denying the parent-child relationship law suit", or according to the "Criminal law", article 213, provision 6. This rule not only protects the participants’ body information and their privacy right, but also clearly defines application limits, as well as to set up the mechanism for inner control and avoid conflict of interests to prevent unnecessary disputes. Finally, the Department of Health noted that, as many medical researches has shown that the occurrence of diseases are mostly co-effected by various factors such as multiple genes and their living environment, rather than one single gene, developed countries have actively devoted to human biological sample collection for their national biobank establishment. The construction and usage of a large-scale human bank may bring up the critical issue such as privacy protection and ethical problems; however, to meet the equilibrium biomedical research promotion and citizen privacy issue will highly depend on the cooperation and trust between the public and private sectors. Taiwan Department of Health Announced the Human Biobanks Information Security Regulation The field of human biobanks will be governed by the Act of Human Biobanks (“Biobanks Act”) after its promulgation on February 3, 2010 in Taiwan. According to Article 13 of the Biobanks Act, a biobank owner should establish its directive rules based on the regulation of information security of biobanks announced by the competent authority. Thus the Department of Health announced the draft of the Human Biobanks Information Security Regulation (“Regulation”) for the due process requirement. According to the Biobanks Act, only the government institutes, medical institutes, academic institutes, and research institutes are competent to establish biobanks (Article 4). In terms of the collecting of organisms, the participants should be informed of the relevant matters by reasonable patterns, and the collecting of organisms may be conducted after obtaining the written consent of the participants (Article 6). The relative information including the organisms and its derivatives are not allowed to be used except for biological and medical research. After all the protection of biobanks relative information above, the most important thing is the safety regulations and directive rules of the database administration lest all the restrictions of biobanks owners and the use be in vain. The draft Regulation aims to strengthen the safety of biobanks database and assure the data, the systems, the equipments, and the web circumstances are safe for the sake of the participants’ rights. The significant aspects of the draft are described as below. At first, the regulation should refer to the ISO27001, ISO27002 and other official rules. Concerning the personnel management, the security assessment is required and the database management personnel and researchers may not serve concurrently. In case some tasks are outsourced, the contractor should be responsible for the information security; the nondisclosure agreement and auditing mechanism are required. The application system should update periodically including the anti-virus and firewall programs. The biobanks database should be separated physically form internet connection, including the prohibition of information transforming by email or any other patterns through internet. The authorizing protocol of access to the biobanks should be established and all log files should be preserved in a period. The system establishment and maintenance should avoid remote control. In case the database system is physically out of the owner’s control, the authorization of the officer in charge is required. If an information security accident occurred, the bionbanks owner should contact the competent authority immediately and inform the participants by adequate tunnel. The biobanks owner should establish annual security auditing program and the project auditing will be conducted subject to the necessity. To sum up, while the biobanks database security regulation is fully established, the biobanks owners will have the sufficient guidance in connection with the biobank information security to comply with in the future.
Analyzing the Framwork of the Regulation「Act For The Development of Biotech And New Pharmaceuticals Industry」in TaiwanTaiwan Government passed The「Act for the Development of Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Industry」for supporting the biopharmaceutical industry. The purpose of the Act is solely for biopharmaceutical industry, and building the leading economic force in Taiwan. To fulfill this goal, the Act has enacted regulations concerning funding, taxation and recruitment especially for the biopharmaceutical industry. The Act has been seen as the recent important law in the arena of upgrading industry regulation on the island. It is also a rare case where single legislation took place for particular industry. After the Act came into force, the government has promulgated further regulations to supplement the Act, including Guidance for MOEA-Approved Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company Issuing Stock Certificate, Deductions on Investments in R&D and Personnel Training of Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company, Guidance for Deduction Applicable to Shareholders of Profit-Seeking Enterprises -Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company etc. The following discussions are going to introduce the Act along with related incentive measures from an integrated standpoint. 1 、 Scope of Application According to Article 3 of the Act, 「Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Industry」 refers to the industry that deals in New Rugs and High-risk Medical devices used by human beings, animals, and plants; 「Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company」 refers to a company in the Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Industry that is organized and incorporated in accordance with the Company Act and engages in the research, development, and manufacture of new drugs and high-risk medical devices. Thus, the Act applies to company that conducts research and manufacture product in new drug or high-risk medical devices for human and animal use. Furthermore, to become a Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company stipulated in the Act, the Company must receive letter of approval to establish as a Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company valid for five years. Consequently, company must submit application to the authority for approval by meeting the following requirements: (1) Companies that conduct any R&D activities or clinical trials must receive permission, product registration, or proof of manufacture for such activities from a competent authority. However, for those conducted these activities outside the country will not apply. (2) When applied for funding for the previous year or in the same year, the expense on R&D in the previous year exceeds 5% of the total net revenue within the same year; or the expenses exceeds 10% of the total capital of the company. (3) Hired at least five R&D personnel majored in biotechnology. For New Drug and High-Risk Medical Device are confined in specific areas. New Drug provided in the Act refers to a drug that has a new ingredient, a new therapeutic effect or a new administration method as verified by the central competent authorities. And High-Risk Medical Device refers to a type of Class III medical devices implanted into human bodies as verified by the central competent authorities. Therefore, generic drug, raw materials, unimplanted medical device, and medical device are not qualified as type III, are all not within the scope of the Act and are not the subject matter the Act intends to reward. 2 、 Tax Benefits Article 5, 6 and 7 provided in the Act has followed the footsteps of Article 6 and 8 stipulated of the Statute, amending the rules tailored to the biopharmaceutical industry, and provided tax benefits to various entities as 「Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company」, 「Investors of Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Industry」, 「Professionals and Technology Investors」. (1) Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company In an effort to advance the biopharmaceutical industry, alleviate financial burden of the companies and strengthen their R&D capacity. The Act has provided favorable incentive measures in the sector of R&D and personnel training. According to Article 5: 「For the purpose of promoting the Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Industry, a Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company may, for a period of five years from the time it is subject to profit-seeking enterprise income tax payable, enjoy a reduction in its corporate income tax payable, for up to 35% of the total funds invested in research and development (R&D) and personnel training each year.」 Consequently, company could benefit through tax deduction and relieve from the stress of business operation. Moreover, in supporting Biotech and New Pharmaceutical Company to proceed in R&D and personnel training activities, the Act has set out rewards for those participate in ongoing R&D and training activities. As Article 5 provided that」 If the R&D expenditure of a particular year exceeds the average R&D expenditure of the previous two years, or if the personnel training expenditure of a particular year exceeds the average personnel training expenditure of the pervious two years, 50% of the exceed amount in excess of the average may be used to credit against the amount of profit-seeking enterprise income tax payable. 「However, the total amount of investment credited against by the payable corporate income tax in each year shall not exceed 50% of the amount of profit-seeking enterprise income tax payable by a Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company in a year, yet this restriction shall not apply to the amount to be offset in the last year of the aforementioned five-year period. Lastly, Article 5 of the Act shall not apply to Biotech and New Pharmaceutical Company that set up headquarters or branches outside of Taiwan. Therefore, to be qualified for tax deduction on R&D and personnel training, the headquarters or branches of the company must be located in Taiwan. (2) Investors of Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company To raise funding, expand business development, and attract investor continuing making investments, Article 6 of the Act has stated that 「In order to encourage the establishment or expansion of Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Companies, a profit-seeking enterprise that subscribes for the stock issued by a Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company at the time of the latter's establishment or subsequent expansion; and has been a registered shareholder of the Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company for a period of 3 years or more, may, for a period of five years from the time it is subject to corporate income tax, enjoy a reduction in its profit-seeking enterprise income tax payable for up to 20% of the total amount of the price paid for the subscription of shares in such Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company.」 Yet 「If the afore-mentioned profit-seeking enterprise is a venture capital company (「VC」), such VC corporate shareholders may, for a period of five years from the fourth anniversary year of the date on which the VC becomes a registered shareholder of the subject Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company, enjoy a reduction in their profit-seeking enterprise income tax payable based on the total deductible amount enjoyed by the VC under Paragraph 1 hereof and the shareholders' respective shareholdings in the VC.」 The government enacted this regulation to encourage corporations and VC to invest in biotech and new pharmaceutical company, and thus provide corporate shareholders with 20% of profit-seeking enterprise income tax payable deduction, and provide VC corporate shareholders tax deduction that proportion to its shareholdings in the VC. (3) Top Executives and Technology Investors Top Executives refer to those with biotechnology background, and has experience in serving as officer of chief executive (CEO) or manager; Technology Investors refer to those acquire shares through exchange of technology. As biopharmaceutical industry possesses a unique business model that demands intensive technology, whether top executives and technology investors are willing to participate in a high risk business and satisfy the needs of industry becomes a critical issue. Consequently, Article 7 of the Act stated that 「In order to encourage top executives and technology investors to participate in the operation of Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Companies and R&D activities, and to share their achievements, new shares issued by a Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company to top executives and technology investors (in return of their knowledge and technology) shall be excluded from the amount of their consolidated income or corporate income of the then current year for taxation purposes; provided, however, that if the title to the aforesaid shares is transferred with or without consideration, or distributed as estate, the total purchase price or the market value of the shares at the time of transfer as a gift or distribution as estate shall be deemed income generated in that tax year and such income less the acquisition cost shall be reported in the relevant income tax return.」 Additionally, 「For the title transfer of shares under the preceding paragraph, the Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company concerned shall file a report with the local tax authorities within thirty 30 days from the following day of the title transfer.」 Purpose of this regulation is to attract top executives and technology personnel for the company in long-term through defer taxation. Moreover, the Biotech and New Pharmaceutical Company usually caught in a prolong period of losses, and has trouble financing through issuing new shares, as stipulated par value of each share cannot be less than NTD $10.Thus, in order to offer top executive and technology investors incentives and benefits under such circumstances, Article 8 has further provided that」Biotech and New Pharmaceutical Companies may issue subscription warrants to its top executives and technology investors, provided that the proposal for the issuance of the aforesaid subscription warrants shall pass resolution adopted by a majority votes of directors attended by at least two-thirds (2/3) of all the directors of the company; and be approved by the competent authorities. Holders of the subscription warrants may subscribe a specific number of shares at the stipulated price. The amount of stipulated price shall not be subject to the minimum requirement, i.e. par value of the shares, as prescribed under Article 140 of the Company Act. Subscription of the shares by exercising the subscription warrant shall be subject to income tax in accordance with Article 7 hereof. if a Biotech and New Pharmaceutical Company issue new shares pursuant to Article 7 hereof, Article 267 of the Company Act shall not apply. The top executives and technology investors shall not transfer the subscription warrant acquired to pursuant to this Article.」 These three types of tax benefits are detailed incentive measures tailor to the biopharmaceutical industry. However, what is noteworthy is the start date of the benefits provided in the Act. Different from the Statue, the Act allows company to enjoy these benefits when it begins to generate profits, while the Statute provides company tax benefits once the authority approved its application in the current year. Thus, Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company enjoys tax benefits as the company starts to make profit. Such approach reflects the actual business operation of the industry, and resolves the issue of tax benefits provided in the Statue is inapplicable to the biopharmaceutical industry. 3 、 Technical Assistance and Capital Investment Due to the R&D capacity and research personnel largely remains in the academic circle, in order to encourage these researchers to convert R&D efforts into commercial practice, the government intends to enhance the collaboration among industrial players, public institutions, and the research and academic sectors, to bolster the development of Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company. However, Article 13 of Civil Servants Service Act prohibits officials from engaging in business operation, the Act lifts the restriction on civil servants. According to Article 10 of the Act provided that」For a newly established Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company, if the person providing a major technology is a research member of the government research organization, such person may, with the consent of the government research organization, acquired 10% or more of the shares in the Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company at the time of its establishment, and act as founder, director, or technical adviser thereof. In such case, Article 13 of the Civil Servants Service Act shall not apply. And the research organization and research member referred to thereof shall be defined and identified by the Executive Yuan, in consultation with the Examination Yuan.」 This regulation was enacted because of the Civil Servants Services Act provided that public officials are not allowed to be corporate shareholders. However, under certain regulations, civil servants are allowed to be corporate shareholders in the sector of agriculture, mining, transportation or publication, as value of the shares cannot exceed 10% of the total value of the company, and the civil servant does not served in the institution. In Taiwan, official and unofficial research institution encompasses most of the biotechnology R&D capacity and research personnel. If a researcher is working for a government research institution, he would be qualified as a public servant and shall be governed by the Civil Servants Service Act. As a result of such restriction, the Act has lifted the restriction and encouraged these researchers to infuse new technologies into the industry. At last, for advancing the development of the industry, Article 11 also provided that 」R&D personnel of the academic and research sectors may, subject to the consent of their employers, served as advisors or consultants for a Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Company.」 4 、 Other Regulations For introducing and transferring advanced technology in support of the biopharmaceutical industry, Article 9 stated that 「Organization formed with government funds to provide technical assistance shall provide appropriate technical assistance as may be necessary.」 Besides technical assistance, government streamlines the review process taken by various regulatory authorities, in order to achieve an improved product launch process result in faster time-to-market and time-to profit. As Article 12 provided that 「the review and approval of field test, clinical trials, product registration, and others, the central competent authorities shall establish an open and transparent procedure that unifies the review system.」
The Research on ownership of cell therapy productsThe Research on ownership of cell therapy products 1. Issues concerning ownership of cell therapy products Regarding the issue of ownership interests, American Medical Association(AMA)has pointed out in 2016 that using human tissues to develop commercially available products raises question about who holds property rights in human biological materials[1]. In United States, there have been several disputes concern the issue of the whether the donor of the cell therapy can claim ownership of the product, including Moore v. Regents of University of California(1990)[2], Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute(2003)[3], and Washington University v. Catalona(2007)[4]. The courts tend to hold that since cells and tissues were donated voluntarily, the donors had already lost their property rights of their cells and tissues at the time of the donation. In Moore case, even if the researchers used Moore’s cells to obtain commercial benefits in an involuntary situation, the court still held that the property rights of removed cells were not suitable to be claimed by their donor, so as to avoid the burden for researcher to clarify whether the use of cells violates the wishes of the donors and therefore decrease the legal risk for R&D activities. United Kingdom Medical Research Council(MRC)also noted in 2019 that the donated human material is usually described as ‘gifts’, and donors of samples are not usually regarded as having ownership or property rights in these[5]. Accordingly, both USA and UK tends to believe that it is not suitable for cell donors to claim ownership. 2. The ownership of cell therapy products in the lens of Taiwan’s Civil Code In Taiwan, Article 766 of Civil Code stipulated: “Unless otherwise provided by the Act, the component parts of a thing and the natural profits thereof, belong, even after their separation from the thing, to the owner of the thing.” Accordingly, many scholars believe that the ownership of separated body parts of the human body belong to the person whom the parts were separated from. Therefore, it should be considered that the ownership of the cells obtained from the donor still belongs to the donor. In addition, since it is stipulated in Article 406 of Civil Code that “A gift is a contract whereby the parties agree that one of the parties delivers his property gratuitously to another party and the latter agrees to accept it.”, if the act of donation can be considered as a gift relationship, then the ownership of the cells has been delivered from donor to other party who accept it accordingly. However, in the different versions of Regenerative Medicine Biologics Regulation (draft) proposed by Taiwan legislators, some of which replace the term “donor” with “provider”. Therefore, for cell providers, instead of cell donors, after providing cells, whether they can claim ownership of cell therapy product still needs further discussion. According to Article 69 of the Civil Code, it is stipulated that “Natural profits are products of the earth, animals, and other products which are produced from another thing without diminution of its substance.” In addition, Article 766 of the Civil Code stipulated that “Unless otherwise provided by the Act, the component parts of a thing and the natural profits thereof, belong, even after their separation from the thing, to the owner of the thing.” Thus, many scholars believe that when the product is organic, original substance and the natural profits thereof are all belong to the owner of the original substance. For example, when proteins are produced from isolated cells, the proteins can be deemed as natural profits and the ownership of proteins and isolated cells all belong to the owner of the cells[6]. Nevertheless, according to Article 814 of the Civil Code, it is stipulated that “When a person has contributed work to a personal property belonging to another, the ownership of the personal property upon which the work is done belongs to the owner of the material thereof. However, if the value of the contributing work obviously exceeds the value of the material, the ownership of the personal property upon which the work is done belongs to the contributing person.” Thus, scholar believes that since regenerative medical technology, which induces cell differentiation, involves quite complex biotechnology technology, and should be deemed as contributing work. Therefore, the ownership of cell products after contributing work should belongs to the contributing person[7]. Thus, if the provider provides the cells to the researcher, after complex biotechnology contributing work, the original ownership of the cells should be deemed to have been eliminated, and there is no basis for providers to claim ownership. However, since the development of cell therapy products involves a series of R&D activities, it still need to be clarified that who is entitled to the ownership of the final cell therapy products. According to Taiwan’s Civil Code, the ownership of product after contributing work should belongs to the contributing person. However, when there are numerous contributing persons, which person should the ownership belong to, might be determined on a case-by-case basis. 3. Conclusion The biggest difference between cell therapy products and all other small molecule drugs or biologics is that original cell materials are provided by donors or providers, and the whole development process involves numerous contributing persons. Hence, ownership disputes are prone to arise. In addition to the above-discussed disputes, United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research(UKCCCR)also noted that there is a long list of people and organizations who might lay claim to the ownership of specimens and their derivatives, including the donor and relatives, the surgeon and pathologist, the hospital authority where the sample was taken, the scientists engaged in the research, the institution where the research work was carried out, the funding organization supporting the research and any collaborating commercial company. Thus, the ultimate control of subsequent ownership and patent rights will need to be negotiated[8]. Since the same issues might also occur in Taiwan, while developing cell therapy products, carefully clarifying the ownership between stakeholders is necessary for avoiding possible dispute. [1]American Medical Association [AMA], Commercial Use of Human Biological Materials, Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 7.3.9, Nov. 14, 2016, https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/commercial-use-human-biological-materials (last visited Jan. 3, 2021). [2]Moore v. Regents of University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990) [3]Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute, 264 F. Suppl. 2d, 1064 (SD Fl. 2003) [4]Washington University v. Catalona, 490 F 3d 667 (8th Cir. 2007) [5]Medical Research Council [MRC], Human Tissue and Biological Samples for Use in Research: Operational and Ethical Guidelines, 2019, https://mrc.ukri.org/publications/browse/human-tissue-and-biological-samples-for-use-in-research/ (last visited Jan. 3, 2021). [6]Wen-Hui Chiu, The legal entitlement of human body, tissue and derivatives in civil law, Angle Publishing, 2016, at 327. [7]id, at 341. [8]Okano, M., Takebayashi, S., Okumura, K., Li, E., Gaudray, P., Carle, G. F., & Bliek, J. UKCCCR guidelines for the use of cell lines in cancer research.Cytogenetic and Genome Research,86(3-4), 1999, https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC2363383&blobtype=pdf (last visited Jan. 3, 2021).
A Discussion on Introducing the Concept of “Government Procurement Innovation” and Suggestions for LegislationI. Introduction In Finland, the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation, or TEKES1, has proposed the Innovations in Public Procurement, or IPP2, which can be seen as the origin of innovative government procurement solutions all over the world. As such, this paper is an attempt to explore the possibility of introducing improvements to government innovation, within procurement in the Republic of China (ROC). The IPP scheme of Finland may be used as an observational tool for the analysis of innovative ideas within the international community, for comparison with government procurement, the legislation of the scientific research subsidy, and scientific research procurement currently effective in ROC. The findings could serve as a reference for related government agencies. The concept of Public Procurement of Innovation, or PPI, in the EU could serve as the benchmark for the ROC on studying the feasibility of introducing this system. In this paper an analysis of the legal system of the ROC will be conducted in the first place to clarify the objective of introducing the concept of PPI into existing legal procedures. This is particularly the case, since that subsidy and procurement do indeed form the two-pronged policy that is currently in effect. First of all, is PPI essential to the systems that could be or could only be enforced under “government procurement”? Secondly, could PPI be introduced into relevant procedures, as explained in preceding sections? Are there any provisions of law that could be amended for such a purpose? And in what direction should we focus our attention? The concept of PPI is a solution under rapid social change, certain products or services are scarce or absent for coping with the needs of rapid social change, to the extent that an innovative solution is necessary. In addition, government procurement is the tool for encouraging the proposal of innovative solutions to mold a friendly market through the participation of the users. (But we have to be cautious. This need is different from green procurement, which requires government procurement to create a market of pre-commercialized purchase 3.) The procurement and innovation subsidy by TEKES of Finland takes the public sector as the recipients of subsidy so that the recipients of subsidy could introduce the mode of dialogue between the users and the suppliers in the course of procurement. At the planning stage of the IPP in Finland, government agencies could receive a subsidy ranging from 25% to 75% of expenditure (including the provision of technology dialogue with different targets, long-term development analysis, the design of the specification for the subject matter that is purchased comparison of different solutions) for the service programs provided by the suppliers. During the implementation stage of procurement, purchasing government agencies could also receive a subsidy of 75% for expenditure on innovation projects procured by the government under subsidy at planning stage, on the performance of tasks during research and development at the implementation stage. Or, they could be subsidized up to 50% for spending on tasks beyond research and development. The content of subsidy includes equipment, service (including management fees), travelling expenses, and other necessary expenses. The recipients of a subsidy from TEKES at these two stages, is dictated by the extent to which these government agencies are able to introduce the spirit of procurement innovation at planning and implementation stages. As such, the legal foundation for the introduction of PPI into scientific research subsidy within the ROC will be an immediate concern. In concrete terms, this is the legality of the agency for advocacy of industrial technology research and development in subsidizing government agencies using national science and technology development funds of the Executive Yuan (also known as Science Development Fund); the legality of the authority of Industrial Technology Department in subsidizing other departments of the public sector, and the issues of the applicability of the Scientific Research Procurement Monitoring Regulation to the appointment of external institutions for conducting market surveys on such needs by the public sector (collectively known as “the issues of subsidizing for innovation”). In seeking a solution on subsidy, we still have to fit dialogue between the recipients of a subsidy during the course of a ‘procurement’ project, within the legal framework currently in force. The fundamental spirit and primary concern for government procurement in the ROC, for example, will be the prevention of misconduct and corruption during the procurement procedure4. It is necessary to state such a requirement within the law, in order to avoid allegations of manipulation during the bidding process. Only by so doing could the spirit of PPI be introduced into the process. In other words, it would be a matter of sorting out the recipients of scientific research subsidy, government procurement, and scientific research procurement without causing a contradiction between “the participation of the suppliers and users of the end-requirement or service, in the determination of the specification, terms and conditions of the procurement” from the PPI of Finland and the applicable laws currently in force. It would be necessary to design the details of the procedures (collectively known as the “issues of innovation dialogue”), which takes up the second part of this research. In summary, this paper aims to explore the dialogue of aspects of government procurement, scientific research subsidy, and scientific research procurement. It is also an attempt to analyze the gravity of PPI and the dialogue. Finally, the findings of the discussion on the introduction of the concept of PPI to science and technology projects of the ROC (which may also be extended to the subsidy of the research and development in science and technology by the public sector of the ROC) will be presented, with consultation and recommendations for legislation. II. Analysis of the dialogue in the process of government procurement, scientific research subsidy, and scientific research procurement in the ROC (I) There is more than one tool within the ROC for the encouragement of research and development in science and technology Governments of different countries possess different policy tools to support or encourage the private sector in the research and development of science and technology in order to shore-up insufficient resources. From the perspective of government budgeting, the design of procedures may be identical or different. For example, the US federal government instituted the Federal Acquisition Regulation, FAR, and defined “acquisition” as “the acquiring by contract with appropriated funds of supplies or services (including construction) by and for the use of the Federal Government through purchase or lease, whether the supplies or services are already in existence or must be created, developed, demonstrated, or evaluated” 5. In light of the variation between its specific features and other services, Research and Development Contracting has been specifically regulated in section 35 of FAR, which states: “The primary purpose of contracted R&D programs is to advance scientific and technical knowledge and apply that knowledge to the extent necessary to achieve agency and national goals. Unlike contracts for supplies and services, most R&D contracts are directed toward objectives for which the work or methods cannot be precisely described in advance. It is difficult to judge the probabilities of success or required effort for technical approaches, some of which offer little or no early assurance of full success. The contracting process shall be used to encourage the best sources from the scientific and industrial community to become involved in the program and must provide an environment in which the work can be pursued with reasonable flexibility and minimum administrative burden. 6” In the EU, they defined research and development beyond government procurement regulation: According to Council Directive 92/50/EEC, or known as EU Directive, the scope of application as stated in paragraph (a) of article 1, “public service contracts shall mean contracts for pecuniary interest concluded in writing between a service suppliers and a contracting authority” with list of the exclusion conditions, where clause (ix) states: “research and development service contracts other than those where the benefits accrue exclusively to the contracting authority for its use in the conduct of its own affairs, on condition that the service supplied is wholly remunerated by the contracting authority. 7” As such, we can see the difference in legal requirements between the EU and USA. Whether such procurement is a special form of government procurement, or whether research and development falls beyond the regulation of government procurement procedure, it nonetheless falls under a government budget for the encouragement of technology research and development, and said research and development “cannot be forecast and not to be directly used by the procurement agency8 ”. Under the legal system of the ROC, it is a policy tool for the encouragement of research and development in science and technology, and could be classified as government procurement, scientific research subsidy, and scientific research procurement. For scientific research subsidy, Article 9 of the Industrial Innovation Statue of the ROC 9 provides the legal origin. For example, the technology projects administered by the Ministry of Economic Affairs have been established under this law. Accordingly, the Regulation Governing the Subsidy of Research Institutions in Industrial Innovation and Research and Development Advocated by Ministry of Economic Affairs (hereinafter, “institutional scientific project regulation”), the “Ministry of Economic Affairs Regulation Governing the Subsidy and Supervision for Assistance of Industrial Innovation (hereinafter, “Industrial Scientific Project Regulation”), and the “Regulation Governing the Subsidy of Academic Institutions in Industrial Innovation and Research and Development Advocated by Ministry of Economic Affairs (hereinafter, “Academic Scientific Project Regulation” for subsidizing research and development in industrial technologies10. The result of research and development shall be released to the administering body as required by Article 6 of the Fundamental Science and Technology Act 11. In the ROC, the result of science and technology projects shall be transferred to Ministry of Economic Affairs 12, which is similar to the requirement in the EU. This could be exemplified by the EU example as mentioned13 that the appointing agency is not entitled to any interest of the result. Government procurement is a vital policy tool of the government in subsidizing research and development. According to Article 2 of the Government Procurement Act 14, procurement as referred to in this law covers the outsourcing of service. Article 7 (paragraph 3) of the same law also requires that, service shall cover professional service, research and development. As such, the government will naturally adopt the means of government procurement in promoting its policy for encouragement of research and development in science and technology. Procurement is different from subsidy. The former entails an “inspection for acceptance” procedure, and the end users of the latter may not be the government. This point is different from the EU Directive in procurement 15. The third kind of tool in the ROC for the encouragement of research and development is scientific research procurement. According to Article 6 (paragraph 4 16) of the Fundamental Science and Technology Act, public schools, public research agencies (institutions), non-profit organizations or groups receiving a government subsidy or appointed by the government as stated in paragraph 1, or public research agencies (institutions) proceed to procurement by preparing a budget for research and development in science and technology under law. We could analyze this issue from three aspects: 1. Public schools, public research agencies (institutions), non-profit organizations or groups may receive government subsidy as stated in paragraph 1, Article 6 of the Fundamental Science and Technology Act for procurement; 2. Public schools, public research agencies (institutions), non-profit organizations or groups may proceed to procurement at the appointment of the government as stated in paragraph 1, Article 6 of the Fundamental Science and Technology Act for procurement; and 3. Public research agencies (institutions) proceed to procurement by preparing a budget for research and development in science and technology under the law 17. In detail, this specific mode of scientific research procurement has its origin in Article 4 of the Government Procurement Act. The cause of the legislation for this article, dated May 27 1998, specified that: “When non-profit organizations or groups receive government subsidy for procurement, and if the amount of subsidy exceeds half of the total amount of procurement and the amount of subsidy is subject to announcement, such procurement shall be governed by this article and subject to the monitoring of the subsidizing agencies to prevent misconduct and corruption”. As such, the recipients of subsidies shall be governed by the Government Procurement Act after passing through the due procedure of subsidy if the amount of procurement meets the standard for announcement. The purpose is to prevent misconduct and corruption. Or it would not be necessary for the government to intervene, given the subsidy has been supported by its legal source in the determination of the recipients and the procedure for entering into subsidy agreement. Indeed, this is the specific feature of the Government Procurement Act of the ROC. The same principle applies to scientific research procurement in the ROC (excluded from the application of Article 4 of the Government Procurement Act), and not the exclusion of the application of the Government Procurement Act to the subsidy procedure 18. (II) Analysis of the dialogue in the process of government procurement, scientific research subsidy, and scientific research procurement III. The dialogue of government procurement In government procurement, the regulations governing an invitation to tender and decision of award require that the party for the design of the content of procurement shall be the same party in the bidding process, to avoid alleged manipulation of the bidding process. For example, Article 39 of the Government Procurement Act (paragraph 2 and 3) requires that, “The deputy agent or partners of contractor undertaking the project management shall not be the deputy agent or partners in the planning, design, construction, or of the suppliers”. Article 38 of the Enforcement Rules of the Government Procurement Act requires that, “In tender invitation, the entity shall require explicitly in the tender invitation documents that if any of the following applies to a specific bidder, such bidder shall not participate in the bidding process, as the recipient of the award, or subcontractors of the award, or assisting the bidder: 1. The contractor that provides the planning and design service shall proceed to procurement on the basis of the planning and design result”. As such, the purpose of the Government Procurement Act aims at the impartiality and neutrality of the planning of project “to prevent funneling of interest, helping each other in manipulation of the bidding process, and the bidder also assumes the role of judge during the bidding process 19”. Indeed, there is still the possibility for hearing opinions from outside the procurement entity in the procurement cases under the Government Procurement Act. The government procurement system of the ROC could be seen as a system featuring a mechanism for dialogue. The “Particulars for Implementation of Public Viewing of Documents of Public Work Tender Invitation” 20 (hereinafter, Public Viewing Particulars) could serve as an example for the introduction of user needs dialogue. The Public Viewing Particulars require that the documents for public viewing shall include the schematics of the project, the sample version of contract, sample of affidavit, sample of important notice to bidding, bill of quantities and specifications, and other documents related to the specific characters of the projects (Number 3 of the Public Viewing Particulars). The purpose of viewing is an invitation for the opinions from the contractors or the public, which will be compiled and forwarded to the organizer of the project for processing before making an announcement for invitation to tender (Number 8 of the Public Viewing Particulars). As such, public opinions could be presented at this stage as a response to the content of the aforementioned documents in addition to the contractors. There is no delineated scope of public opinion, and could cover the objective content of the procurement. However, the type of projects subject to public viewing are of a specific nature or the amount of the engineering projects shall be subject to an audit (Number 2 of the Public Viewing Particulars), which excludes the procurement of research and development. In addition, the purpose of the Public Viewing Particulars is the transparency and openness of the tender invitation process for public work. Through the public viewing of tender invitation documents, the opinions from the contractors or the public can be heard. This can help to upgrade the quality of the planning and design of public works projects and reduce possible disputes deriving from tender invitations or performance of contract (Number 2 of the Public Viewing Particulars). As such, the purpose of this arrangement is not aimed at the necessity of the procurement of engineering projects. The possibility of applying the concept of PPI to this system of public viewing could be considered. If we think of the content for public viewing as including the schematics of the projects, the subject matter of the purchase is very substantive. In the future, it is expected that the objective of public viewing shall include subject matters that do not yet have a concrete plan, but still the opinions of the user and producer would be properly heard. 1. The dialogue of scientific research subsidy In the domain of scientific research subsidy of the ROC, the topics for subsidy are selected through the top-down mode. According to Article 7 of the institutional scientific project regulation, “The MOEA shall invite the experts from the industry, government agencies (institutions), academic and research institutions to meetings for strategic planning of industrial innovation and research and development, and consider the opinions from these social sectors to design for the direction of industrial innovation and research and development in the future”. Article 11 of the same regulation also requires that, “The MOEA may unleash the urgent industrial technology development plan on industrial technology that needs to be launched urgently as approved by MOEA or Executive Yuan”. As such, the law has already included the opinions and thoughts from the industry, government, and the academeia in designing of the recipient of subsidy. As compared with the measures adopted in Finland, this regulation is different, and the practice of Finland aims at obtaining suggestions during the course of “procurement”. Or, we could say that the introduction of the PPI concept in the subsidy mechanism could help to broaden the scope of the legal adjustment. Under the scientific project subsidy mechanism currently in effect, if we do not cut into the problem from the aforementioned mode of topic selection for subsidy, the cooperative education activities in the course of the execution of the subsidy plan are emphasized in the subsidy of scientific project for the institutions, academia, and industry 21. Further to the requirements of the regulation in principle, a variety of options could be used for integrating the needs of the industry in order to achieve the goal of the dialogue for “encouraging” research and development and the needs of the industry in practice. Individual agreements can help to achieve this goal. Currently, there are requirements specified in the notice to applicants for scientific projects within the field of academia, which feature detailed requirements for our analysis. We could take the prototype important notice to applicants (general academic scientific project) and the requirements therein commonly used in the development of industrial technology projects by the academic circle. To encouraging close cooperation between schools and the industry and research institutions, the source of funding for the projects shall be incorporated with the fees for supporting bodies with the requirements for the relevant proportion of funding on the basis of the domain of the subject matter of the project topic and the geographic location of the schools 22. If we take a closer look at the important notice of the application for a local academic development of an industrial technology project (local academic technology project), we could see that the system design features the needs of local industry. A local academic technology project is positioned for the upgrading of the research and development of specific technologies of local industries and the advocacy of regional industrial development with regional characteristics. As such, the items eligible for subsidy are innovative, prospective or critical technologies required by the industry, or modes of operation, corporate management skills or innovative service advantageous for industrial development 23. As such, the applicants must attach the letter of intent issued by at least three enterprises in the application procedure, and can prove that the objective of the project for subsidy is to a certain extent meeting the needs of local industry. 2. The dialogue of scientific research procurement For scientific research procurement, the “Regulations Governing Procurements for Scientific and Technological Research and Development” (hereinafter, “Monitoring Regulation”) instituted at the authorization of the Fundamental Science and Technology Act serves as the legal source for the entities or procurement authority to undertake scientific research procurement. The Monitoring Regulation aims at monitoring and management and also provides the legal environment for dialogue for scientific research procurement. This could be the starting point for scientific research procurement innovation. According to Article 7 of the Monitoring Regulation, “Where necessary, public schools, public research agencies (institutions), non-profit organizations or groups may proceed to consultation with the suppliers respecting the works for procurement, the specifications of properties or service needs before entering into agreement on scientific research procurement”. As such, the requirements under the Monitoring Regulations allow flexibility for the procurement authority in pursuing scientific research procurement, as they can engage in consultation with the ‘suppliers’. The topics for consultation covered the works for procurements, the specification of properties or service needs. There is one thing that needs to be differentiated, the mechanism of “consultation”, which is different from the consultation under the Government Procurement Act. Consultation as specified in the Government Procurement Act is a kind of supplementary measure applicable only when no decision of award can be made to the best bid 24, or it is difficult to determine the best bid 25. In addition, only the provisions contained in the original documents labeled as amendable could fall into the scope of consultation 26. As such, the subject matter of procurement specified in the tender invitation document shall be the fundamental requirement of the procurement case. In other words, the procurement authority has already known the purchase needs, which is different from the tentative IPP scheme of Finland. The latter aims at the encouragement for the participation of the suppliers of the service and the users in the process of determining the specification for procurement, and the terms and conditions of procurement, which is an immediate concern of the government for solutions and the development of the state to tackle challenges in the future. In other words, the IPP scheme of Finland aims at providing a solution for the procurement authority and the content of procurement is uncertain or is difficult to define due to the rapid change in the environment. (III) Concluding remarks─ the subject matter of dialogue under the concept of PPI and the possibility of preventing misconduct and corruption The study of this section leads to a preliminary conclusion that the legal framework of ROC for scientific research subsidy, government procurement, and scientific research procurement provides the mechanism for possible dialogues between the subsidy providers/procurement authority and the recipients of subsidy/bidders. Even the public viewing system of government procurement could incorporate the channels for public opinions. These could serve as the starting points for the introduction of PPI concept. Yet, there are two points to be clarified and resolved if we compare the aforementioned legal system and the PPI concept of the EU or the implementation of the IPP scheme in Finland if we are to introduce related practices First of all, if we elect to understand the aforementioned mechanism of government procurement and scientific research procurement from the perspective of dialogue/participation mechanism, the participants in the dialogues are still the subsidy providers or procurement authority and the service/goods suppliers. It is not a dialogue directly involving the users of public service (at this point, we could see the eventual purpose of the result of research and development as a form of public service). However, the spirit of the system currently in effect aims at matching the users for an indirect dialogue through this mode to a certain extent. For example, the integration of the academic scientific research project with the intent of the general and local participating firms as a necessary condition in the application, which approximates the mode of dialogue with the users of public service in the future. This arrangement is made in consideration that the firms and the market are the closest entities in the process, and is incorporated as a part of the user needs (of course, if we equate the two parties, there is the risk that the firms orchestrate market needs or making profits as the primary goal). Secondly, the gravity of the law in the ROC rests with the prevention of misconduct and corruption. This is particularly the case in the Government Procurement Act. Therefore, the foremost issue of introducing the concept of government procurement innovation to the ROC, that is the design of a system that features a mechanism for the prevention of misconduct and corruption to avoid “manipulation of the bidding process”, is yet to be resolved, and will be discussed later in this paper. IV. Analysis of the introduction of PPI into the laws governing scientific research subsidy, government procurement, and scientific research procurement (I) Suggestions and thoughts for the incorporation of PPI into the legal framework of government procurement Article 39 of the Government Procurement Act and Article 38 of its implementation procedure have set forth strict criteria for the prevention of “participants who also act as judges”. Yet, the so-called “contractors providing planning and design service” do not apply to all contractors that have provided planning suggestions but particularly point to the contractors that have been appointed by the entity to engage in the planning, design, or working on the preparation of tender invitation documents 27. In practice, the parties concerned tended to “keep a distance from” the prospective bidders in order to avoid inadvertent violation of the law. As such, there is an exception in law that excludes situations of no conflict of interest or no unfair competition 28. If we are to introduce the concept of PPI into government procurement of science and technology research and development, additional provisions must be added to the aforementioned law to provide explicit legal grounds for practice, before the entities can possibly or willingly introduce dialogue between the supplier and the user. As for the public viewing system in existence, it provides the possibility of a similar setting under the same spirit. As explained, the subject matter for receiving public opinions is still the content of the plan, which is different from the dialogue between the “supplier” and the “users’ being encouraged in the procurement planning stage under IPP in Finland. In summary, suggestions for introducing PPI to government procurement practice of the ROC within the legal framework are detailed below: First, the Government Procurement Act primarily aims at the prevention of misconduct and corruption. The introduction of the PPI concept entails higher cost of legislation, which requires amendment to the procurement act to provide the legal grounds. At the same time, the reconciliation with the rule of avoidance of the conflict of interest current practiced in procurement and the settlement of relate issues shall also be taken in account. Second, it could be possible to include the procurement of professional service or research and development in the Public Viewing Particulars in order to introduce the concept of PPI. In so doing, we must consider the entrance barrier on the procurement of engineering projects previously covered by the Public Viewing Particulars. This may be designed for avoiding the incurrence of additional administrative cost and bolstering administrative efficiency (for example, the procurement of engineering projects not exceeding specific amount, the addition of the requirement of public viewing, may delay the procurement procedure and hamper competition). For the outsourcing of professional services or research and development, appropriate consideration should be taken. (II) Suggestions and thoughts for the incorporation of PPI into the legal framework of scientific research subsidy The legal sources for governing scientific research subsidy are Article 7 and Article 11 of the institutional scientific project regulation, as in the case of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, and the important notice to applicants for general and local academic technology projects in their design. First, Article 7 of the institutional scientific project regulation requires that, Ministry of Economic Affairs shall invite experts from the industry, government agencies (institutions), academia and research institutions to the strategic planning of industrial innovation and research and development and consider the opinions from these experts in order to plan for the direction of industrial innovation and research and development in the future. The planning of the direction for innovation research and development could be included as an item for the development of industrial technology and should be the direction expected by all. For example, the Ministry of Economic Affairs has held the “National Industrial Development Conference” in December 2012, and opened to public opinions on four reformations in three industries on the advocacy of adding value to industrial innovation, structuring of positive investment environment, and other common topics. This is similar to PPI, which may include the absorption of and communication with the opinions of the “users”. But there is one point of variation. This is a matter of the use of planning strategy, and is the planning of the overall industrial technology development direction from top-down. In PPI, this will be the direct dialogue between the suppliers of service/properties and the end users in order to encourage the innovative solutions for the procurement. They may be at different levels. Second, the principle for the subsidy of general and local academic scientific projects requires the funding in proportion of the participating units or the letter of intent signed by the owners of at least three enterprises, which could be stated as the requirement of cooperative education programs. Article 12 of the institutional scientific project regulation, Article 8 of the academic scientific project regulation, and Article 4 of the industrial scientific project regulation have the provisions for encouraging cooperation education and could serve as the legal source for such a purpose. The pilot project of procurement in Finland adopted the dialogue between the prospective suppliers of service providers and the end users at the planning stage of procurement. This may be defying the principle of the procurement act. In the ROC, the subsidy procedure and the procurement procure are governed by different sets of laws. As such, the restriction of the Government Procurement Act does not exist in the legal rules governing the subsidy procedure. As such, there is little concern over the violation of the law. However, we have to pay attention to Article 6 of the Fundamental Science and Technology Act 29 on the issue of the avoidance of interest in the entitlement and use of the result of scientific research under government subsidy, at the appointment of or funded by the government. In other words, the legal rules governing subsidy have not restricted the possibility of dialogue between the “supplier” and “end users” of the science technology research and development project at the preliminary planning stage. The substantive terms of requirement are stated in Article 12-1 of the “Ministry of Economic Affairs Regulation Governing the Entitlement and Use of The Result of Science and Technology Research and Development”, the procurement authority shall establish the management mechanism or regulations, or report to the Ministry for record on the avoidance of the conflict of interest or related disclosure of the result of research and development. Attention is required for possible violation against related requirements of the avoidance of the conflict of interest and disclosure of the procurement authority. But if we take a closer look at the Fundamental Science and Technology Act in the aspect of the avoidance of the conflict of interest, and compare with the dialogue between the procurer and the users at the planning stage, there may be room for legality. It is because the Fundamental Science and Technology Act requires only the entitlement and use of the result of research and development, which is the output of the project, and not the avoidance of the conflict of interest at the planning stage and implementation stage. This is the difference in the substance. Even though there is no dialogue after the outcome of the project, the performer may still have a conflict of interest under certain circumstances, which should also be considered. For example, the procurement authority declares its position on the opinions presented at the planning stage is indeed the suggestion of the result of research and development of the only party that has the technical capacity in the technology market that can undertake the research and development. In summary, suggestions for introducing PPI to government scientific research subsidy projects in the ROC within the legal framework are detailed below: First, we could incorporate relevant dialogue mechanisms at the project planning stage, in a timely fashion and in accordance with the requirements for encouraging cooperative education within the legal framework of scientific research subsidy administered by the Ministry of Economic Affairs currently in effect. Second, legal rules governing scientific research subsidy administered by the Ministry of Economic Affairs currently in effect do not restrict any dialogue between the recipient of subsidy (the so-called “supplier”) and the “end user” at the planning stage or in the future, but whether or not such an act will violate the requirements of relevant procurement authority in the avoidance of conflict of interest, deserves our attention. (III) Suggestions and thoughts for the incorporation of PPI into the legal framework scientific research procurement In the domain of scientific project procurement, Article 7 of the Monitoring Regulation sets forth that suppliers may involved in consultation on issues related to the works for procurement, specification of properties, or service needs. This provides the legal source for the trial use of the IPP scheme of Finland in the ROC, but we have to consider two things. First, the provision sets for the consultation with the supplier only, and it is, by and large, the dialogue mechanism only after the determination of the subject matter of procurement, which is different from the IPP of Finland. Also, the dialogue with the end user does not fall within the scope of such legal source, and, there is still room to define who could be positioned as the “end user”. Yet, it is two sides of the same coin. There is a legal framework in place without detailed requirement. As such, the procurement authority may design the procedure in fuller detail in this space as needed. Finally, the scope of scientific research procurement in the ROC is not as broad as the subsidy cases (refer to the definition of scientific research procurement above). As such, the majority of scientific research procurement is already at the cooperative education stage under individual subsidy or appointment of the government (except the work under the scientific research and development budget prepared by the public research institutions). If we introduce the concept of PPI into the scientific research procurement stage, the content and the scope have already fallen into the framework of the previous subsidy plan, and there is little room for the incorporation of dialogue and opinions. In summary, the suggestions for introducing PPI to scientific research procurement of the ROC within the legal framework are detailed below: First, the Monitoring Regulation of scientific research procurement provides the mechanism for consultation but does not define the subject matter of consultation in procurement. As such, the scope for hearing opinions is limited. Further, the dialogue with the users has not been covered. The overall implementation procedure requires refinement for proper enforcement. Second, the scope of scientific research procurement is limited to the procurement under an individual subsidy program or at the appointment of the government, and falls within the scope of the content for the previous subsidy program or the program at the appointment of the government in principle. As such, the effect of introducing PPI is limited. V. Conclusion – A Discussion on Introducing the PPI into Science and Technology Projects and Suggestions for Legislation within the ROC The above are overall observations on the analysis of the introduction of PPI to scientific research subsidy, government procurement, and scientific research procurement in the ROC. In the “Issue of dialogue for innovation”, we should consider to start with scientific research subsidy. The primary reason is that there is room within the legal framework under the Monitoring Regulations governing scientific research procurement, but in practice, more substantive terms could be developed. However, the scope of the legal framework for the applicability of scientific research procurement is confined to the procurement made under subsidy or at the appointment of the government on specific programs. The effect of trial running PPI is very little under the framework of subsidy or appointment by the government. Finally, the feasibility of introducing PPI to the scientific research projects of the ROC, which is the “subsidy innovation issue”, is analyzed below: First, the legality of using scientific development fund to subsidize other government agencies: Article 5 of the “National Science and Technology Development Fund Management and Utilization Regulation of Executive Yuan” sets forth the use of the fund, including “expenditure on the advocacy of overall technology development of the nation”, “expenditure on the improvement of the research and development environment for science and technology”. As such, the introduction of the trial run of IPP schemes in Finland would comply with the aforementioned provisions. Second, the legality of subsidizing the public sector by advocating science and technology research and development, like the Department of Industrial Technology at the Ministry of Economic Affairs in the future: reference could be taken from Article 9 of the Ministry of Economic and Energy Affairs Articles of Association (Draft) under which the Department of Industrial Technology shall administer, “1. Strategic planning and implementation in technology under the jurisdiction of the ministry”, and the “planning of technology funding resources, and the establishment of implementation system and evaluation system”. As such, the model of the IPP scheme of Finland is not compatible with the authority and function of the Department of Industrial Technology. In other words, the Department of Industrial Technology shall not perform the function of subsidizing/advocating the duties of procurement innovation of other government agencies, but can introduce the concept of PPI for trial running within its scope of legal framework (e.g., scientific research procurement). Third, the issue of outsourcing for survey of market needs by the public sector on the applicability of the Monitoring Regulation. If the work for outsourcing is an item of work under previous subsidy or work at the appointment of the government, and the fund of the project for procurement is regulated by the Monitoring Regulations. However, for survey of market needs purely planned for subsidy by the entity or required by the procurement cases, they fall within the category of general procurement of service and the Government Procurement Act shall be applicable. In sum, the PPI concept under the FP7 of the EU has been subject to trial run through the IPP scheme of Finland. In Finland, the evaluation mechanism has not yet been fully established. Yet, such attempt to provide a solution for specific subject matter of procurement for the country that faces the rapid changing objective environment through the absorption of dialogue and opinions for innovative solutions is new in the world, and could be considered for adoption within the ROC that has similar challenges in the objective environment. As such, we could start with scientific research procurement. The evaluation of the result is promising; this could be incorporated into the design of the mechanism for scientific research subsidy. For the scope governed by the Government Procurement Act, it entails high cost for amendment, and should be left a subsequent choice for review and planning. 1.TEKES Homepage, http://www.tekes.fi/en/community/Home/351/Home/473 (last visited June 15, 2013). 2.The IPP scheme is the response of Finland to FP7 of the EU in proposing the Public Procurement of Innovative Solutions, PPI. In this paper, PPI and IPP share the same concept while the latter is the substantive name of the pilot project in Finland. See Huang Huei-Hsiang, “International Practice and Legal Analysis of the Advocacy of Government Procurement Innovation – a case study on IPP of TEKES, Finland”, Science and Technology Law Review, Vol. 25 No. 10. PP. 27-45 (2013), by. 3.Pre-commercial procurement, PCP, is the procurement of the government for creating a market and appeals mainly to the service supplier with emphasis the difference from the dialogue between the users and the suppliers. 4.Article 1 of the Government Procurement Act, “This law is instituted for the establishment of a government procurement system to the extent of setting up a fair and transparent procurement procedure, upgrade the efficiency and function of procurement, and guarantee the quality of procurement”. Although this law is instituted for achieving the objective of upgrading procurement efficiency and function, and guarantee of procurement quality, the procedure of the Government Procurement Act aims at keeping distance with the prospective contractors in the procurement process to avoid possible allegation of manipulation of the bidding process, monopoly of the tender, and profit seeking. 5.Federal Acquisition Regulation 2.101, “Acquisition’ means the acquiring by contract with appropriated funds of supplies or services (including construction) by and for the use of the Federal Government through purchase or lease, whether the supplies or services are already in existence or must be created, developed, demonstrated, and evaluated.” FAR Home Page, https://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%202_1.html#wp1145507 (last visited June 15, 2013). 6.Federal Acquisition Regulation 35.002, “The primary purpose of contracted R&D programs is to advance scientific and technical knowledge and apply that knowledge to the extent necessary to achieve agency and national goals. Unlike contracts for supplies and services, most R&D contracts are directed toward objectives for which the work or methods cannot be precisely described in advance. It is difficult to judge the probabilities of success or required effort for technical approaches, some of which offer little or no early assurance of full success. The contracting process shall be used to encourage the best sources from the scientific and industrial community to become involved in the program and must provide an environment in which the work can be pursued with reasonable flexibility and minimum administrative burden.” FAR Home Page, https://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/html/FARTOCP35.html#wp223483 (last visited June 15, 2013). 7.“For the purposes of this Directive: (a) public service contracts shall mean contracts for pecuniary interest concluded in writing between a service provider and a contracting authority, to the exclusion of:…(ix) research and development service contracts other than those where the benefits accrue exclusively to the contracting authority for its use in the conduct of its own affairs, on condition that the service provided is wholly remunerated by the contracting authority;” Council Directive 92/50/EEC, art. 1, 1992 O.J. (L 209) 1,3. 8.In “Critique of Scientific Research Procurement after the Amendment to Article VI of the Fundamental Science and Technology Act ”, in Science and Technology Law, Vol. 24, No. 10, PP, 29-32 (2012), by Chen Shih-Chieh. 9.Article 9 of the Industrial Innovation Statue, “Competent authorities at the central government may advocate the following in the form of subsidy or supervision: I. Encouragement of industrial innovation or research and development. II. Supply or industrial technology and supervision of industrial upgrading. III. Encouragement for the establishment of innovation or research and development center in the enterprises. IV. Assistance in the establishment of innovation or research and development institutions. V. Encouragement of cooperation among the industry, academic circle, and research institutions. VI. Encouragement of the input to schools by enterprises for the training and development of talents. VII. Augmentation of human resources in the industry. VIII. Assistance in the innovation of regional industries. IX. Any others that help to encourage industrial innovation or research and development. The recipients of the aforementioned subsidy or supervision, the qualification requirements, criteria for screening, application procedure, authority for approval, and other related rules and regulation shall be established by respective competent authority of the central government”. 10.For example, Article 4 of the academic scientific project regulation, “The MOEA shall subsidize academic institutions to perform the following research and development for the advocacy of industrial development and reinforcement of innovation capacity for the country…” 11.Article 6 of the Fundamental Science and Technology Act , “The parties for awarding science and technology research and development subsidized, appointed, funded by the government, or under a budget prepared by public research agencies (institutions) on science and technology research and development shall be determined by evaluation or review process with justifiable reasons for the evaluation and review. The resulting intellectual property rights and result in whole or in part shall be entitled to the pursuer of research and development or authorization for use irrespective of the restriction of state-owned properties”. 12.Article 6 of the Ministry of Economic Affairs Regulation Governing the Entitlement and Utilization of Science and Technology Research and Development Result, “The result of science and technology project of the pursuer shall be entitled to the pursuer unless otherwise specified in This Regulation”. 13.In the EU, the provision of “The procurement authority shall be responsible for all the expenses incurred from the service supply and the benefit so generated shall be owned by the procurement authority for its needs in operation” served as an exception of contracted service of research and development. In other words, the interpretation is inversely made to the extent that contracted service of research and development in the EU is not entitled to the procurement authority. 14.Article 2 of the Government Procurement Act, “Procurement as referred in this law shall be job order for work, the purchase, making to order, leasing of properties and the contract for service or employment”. Article 7 of the same law, “Work as referred to in this law shall be act of building, addition, renovation, remodeling, demolition of structures and equipment accessory to the structures above and below ground level, and the act to change the natural environment, including building, civil engineering Hydraulic engineering, water work, environment, transportation, machinery, electric, chemical engineering and any other engineering project recognized by the competent authority. Properties as referred to in this law are items(except fresh agricultural or aquacultural products), materials, equipment, machinery and other movables, real properties, rights, and other properties recognized by the competent authority. Service as referred to in this law shall be professional service, technical service, information service, research and development, corporate management, repair and maintenance, training, labor, and other forms of service recognized by the competent authority. Where the procurement may involve two or more of the aforementioned content, which made it difficult to identify the very nature, the content accounted for a larger proportion of the budget for total work shall stand”. 15.Op. Cit, Note 13. 16.Article 6 – Paragraph 4 of the Fundamental Science and Technology Act , “the Government Procurement Act shall not be applicable to public schools, public research agencies (institutions), non-profit organizations or groups receiving government subsidy or assignment, or procurement of public research agencies (institutions) under a budget of science and technology research and development prepared in compliance with applicable law unless otherwise specified in a treaty or agreement binding the ROC and a third country. Yet, they are subject to the monitoring of the subsidizing, assigning, or the competent authority. The regulation for monitoring and management shall be established by the competent authority in the central government”. 17.Op. Cit. Note 8, PP36-37. 18.Table of “Research and Development Projects” governed by the “Government Procurement Act” under Public Construction Commission, Executive Yuan Letter Chi-Tzi No. 89009844. The Government Procurement Act shall not be applicable to the selection of the recipients of subsidy. 19.The cause of legislation for Article 39 of the Government Procurement Act dated May 27 2998, “II. Paragraph II and III explicitly state that contractors may act on behalf of the entity in project management, and shall be in specific relation with the contractors responsible for the planning, design, construction of the project to avoid funneling of interest, cover up each other, and acting as a participant and the judge at the same time”. 20.Particulars for Public Viewing of Tender Invitation Documents of Public Works, at http://lawweb.pcc.gov.tw/LawContentDetails.aspx?id=FL029347&KeyWordHL=&StyleType=1 （last browsing date: 2013/6/15） 21.Article 12 of the Regulation Governing the Subsidy of Research Institutions in Industrial Innovation and Research and Development Advocated by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, “The MOEA or its functionaries shall encourage research institutions to introduce technologies, joint ventures in the development and participation in the pursuit of technology projects through interdisciplinary or cross-function cooperation for the effective integration of domestic and foreign research and development resources and capacity, the assistance of the upgrading of traditional industries, or advocacy of the development of knowledge service for the best interest of the industry”. Article 8 of the Regulation Governing the Subsidy of Academic Institutions in Industrial Innovation and Research and Development Advocated by the Ministry of Economic Affairs , “The MOEA shall request the applicants of academic technology projects to invite the joint participation of research institutions or companies and execute the academic technology project in interdisciplinary or cross-function mode of operation for the effective integration of research and development resources and capacities at home and abroad and create the optimized result in industry”. Article 4 of the Ministry of Economic Affairs Regulation Governing the Subsidy and Supervision for Assistance of Industrial Innovation, “The MOEA or its functionaries may provide subsidy for the following industrial innovative activities:… IV. Encouragement for joint venture among the industry, academia, and research institutions”. 22.Refer to important notice of application for general type of projects, IV. Types of subsidies for general academic scientific research projects. 23.Refer to important notice of application for local type of projects, III. The positioning, nature, and subsidy for local academic scientific research projects. 24.Article 55 of the Government Procurement Act, “Entities taking minimum offer for procurement and have been approved by the senior authority and announced in the notice of tender and the tender invitation documents and cannot determine the award pursuant to the requirements or preceding two articles may proceed to consultation”. 25.Article 56 of the Government Procurement Act, “ …if the evaluation result cannot determine the best bid on the basis of the decision of the head of entity or more than half of the members of the evaluation committee, proceed to consultation and comprehensive evaluation for determining the best bid”. 26.Article 57 of the Government Procurement Act, “Entity elects to proceed to consultation in accordance to the requirements specified in the previous two articles shall comply with the following principles: … III. The content of the original tender invitation documents to be revised shall be highlighted before proceeding to consultation”. 27.Paragraph 1, Article 39 of the Government Procurement Act, “Entities may assign the duties of project management in planning, design, supply, or performance of contract to a contractor in procurement under this law when making procurement”. 28.Paragraph 2, Article 38 of the Government Procurement Act Implementation Procedure, “Subsequent procurement procedure shall not be applicable to situations specified in I and II of the previous section if there is no alleged conflict of interest or unfair competition and at the approval of the entity”. 29.Paragraph 3, Article 6 of Fundamental Science and Technology Act , “The Executive Yuan shall coordinate and regulate the entitlement and utilization of the intellectual property right and result as mentioned in preceding two sections under the principle of equity and effectiveness, with reference to the proportion and contribution of capital and service, the nature, potential of utilization, social benefit, national security and the effect on the market of the result of science and technology research and development, and on the basis of its purpose, necessary condition, duration, scope, proportion in whole or in part, registration, management, distribution of incomes, avoidance of conflict of interest and the disclosure of related information, the intervention of the subsidizing agent in authorization of a third party, or procedure for nationalization. Respective competent authority at different level shall establish relevant legal rules for such purpose”.
- Impact of Government Organizational Reform to Scientific Research Legal System and Response Thereto (1) – For Example, The Finnish Innovation Fund (“SITRA”)
- The Demand of Intellectual Property Management for Taiwanese Enterprises
- Blockchain in Intellectual Property Protection
- Impact of Government Organizational Reform to Research Legal System and Response Thereto (2) – Observation of the Swiss Research Innovation System
- Recent Federal Decisions and Emerging Trends in U.S. Defend Trade Secrets Act Litigation
- The effective and innovative way to use the spectrum: focus on the development of the "interleaved/white space"
- Copyright Ownership for Outputs by Artificial Intelligence
- Impact of Government Organizational Reform to Research Legal System and Response Thereto (2) – Observation of the Swiss Research Innovation System