首頁 > 影音網>科學研究與技轉的常規與實務中研院院⼠及研究員就翁啟惠院⾧案的聲明
科學研究與技轉的常規與實務中研院院⼠及研究員就翁啟惠院⾧案的聲明

[轉載自:中研院]

[taiwanus.net]於2017-08-16 04:08:08上傳[]

 


=========================================

================================================

監察委員-要求中央研究院檢討改進 強化內控機制

日期: 106-07-13 

監察委員仉桂美、包宗和、劉德勳、王美玉要求中央研究院檢討改進 強化內控機制

中央研究院前院長翁啟惠假借權力 圖本身及他人之利益 嚴重損害政府信譽 監察委員仉桂美、包宗和、劉德勳、王美玉要求中央研究院檢討改進 強化內控機制


106-07-13

  內容:

有關中央研究院(下稱中研院)院長翁啟惠之女為臺灣浩鼎生技股份有限公司(下稱浩鼎公司)大股東之一,引發社會爭議。究其持有股票之交易及資金流向為何?翁啟惠有否涉及違反公務員服務法及證券交易法,有關迴避及內線交易規定?有否接受企業申讓鉅額股票?相關事實均有釐清之必要乙案,監察院教育及文化委員會於今(13)日通過並公布監察委員仉桂美、包宗和、劉德勳、王美玉之調查報告,要求中研院檢討改進,強化內控機制。

監察委員表示,本案調查意見有關中研院前院長翁啟惠之個人違失部分,業經監察院彈劾案審查會於本(7)月4日審查通過,其理由及認定依據,主要如下:
一、 翁啟惠身為中研院院長,卻委託與中研院有合作及專屬授權關係之浩鼎公司董事長張念慈代為投資及持有代理投資之資產,並由張念慈先行代墊款項或代為對外借款,藉以購買大量股票,投資謀取鉅額利益,以圖本身之利益。並應允同意收受張念慈提供150萬股浩鼎公司之技術股,與張念慈達成收受不當對價之期約。又為圖利張念慈所成立之潤雅生技股份有限公司(下稱潤雅公司),進而不當協助該公司派員至中研院無償學習技術,且於101年12月14日,指示中研院副研究員吳宗益交付醣分子與潤雅公司後,又擅自私下以個人名義,與潤雅公司簽訂生效日為101年12月17日之材料移轉契約,讓潤雅公司不當取得中研院之醣分子研究成果﹕
(一) 監察委員於調查期間,曾親自詢問翁啟惠及浩鼎公司董事長張念慈,而依翁啟惠及張念慈於監察院之說明,及提供之書面補充說明等資料,翁啟惠自承與張念慈係自麻省理工學院求學開始,已結識三十餘年,曾共同創業及投資,並委託張念慈投資及持有代理投資之資產,翁啟惠並於98年10月14日開立91,145美元支票、100年2月25日開立124,093美元支票,認購浩鼎公司股票,而以鄭秀珍名義持有800張浩鼎公司股票。100年6月間,張念慈邀翁啟惠投資香港高鑫公司股票,翁啟惠告知張念慈將購買50萬股,但未匯入資金,同年10月10日間,翁啟惠卻以電子郵件告知,張念慈要售出30萬股高鑫公司股票,張念慈即以電子郵件,折算當日交易價之獲利金額給翁啟惠,因此翁啟惠僅支付148,337美元,即取得價值約19萬美元之20萬股高鑫公司股票,並以Alpha公司名義持有該股票。
(二) 101年2月間,張念慈告知翁啟惠將為其出售20萬股高鑫公司股票,以所得股款認購660張浩鼎公司股票,不足之差額97,972美元部分,則由翁啟惠於101年2月23日開立支票予張念慈以支付,然悉由張念慈先行代墊,事實上高鑫公司股票迄至101年10月12日,始由張念慈賣出。
(三) 101年間尹衍樑請張念慈洽特定人認購浩鼎公司股票,張念慈欲以能低價認購3,000張浩鼎公司股票而取得翁啟惠之協助,經向尹衍樑借支321萬美元,並透過中嘉公司帳戶,將借款匯入翁啟惠女兒翁郁琇帳戶,而翁啟惠則以其女兒翁郁琇名義,在玉山銀行開立存款帳戶及在玉山證券開立證券帳戶,而取得3,000張浩鼎公司股票。嗣後並由張念慈於102年2月至3月間,出售浩鼎公司股票,以償還前述向尹衍樑之借款(相關股票之交易及資金流向流程詳如附圖)。另翁啟惠於監察院詢問時,亦表示其並未依法申報上開相關持有之股票。
(四) 翁啟惠於監察院詢問時說明稱﹕「有關我的技轉,我都直接迴避,以避免可能造成利益衝突」,而對於有關潤雅公司與浩鼎公司之關係亦稱:「我們一直覺得是同一家。浩鼎沒有要做量產,要做研發,所以潤雅先來談。……那時我們是有一些關切,看起來是同一家,但分開登記。」但依臺灣士林地方法院檢察署於起訴翁啟惠後,檢送監察院之本案相關卷證資料內容,中研院承辦人陳淑珍於草擬潤雅公司備忘錄過程中,數次修改版本,讓潤雅公司得以在未簽署專屬授權契約前,即可派員進駐中研院學習技轉技術,期間均以電子郵件告知翁啟惠,且陳淑珍於法務部調查局臺北市調查處(下稱臺北市調查處)之調查筆錄亦稱﹕「在備忘錄期間,潤雅公司不須支付任何對價給中研院」、「於備忘錄中同意讓潤雅公司派員先行學習技術等事項,相關email有以副本寄給翁啟惠及吳宗益,所以他們知道。因為潤雅公司想先派員來學習技術,所以我也必須先得到翁啟惠、吳宗益同意才可以」、「我承認我們放寬備忘錄條件,讓潤雅公司先派員前來學習技術」等語。
(五) 另依中研院105年10月20日函說明,中研院與潤雅公司並未曾簽署材料移轉契約,而潤雅公司亦未支付任何款項。但翁啟惠卻擅自私下以個人名義,與潤雅公司簽訂生效日為101年12月17日之材料移轉契約,並指示吳宗益於101年12月17日,逕行交付由中研院產製之2.23公克Globo H醣分子,而吳宗益於臺北市調查處之調查筆錄亦稱:因為浩鼎公司很急著要Globo H,我就依據翁啟惠在101年12月14日的電郵副知給我的指示,我就先交付我手邊已做好的2.23g給浩鼎公司(應為潤雅公司),我並將對方簽收的收據副本寄給翁啟惠,當時我認為潤雅公司想要先簽材料移轉契約,同意以200萬元支付3g的Globo H。Globo H我知道第一次交付2.23g,中間潤雅公司派員在中研院基因體中心實驗室接受指導,曾自行製造4g多,總共交了10g。

二、 翁啟惠以鄭秀珍及女兒翁郁琇名義持有3,529張浩鼎公司股票,為該公司之大股東,而103年中研院與浩鼎公司簽訂「大規模酵素合成寡醣」案之專屬授權契約,翁啟惠為該專屬授權案之創作人,應揭露可能發生利益衝突之情事而未予揭露,翁啟惠身為中研院院長,督導訂定中研院科技移轉利益衝突迴避處理原則,卻明知並帶頭違反上開規定,顯有重大違失部分﹕
翁啟惠於監察院詢問時,對於是否督導訂定中研院科技移轉利益衝突迴避處理原則,答稱:「那時我是院長,才訂定相關規範,揭露二等親都要。」而翁啟惠以鄭秀珍及女兒翁郁琇名義持有大量浩鼎公司股票,惟中研院與浩鼎公司於103年5月13日簽訂專屬授權契約,翁啟惠於103年4月11日卻在中研院科技移轉利益揭露表中簽名表示﹕「本人聲明無任何需揭露之『財產利益』及『非財產利益』」。

三、 翁啟惠以鄭秀珍及女兒翁郁琇名義持有3,529張浩鼎公司股票,為該公司之大股東,且具有中研院院長職位之身分,對於浩鼎公司發布重大影響其股票價格消息之公布抗乳癌新藥OBI-822臨床2╱3期解盲結果時,對外發表攸關該民營公司及本身重大利益之評論,且為掩飾其與浩鼎公司間之利益關係,又對外公開謊稱其未購買浩鼎公司之股票,言行嚴重失當,違背誠信,傷害政府信譽部分﹕
翁啟惠於監察院詢問時,說明略以:「我只是想用科學角度去解釋。全世界大多媒體都是正面解讀。」「失敗是媒體解讀的,浩鼎從來沒有說失敗,是說與原來設計沒有達標,但有免疫反應的與對照組比較時有非常顯著的療效。我的說法是事實。」「我非常正面、樂觀看待這個疫苗。只是設計上,沒有以有免疫反應來評估療效。沒有免疫反應當然不可能有效。這個臨床試驗結果是相當讓人興奮。」但翁啟惠以鄭秀珍及女兒翁郁琇名義持有大量浩鼎公司股票,對外發表攸關該民營公司及本身重大利益之評論,且為掩飾其與浩鼎公司間之利益關係,又對外公開謊稱其未購買浩鼎公司之股票,言行自有嚴重失當。

監察委員另表示,本案另針對下列3項缺失,要求中研院檢討改進,強化內控機制:
一、 中研院放寬備忘錄條件,允許潤雅公司員工無償至中研院學習技術;且中研院與潤雅公司未簽署材料移轉契約,竟將中研院之研究成果醣分子無償交付潤雅公司等,核中研院相關作為,明顯不當。
二、 中研院前院長翁啟惠以鄭秀珍及女兒翁郁琇名義持有3,529張浩鼎公司股票,為該公司之大股東,而103年中研院與浩鼎公司簽訂「大規模酵素合成寡醣」案之專屬授權契約,前院長翁啟惠為該專屬授權案之創作人,應揭露可能發生利益衝突之情事而未予揭露,卻明知並帶頭違反中研院科技移轉利益衝突迴避處理原則;惟中研院相關單位,一無所悉,又中研院之科技移轉利益揭露表,對於當事人之二親等以內親屬,連孫子女、外孫子女均予明示,而竟漏「子女」等,均核有未當。本案除造成中研院崇高聲譽大幅受損外,對於政府整體形象亦已嚴重斲傷,中研院當深切檢討相關機制,以符合國人之殷殷期待。
三、 中研院辦理之法律諮詢服務採購案,依據審計部查核意見及監察院調查所得,採購行政作業顯有欠妥,應予檢討。

 

下載檔案





                                     

============================================

July 11, 2017
科學研究與技轉的常規與實務中研院院⼠及研究員就翁啟惠院⾧案的聲明


不久前本院翁啟惠前院⾧被指控以院⾧職位介⼊技轉並受賄,爾後⼜指控其違反中研院內規「科技移轉利益衝突迴避處理原則」,構成違背職務,涉犯貪污治罪條例。檢⽅明顯不了解科學研究與移轉的常規與實務,⾝為科學家及中研院學者,我們有義務
及責任,向社會⼤眾說明以釋疑慮。
(⼀)關於【翁院⾧⽤院⾧⾝分介⼊技轉,違反利益衝突】之疑慮
A. 單位的⾸⾧對於和⾃⾝相關的公事,都要迴避由他⼈審查⽽後批核,不能⾃⾏批准。即使總統也是如此。
B. 中研院的規定,更納⼊了普遍性的利益迴避原則。亦即技轉的談判、決定及簽約等種種程序,全部由智財技轉處(前⾝為公共事務室)負責。即使智財處在談判過程中需要就技術相關事務多做了解,發明⼈也只能在受徵詢時被動表達意⾒。
C. 早在2003 年李遠哲院⾧任內,中研院就規定所有的技轉案件,最⾼核批層級只到副院⾧。本院前秘書⾧吳⾦洌博⼠⽇前已投書媒體說明本院技轉規定(https://goo.gl/Nfk688)。所以中研院有獨⽴於院⾧之外的技轉談判與決定機制,院⾧並無主導之空間。


(⼆)關於【翁博⼠⾝為院⾧,不應該從事技術轉移、和產業界有任何沾染】之歧⾒這樣的想法和今天的知識經濟脫節!這可分幾點說明:
A. 翁院⾧的化學研究屢獲世界級的榮譽肯定,他的發明在於拯救⽣命、防治疾病上有極⾼價值。從美國回國之前,翁院⾧就在美國擁有數⼗項專利,並成功創⽴公司,因⽽累積可觀的資產。台灣社會及政府看好⽣技產業的潛⼒,視為經濟發展的重點。由於台灣的⽣技產業還在嬰兒學步的階段,正需要翁院⾧這樣的⼈才帶領。
B. 據我們了解,中研院在院⾧遴選⾯試時,⾝為候選⼈的翁博⼠始終婉拒提名。因為他寄情⾃⼰的研究及發明, 擔⼼擔任院⾧後必須放棄這些⼯作。最後遴選委員及評議會還是最⾼票提名他,等同付託他在院⾧職務上繼續從事研究與發明,帶動中研院及台灣的⽣技產業發展。
C. 翁博⼠在院⾧任內,也確實不負付託,帶領研究團隊持續發明,以6 件技轉案為國家及中研院創造了保守估計 9 位數新台幣以上的技轉收益。此外,他也以國外的經驗積極協助政府制訂及修訂科研相關法規(⽣技產業發展條例,科技基本法),改善科研環境(國家⽣技研究園區,中研院南部院區)。
D. 科學家(包括中研院院⾧)擔任科技公司的創辦⼈、股東、擔任顧問,並從發明與技術轉移中獲利,不但得到「⽣技條例」與「科技基本法」的許可及⿎勵,也是美、英、德、法、⽇等先進國家的通例,⽬的在改善⽣活、挽救⽣命、促進經濟發展。⽽翁院⾧的發明正為中研院及台灣經濟帶來重⼤的利益。
E. 期待從事專利技轉的中研院院⾧兩袖清⾵,與企業界無任何財務的沾染,放棄獲利。這樣的期待違背世界各國科學家參與技轉的常規與實務。發明⼈與投資⼈的財務關係及獲利,應該健康地看待。


(三)關於【翁院⾧在技轉簽約之前,就讓廠商參觀實驗室,並提供廠商材料,傷害中研院利益?】之指控⽣技廠商如果要取得中研院的技術,需事先⽀付⾼額的技轉⾦,更要投資龐⼤的資⾦從事相關的後續開發⼯作。依據國外經驗,開發⼀種新藥通常要10 到30 億美元的資⾦,⽽且成功率不到10%。⾯對這麼⾼的⾵險,廠商經常要求到實驗室仔細檢視技術的內容,並要求提供材料測試。 國際⽣技業稱呼這種檢視的責任為 due diligence 。廠商在簽署保密協訂之後,中研院即可依約讓廠商⾏使責任。如同顧客花錢配眼鏡,眼
鏡⾏不能拒絕顧客要求親⾃檢查試戴⼀樣。更何況中研院並⾮免費提供廠商材料,⽽是請廠商簽署有償材料轉移合約,中研院也在簽約前進⾏嚴謹的訪價程序。
我們盼望社會⼤眾了解翁院⾧放棄美國待遇優渥的職位,回台投⼊研究,符合了台灣社會的期待和「科技基本法」的意旨,亦即科學研究應該為⼈類社會帶來福祉,並有益國家的經濟發展。檢⽅把翁院⾧擔負推展⽣醫研究及產業的使命當作原罪,既傷害了頂尖的科學家,亦嚴重影響其他學者全⼒投⼊研發的⼠氣,不利於國家⾧遠發展。


附上翁院⾧已對外公佈的說明:


案件事實及我的⼼路歷程(March 22, 2017) https://goo.gl/x5Hmn8
翁啟惠說明 (May 3, 2017) https://goo.gl/W1QxGm


連署名單
院⼠
陳良博 杜正勝 蔡⽴慧 何英剛 賴明詔 陳仲瑄 李遠川 李⽂雄 洪明奇 陳定信 王惠鈞 廖運範 孔祥重 孫同天 吳茂昆 蔡明哲 莊德茂 潘⽟華
王 寬 李壬癸 李遠鵬 沈正韻 ⿈周汝吉 王正中 劉翠溶 李國雄 張俊彥
林明璋 蒲慕明 王 瑜 林聖賢 魏福全 張美惠 羅銅壁 李克昭 陳景虹
⿈秉乾 劉紹⾂ 劉鴻⽂ 蔡振⽔ 張⽂昌 朱時宜 鄭清⽔ 羅 浩 龔⾏健
陳建德 李德財 牟中原 王佑曾 虞華年 朱經武 楊泮池 何 潛 彭旭明
江安世 劉太平 王汎森 林本堅 鄭天佐 賀端華 鍾孫霖


研究⼈員


⿈正德 伍焜⽟ 洪上程 邱國平 劉⼩燕 徐翠玲 傅琪鈺
張典顯 鄭偉杰 張七鳳 胡春美 郭紘志 謝世良 沈家寧 吳盈達 楊慕華 林俊宏 楊安綏 李宗璘 鄭婷仁 許先業 吳世雄
莊樹諄 楊懷壹 陳恒德 邱⼠華 林曉青 林國儀 陳韻如 詹家琮 林俊成 陳⽔⽥ 蕭宏昇 呂 仁 林俊利 梁碧惠 何孟樵 吳宗益 ⿈雯華 余惠敏 吳⾦洌 趙淑妙 張瑛芝 林世昌 楊⽂彬 吳漢忠 沈聖峰 ⾺ 徹 蔡淑芳 任建台 蘇怡璇 賴爾珉 陳⽟如 謝俊結 李定國 廖宜⽅ 廖純中
洪政雄 鄒德⾥ 梁耕三 施純傑 王正中 許昭萍 廖弘源 ⿈啟瑞 許聞廉 曾瑞鈴 李賢明 林宗慶 梁惠禎 沈志陽 吳真貞 郭俊宏 施嘉和 謝叔蓉 江明錫 ⽅俊民 尤嘯華 鄭泰安 ⿈彥棕 林仲彥 陳律佑
陳榮傑 張雅貞 陳璿宇 陳孟彰 宋定懿 王朝諺 張以承 ⿈銘崇 ⾼承福 呂美曄 李⽂⼭ 陳培菱 張⾕銘 謝清河 ⿈怡萱
章為皓 胡宇光 葉俊顯 邱繼輝 神奈⽊玲兒
蕭培⽂ 林榮信 林⽟茹 陳儀深 潘光哲
陳志成 曾品滄 胡幼圃 謝國興 劉⼠永
陳儀莊 ⿈太煌 廖有地 ⿈明經 林淑端
簡正⿍ 鍾博⽂ 陳俊安 曾美郡 姚季光
倪其焜 何美鄉 陳昇瑋 李達嘉 王亦⽣
張嘉升 林耿慧 鄭義循 蘇瑟宜 蔡定平 ⽑溪⼭

===========================================

翁啟惠案件說明-- 民國106 年7 月12 日
我首先在此誠摯的感謝多位中研院院士、院內同仁及親友關心本人所涉浩鼎案件,及最近受監察院彈劾之事,我也再次鄭重聲明絕無做任何不法的事。我於14 年前從美回國服務主要是想協助台灣改善科研環境,萬萬無法想像會在院長卸任前6 個月被指涉犯貪污治罪條例,前幾天監察院又決定彈劾本人送公懲會,雖言追究的是行政責任,但彈劾案文中多次提及違法失職,自行判斷「事證明確」,但其內容主要來自於未經辯證的起訴書,且有嚴重誤解,本人深感遺憾也無法接受。此案既已進法院審理中,我相信事實真相會大白,司法會還我清白,謹澄清並向各位報告如下:


(1) 回國服務的初衷 我於1979 年離開服務7 年的中研院赴美進修,1982 年取得MIT化學博士,1989 年接受Scripps 研究院聘請擔任化學講座教授,2003 年決定回中研院擔任基因體中心創辦主任。於2006-2016 擔任中研院院長職務,在這期間我繼續從事研究,並極力推動中研院各領域的研究,而在生物科技方面,我不但鼓勵基礎研究,也強調要將重要發現繼續研發成有助於人類健康的新產品。而這必須將重要發明申請專利保護,再將專利技術經由技轉授權廠商繼續研發成產品。如果成功,就能建立新的生技產
業,創造就業機會並治療疾病及改善人類生活。在一份「全世界最具創新的研究機構」報告,以研究論文、專利及商業化影響力做為評估指標,選出可能改變世界的25 個最佳政府研究機構,中研院名列第22。中研院同仁多年一起努力的成果,是不容抹煞的。


(2) 承繼在美的研究成果,繼續醣分子科學與醣分子疫苗的研究 在近代生物醫學的研究,有一關鍵議題是探討正常人類細胞與疾病細胞、或病毒與細菌細胞表面醣分子所扮演的角色,瞭解其與人類疾病的關係,進而發展新疫苗或新藥。我在Scripps 服務期間,發明了「一鍋式多醣分子合成」及「以酵素法合成多醣分子及醣蛋白」的新技術,使得第一次能量產具有活性的多醣分子及醣蛋白,並讓癌症疫苗及抗發炎及傳染性疾病的藥物發展變成可能,我們也因此發表了超過300 篇論文及獲得了57 項美國專利。Scripps成功將部份專利技轉給生技開發公司,研發團隊配合Scripps,在技轉前解釋技術內容及其應用範圍予廠商,並提供可能的諮詢與協助。取得技術授權的公司支付授權金給Scripps,Scripps 再把技轉收入部份分配給創作人。因此,我在Scripps 工作時,已有相當的研發成果及收入。另外,如同其他在美國的科學家,我也曾在Scripps 工作期間,同時參與創辦幾家生技公司。我在回台多年前和張念慈創辦了Optimer 公司,個人因貢獻多醣分子合成相關技術取得創辦人技術股,Optimer 也付權利金給Scripps,這家公司後來上市,又在台設立了浩鼎,沿用Scripps 對Optimer 所授權我研發的多醣分子合成法開發疫苗產品。我回中研院服務後,包括擔任院長期間,繼續醣分子科學的研究,也發表超過200 篇論文,因研究有延續性,浩鼎和中研院簽了兩次技轉授權合約,並支付巨額權利金予中研院。


(3) 中研院的技轉流程 依「科學技術基本法」之立法意旨與規定,技轉是我國國家政策,鼓勵將研發成果授權廠商發展。因為創新技術若不能技轉廠商,政府將無法回收其2研發投資,而產業也得不到研發的貢獻。因此技轉是由廠商出資繼續開發基礎研究成果
轉化成產品,是創造機關收入及挹注創新產業的有效途徑,與出售公有財產或執行政府採購案本質完全不同。中研院的技轉事務係依法規及內部分層負責規定,由智財技轉處負責與廠商談判授權條件,於審核授權條件後,再交秘書長及副院長簽署即決行,自92
年起行政流程上即沒上呈至院長,我在院長任期內也從未簽過或審核過任何技轉合約。


(4) 創作人在技轉過程扮演的角色 中研院辦理浩鼎技轉授權時,我是院長,也是授權研發成果之創作人之一。中研院是學術研究機構,創作人如有意技轉,須報請技轉處,由技轉處經審查評估研發成果是否具有應用價值及其商品化可能性,始決定是否申請專
利及辦理技轉。技轉簽約前,創作人須配合協助有興趣廠商了解技術內容,技轉簽約後,創作人可取得技轉收入百分之四十,另百分之六十分配給中研院及國庫,廠商完全沒有必要為取得技轉或授權而賄賂創作人。而授權因涉及創作人專業知識需其完全配合,技
轉處與創作人溝通授權條件,是為了確保研發團隊於簽約後能配合履行契約,此係一般必要流程,與院長職權毫無關係,而創作人並無執行技轉業務,非屬貪污治罪條例所規範之公務員。


(5) 浩鼎不會、也沒有必要行賄院長以取得技術授權 我的研發團隊所做基礎研究雖為相關領域頂尖發明,卻非最終產品,將其應用在實際生產疫苗或治療人類癌症上,仍需技轉之廠商投入龐大資金及其研發人員多年之努力,且需通過世界各國所要求動物及人體臨床試驗各種嚴格標準,最終能否獲准銷售,尚不得而知。地檢署指控違法的中研院第二次技轉浩鼎案是本人與團隊共同發明改進的酵素合成多醣的製程技術。中研院公告後除浩鼎及其相關企業潤雅以外,國內並無其他廠商表達有興趣,或有能力承接此技術,
因此無其他技轉對象。浩鼎早在美國母公司時期已奠立此領域研究基礎且與中研院已有由浩鼎出資進行的產學合作計畫及第一次授權合約在先,依規定本有取得技轉之優先權,不可能發生所謂廠商為爭取技轉而行賄之情形。另,取得中研院基礎研發成果授權的廠
商,一方面需不計產品未來是否可成功上市,先支付中研院一筆授權金,另一方面取得授權後,仍需冒風險繼續投入大筆資金多年,且未必能取得藥品許可。所以簽署此類技轉合約,只有保證中研院可以獲利(本案合約國庫收入已逾新台幣5 千萬元,將來依硏
發進展可能創造更多收益)。反之,若沒有廠商有興趣取得專利授權,各國專利維持費用只會成為國庫的沉重負擔,而無任何經濟價值可言。此案,廠商既有優先權,又未取得「龐大利益」,且已付出可觀的資金獲得此專利技術,且需再支出大筆開發費用,而
產品前景又充滿風險,怎會有再提供賄賂取得授權之動機? 浩鼎不會、也沒有必要行賄。
地檢署認為張念慈擬行賄中研院院長1500 張浩鼎技術股,或以行賄取得技術授權,皆屬對技轉及生技產業本質的重大誤解。


(6) 創作人同意潛在廠商在簽約前了解技術內涵或取得樣品以測試,並無不當 生物科技或任何高科技的智財技轉,廠商在簽約或支付任何授權金前,一定要先做實地評估(Due Diligence)以了解技術內涵、繼續研發成產品可行性、研發團隊支援可能性…等,
不可能盲目簽約。所以技術發明者,在與潛在買方簽訂保密合約後,同意廠商參觀了解 3 技術內涵或取得產品樣本,以測試或評估使用,皆屬授權簽約前一般必經過程。事實上,中研院網站上備有無償及有償兩款材料移轉契約例稿,提供創作人酌情擇定援用,是否收費由創作人決定。潤雅公司簽了保密合約及材料移轉契約,中研院也已申請專利保護
此技術,因此實驗室配合製作10 克醣分子材料,提供潤雅公司供測試使用,中研院加計利潤收到新台幣400 萬元材料費,所有流程只是替國庫創造收入,並無任何弊端可言。
更何況,中研院第二次技轉浩鼎的專利是製程技術,根本不是醣分子材料!


(7) 認購浩鼎股票不是收賄 張念慈是我在MIT 時代就認識的朋友,我於2009-2012 年間接受張念慈建議,以我的家庭信託資金在浩鼎草創階段投資浩鼎股票。我投資浩鼎的主要原因是浩鼎所研發疫苗使用了本人研發的醣分子合成技術,而且我還是浩鼎母公司創辦人。因信任張念慈,我匯錢給張念慈,但並未過問張念慈實際購股細節,浩鼎興櫃前,我再協助女兒以每股新台幣31 元認購3,000 張浩鼎股票,認購的價錢與其他浩鼎
創辦人及員工相同。我因當時沒有立即可以使用的現金,張念慈協助替女兒先墊款,沒多久後張念慈即以處分原已替我投資持有股票來清償這筆支出。所以這3,000 張浩鼎股票都是自己出資買的,何來賄賂?何況這些投資並未違反公務員服務法規定,也與本人
的院長職務及中研院技轉毫無任何關聯。我若接受賄賂,豈有不藏諸國外,反而把錢匯入女兒在台灣新開銀行戶頭以昭告眾人的道理?


(8) 認購浩鼎股票並無利益衝突 依『科學技術基本法』,創作人本得依法取得被授權廠商之股權,因此創作人持有被授權廠商之股份並不是利益衝突,更何況我投資間接取得浩鼎股票,與中研院技轉浩鼎根本無關。中研院「科技移轉利益衝突迴避處理原則」,
其中包括「承辦及決行科技移轉之當事人及關係人,於科技移轉契約訂定後兩年內,不得投資該接受科技移轉之業者。」是針對辦理技轉行政程序人員之規範。創作人並不承辦或決行科技移轉業務,自不受該規定之限制,更未違反該規定。
綜上所述,我回國後的研究工作,至今從未中斷,並將成果回饋、貢獻給國家和社會,自認問心無愧,也是身為科學家應有的社會責任;我與技轉處就浩鼎授權契約所有溝通,是創作人應扮演的角色,與院長行政職位無關。我因緣際會投資使用我研發專利技術的
浩鼎公司,皆與我院長職務無關。我擔任將近10 年的院長期間,極力推動中研院各項研究工作,培育研究人才,這些工作佔據我絕大部分時間,我將投資浩鼎乙事交由多年友人及在美創業夥伴張念慈全權處理,在浩鼎事件剛爆發時,對間接持股事未能及時說清楚,造成重大誤會深感遺憾!近從起訴書內容發現,檢方對我與張念慈友人間的電郵顯然了解錯誤;對生技產業、中研院技轉流程及智慧財產價值,也有嚴重誤會,特以此函向大家說明原委。此案對本人、中研院及我國生技產業的發展,已造成無可彌補的傷害。我對所有關心我的朋友承諾,會盡全力回復我個人及中研院的名譽

===============================

Statement by Chi-Huey Wong July 12, 2017


I would like to sincerely thank many of the Academicians and colleagues of Academia Sinica,
friends and relatives for their concern and support in connection with my involvement in the
“OBI Case” and the recent impeachment by the Control Yuan. Once again, I emphatically stress
that I have never committed any misconduct. The main reason for my returning from the United
States to Taiwan 14 years ago was to help improve Taiwan’s research and development (R&D)
environment. I could never have imagined that six months before completing the term as
President of Academia Sinica, I would be charged with violating the Civil Servant Anti-
Corruption Act and additionally impeached by the Control Yuan a few days ago. Though the
Control Yuan stated publicly that the impeachment had to do with my administrative
responsibility, the impeachment text mentioned several times that I committed illegal conduct
with clear evidence, which was mainly based on information contained in the unproven
Indictment Paper. As I will explain below, I believe that the accusations arose from serious
misunderstandings and that I will be vindicated as the truth will prevail.
(1) My Aspiration for Returning to Taiwan. I went to the U.S. for graduate training in 1979
after working at Academia Sinica for seven years, received a Ph.D. in Chemistry from MIT in
1982, and was appointed an endowed chair professor of chemistry in 1989 in the Scripps
Research Institute in San Diego. In 2003, I returned to Academia Sinica as the founding Director
of the Genomics Research Center. I was appointed as President of Academia Sinica from 2006 -
2016. During this period, I continued with my own research work while striving to promote
research activities in the disciplines represented by all the institutes in Academia Sinica. In
addition, in the area of life sciences, I encouraged not only basic research, but also “translational
research”, which emphasizes turning discoveries toward new products. This process begins with
basic research, then the application of patents for important inventions, and culminates in
technology transfer to industries for product development and commercialization. If successful,
this can form the basis for new biotechnology industries, create jobs, and treat human diseases
and improve human lives. A recent survey, entitled “The World’s Most Innovative Research
Institutions”, listed 25 world’s best government research institutions that “most likely to change
the world”. This list was based on the number of patents and research papers, as well as
commercial impact. Thanks to the research efforts of our excellent research staff, Academia
Sinica ranked the 22nd on this list.
(2) Continuing Research on Carbohydrate Science and Vaccines. A critically important topic
in modern cell biology and biomedicine has to do with the carbohydrate moieties that cover the
surface of normal and diseased human cells, bacteria and viruses. Understanding the roles
carbohydrates play in various human diseases is therefore a key to developing new vaccines and
drugs for such diseases. While I was at Scripps, I invented new technologies, called
“programmable one-pot synthesis of oligosaccharides” and “enzymatic synthesis of
oligosaccharides and glycoproteins”, which made it possible to synthesize, for the first time,
2
large amounts of biologically active oligosaccharides and glycoproteins. These led to the
development of vaccines and therapeutics to treat cancers, as well as inflammatory and infectious
diseases. Our discoveries generated more than 300 papers and 57 US patents, which were
licensed by Scripps to several pharmaceutical companies. While these companies were trying to
decide whether to adopt our technologies, I was asked by Scripps, as the inventor, to explain our
technologies and provide necessary assistance to these companies, which later paid Scripps
licensing fees. As is customary, these fees were shared with the inventors. In addition, I
cofounded Optimer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the parent company of OBI), and received founder’s
shares from the company. Upon returning to Taiwan, I continued to conduct research, even after
I became President of Academia Sinica, on carbohydrates and produced an additional 200 papers
and obtained 60 patents. Some of the research results have been given to industries through
technology transfer.
(3) The Process of Technology Transfer at Academia Sinica. According to the intent of the
Fundamental Science and Technology Act, technology transfer is our country’s policy aimed at
encouraging academic institutions to transfer research results to companies for further
development. Technology transfer means that the companies pay for the basic research results
and continue to develop such results to become commercial products. It is an effective means to
generate revenues for the research institutions and to create new innovative industries, and is
completely different from the process of government procurement or sale of public properties.
The process of technology transfer at Academia Sinica follows the internal rules and regulations,
including those on the responsibilities at different layers of the administration. It starts from the
Department of Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer (DIPTT), which negotiates
licensing terms with an interested company. If necessary, the negotiated terms are subject to a
review by a committee chaired by a vice-president. It ends with the approval by the Secretary
General and the Vice-President, who sign the technology transfer agreement. Since 2003, the
administrative procedure of technology transfer has not involved the President. In my tenure as
President, I have never signed or reviewed any technology transfer agreement.
(4) The Role of the Inventors in the Process of Technology Transfer. I was the President of
Academia Sinica and also one of the inventors of the technology licensed to OBI. Academia
Sinica is an academic institution conducting basic research; if an inventor wants to transfer
his/her technology to the industry, he/she has to send a request to DIPTT, which will then
evaluate whether the technology has any practical value for commercialization. Based on the
evaluation, DIPTT will decide whether the technology should be patented and transferred to
industry. After signing the technology transfer agreement with a company, the inventor can
receive 40 percent of the technology transfer income, and the remaining 60 percent is distributed
to Academia Sinica and the government. Therefore, the company has no reason to bribe the
inventor in order to obtain the technology. Moreover, since technology transfer involves the
inventor’s professional knowledge and requires his/her cooperation, the DIPTT has to
communicate and confirm with the inventor on the licensing terms to ensure that the inventor can
3
deliver and perform the terms described in the technology transfer agreement. This is a necessary
process, and it has nothing to do with the President’s official duties. Since the inventors are not
involved in the administrative procedure of the technology transfer, they are not regulated by the
Civil Servant Anti-Corruption Act.
(5) There Was No Reason for OBI to Commit Bribery to Obtain the Technology. Although
the basic research conducted by my research team is well recognized in the world, in practice, to
develop the vaccine discovered in our laboratories into a product for use in cancer patients, the
licensed company still has to spend a large amount of money and to rely on long-time efforts by
their R&D personnel. The vaccine also has to pass rigorous animal tests and human clinical trials
strictly regulated by countries around the world, and whether the vaccine will eventually be
approved to be sold on the market is still unknown. After the technology (i.e., enzymatic
synthesis of carbohydrates) available for exclusive licensing was posted on Academia Sinica
website to solicit potential licensee, only OBI and its affiliated company, Amaran, were
interested. In addition, OBI inherited from its parent company a well-established foundation for
such research and development, and it had previously funded a few academia-industry
cooperative projects with Academia Sinica to further develop cancer vaccines. Therefore, OBI
had the first priority to receive the technology, and the scenario that OBI had to commit bribery
in order to obtain the technology was impossible to occur. A company being licensed the
technology from Academia Sinica has to pay Academia Sinica a significant amount of licensing
fee before knowing if the product can be developed and sold on the market. In addition, the
company has to take the risk of spending a large amount of money and long-time efforts to
develop the product without any guarantee that the final product will be approved. The only
certainty in signing this kind of agreement is that Academia Sinica receives a significant amount
of profit (the government so far has gained more than NT$ 50 million in this case and will share
more profit if the product is developed and sold on the market). Since it is highly uncertain that
the company will gain a “huge amount of profit” from technology transfer after paying a
significant amount of licensing fee, and whether the product can finally be developed is full of
risk, the company undoubtedly has no motivation to offer bribes in order to obtain the
technology.
(6) It Was Not Inappropriate for Inventors to Allow the Potential Licensee to Get Familiar
with the Technology and to Obtain Samples for Testing. In implementing the transfer of any
biotechnology or high-tech intellectual property, the company has to do due diligence to get a
full understanding of the technology, the feasibility of product development, and the possibility
of technical support, etc., before the company signs the agreement or pays the licensing fee.
Therefore, after signing the confidentiality agreement, it is a common practice for the inventors
to allow employees of the potential licensee to visit the laboratory, to know more details of the
technology, and to get samples for testing or further evaluation. In fact, on the web site of
Academia Sinica, there are two templates of Material Transfer Agreement: one is with transfer
fee and the other without. The inventors can decide, at their discretion, whether to transfer the
4
material with a fee or without a fee. After Amaran signed the confidentiality agreement and the
Material Transfer Agreement, and the patent application of the technology had been filed, the
laboratories of the inventors produced 10 grams of allyl Globo H for Amaran, and Academia
Sinica received NT$ 4 million as a result of this material transfer. All the procedures involved
brought profits to our national treasury, and there was nothing illegal.
(7) My Purchase of the OBI Shares Was Not a Bribe. Michael Chang is my close friend for
many years; he and I cofounded Optimer in the U.S. During 2009 -2012, I accepted Michael
Chang’s suggestions and entrusted him to invest in OBI stocks prior to initial public offering,
using the funds from my family trust. The main reason for these investments was to show
confidence in my own technology – the vaccines being developed by OBI are closely related to
my research results, and to express my full support of OBI, as a cofounder of its parent company.
The purchase of 3 million OBI shares at NT$ 31 per share for my daughter, which was offered to
me as the cofounder of Optimer, was also to show support of OBI, even though the investment
was very risky before OBI shares were traded on the stock market, and the share price was the
same for all buyers. At the time of the purchase, however, I did not have sufficient cash at hand,
and I was unable to sell my Optimer stocks in the U.S. in time to pay for the purchase. Therefore,
Michael Chang arranged a temporary loan to finance the transaction. A few months later, the
loan was fully repaid using the proceeds from the sale of stocks indirectly held by me. Therefore,
the 3 million OBI shares were in fact paid by my own funds; it was definitely not a bribe.
Furthermore, the purchase of OBI shares did not violate the Civil Servant Act, and it had nothing
to do with my official duties as President of Academia Sinica or the technology transfer. The
accusations in the Indictment Paper that I agreed to receive 1.5 million OBI technical shares and
later accepted 3 million OBI shares as bribes are absolutely false. On the contrary, since I
returned to work at Academia Sinica, I have never agreed to receive or accepted any technical
shares from any company.
(8) There Were No Conflicts of Interests in Purchasing the Stocks of OBI. According to the
Fundamental Science and Technology Act, inventors are allowed to obtain the shares of the
company that has received the transferred technology. However, I have always declined the offer
of any technical shares. Nor have I been involved in the negotiation, approval, and signing of the
agreement during the process of any technology transfer. My daughter’s and my indirect
purchases of OBI shares were paid by our own funds and were completely unrelated to the
technology transfer and the position of the President of Academia Sinica. Therefore, there were
no conflicts of interests. The regulations stipulated in the Principle of Avoiding and Managing
Conflicts of Interests in Technology Transfer, established by Academia Sinica, including in
particular, the subtitle “Those directly involved in handling and executing technology transfer
and persons of parties concerned are not allowed to invest in the company that has received the
transferred technology within two years after the signing of the technology transfer agreement”,
are to be applied only to the staff members who are involved in the administrative procedure of
5
technology transfer. Inventors do not administer, review, or approve technology transfer and,
hence, are not subject to such constraints. In fact, the above regulations have not been violated.
In conclusion, after returning to Taiwan to work at Academia Sinica, I have continued to
maintain a laboratory to do research, and have contributed the research results to the
development of biotechnology industry. Such efforts are for the economic benefits of our country
and, in my opinion, should be regarded as the fulfillment of a scientist’s responsibility to the
society. As one of the inventors of the technology being transferred, I have expressed my
opinions, when asked by the DIPTT, on matters related to the technology transfer agreement,
which is the duty of an inventor. This, as well as the investments in OBI, has nothing to do with
the position of the President of Academia Sinica. During my nearly 10-year tenure as the
President, I have endeavored to promote research activities and to cultivate the researchers at the
institution. As these occupied most of my time, and financial planning is not my interest, I
delegated investments in OBI to Michael Chang. Therefore, at the time when the “OBI Case”
just broke out, I did not understand the case fully and, hence, was unable to thoroughly clarify
some of the investment issues. This was regrettable. However, after going over the Indictment
Paper, I discovered that some email exchanges in English, particularly those between Michael
Chang and me, were translated and interpreted incorrectly, which might have misled the
prosecutors. Furthermore, there have been serious misunderstandings regarding the essence of
biotechnology industry, the value of intellectual property, and the process and common practices
of technology transfer. I believe these were the real causes that led to the indictment and the
impeachment. The case has already done tremendous damage to the reputation of myself and
Academia Sinica, as well as the development of our country’s biotechnology industry. Now that
the case has already entered the judicial process, despite the impeachment based on the unproven
Indictment Paper, I believe the court will expeditiously come up with a most appropriate verdict,
which will clear my name, and thus restore my reputation and that of Academia Sinica.



Advertisements