Conglomerate’s lawsuit sends a chill through academia

Almost 500 academics in Taiwan have signed a statement in support of environmental engineering professor Tsuang Ben-jei, after one of the country’s largest conglomerates filed a libel lawsuit saying Tsuang’s research had damaged its reputation. The move has had a chilling effect on researchers.

Chou Kuei-tien, a professor at National Taiwan University, said at a press conference in Taipei on 29 April that hundreds of academics – including Nobel chemistry laureate Lee Yuan-tseh – had signed a petition urging Formosa Plastics Group (FPG) to withdraw the lawsuit.

He said the “aggravated libel” suit would have the effect of “arbitrarily suppressing academic freedom” and freedom of expression, which is protected by the constitution.

Tsuang, a professor in National Chung Hsing University’s department of environmental engineering, spoke in April last year at a meeting of the environmental impact assessment committee of Taiwan’s Environmental Protection Administration.

He reported that hazardous heavy metals and carcinogenic substances in emissions from 66 factories, including one of the FPG’s naptha-cracking plants in Yunlin county, had led to higher rates of cancer in nearby residents.

Tsuang had also released a study saying the lifespan of residents could be reduced by 44 days, and nearly 400 people could die of related diseases if a major petrochemical plant, in which FPG has a stake, were to go ahead in Central Taiwan’s Changhua county.

The findings played an important role in the authorities eventually rejecting that project.

In unprecedented legal action against an individual researcher FPG – one of the country’s petrochemical, biotechnology and electronics giants, which also has major holdings in mainland China and the United States – filed a civil suit demanding compensation of NT$40 million (US$1.3 million), as well as a criminal lawsuit alleging “aggravated defamation”.

The first hearing is scheduled for 3 May in what many believe will be a protracted battle that could have major repercussions for the future of research in Taiwan.

The case – and particularly the amount in damages demanded by FPG – has shocked academics and environmental groups alike. The impending trial has also grabbed the attention of the public, who see it as a crucial test of democratic freedoms.

Tsuang’s lawyer,Chang Shun-Kui, described the lawsuit as having a “chilling effect” on the research community. Academics would not dare come up with unfavourable conclusions in environmental assessments involving other FPG projects, he said.

Tsuang’s university said in a separate statement that he was a well-known authority in the field of air pollution and that the institution would “pull its full weight” to protect Tsuang’s rights.

Chou Chang-hung, a professor at Taiwan’s top research institution Academic Sinica and a specialist in phytochemical ecology, said he was “sad and mortified” by the lawsuit, and that it was regrettable Tsuang was being forced to defend his research in court.

He added that Tsuang had had the “academic conscience” to stand up and expose health effects caused by emissions at an FPG naptha-cracking plant, and the issue should be allowed to be debated further.

FS Shieu, dean of the engineering college at National Chung Hsing University, said that instead of suing Tsuang, FPG should publish its own research to convince the public that Tsuang is wrong.

However, Environment Minister Shen Shu Hung caused controversy by saying this week that the courts were one way of clearing up the “facts of the case”, and that scholars must be held responsible for their research.

“If you have been doing research based on your conscience, why fear the ‘chilling effect’?” the minister asked.

FPG lawyer Wu Yu-hsueh said the corporation respected academic freedom but claimed that Tsuang’s research has cited “false data”, which had damaged the company’s reputation and caused panic among residents in the area.

Tsuang’s data was “simulated” and did not represent the actual emission volume at the plant. This “placed Tsuang’s actions outside the scope of the protection of freedom of speech”, Wu said.