Sir — The Japanese parliament is currentlydiscussing new data-protection legislation,the first to be introduced in Japan, whichwill provide scientists with a broadexemption from the proposed rules. This exemption has not been widelydiscussed, and few citizens are even awareof the issue. Although the biomedicalresearch community and pharmaceuticalindustry initially indicated tacit consent,concerns are now being voiced.

We believe the bill does not constitute anadequate regulatory framework for privacyprotection in biomedical research. Severalministries, agencies and scientific societieshave, in the past, drafted guidelines that haveincreased awareness of ethical issues, suchas informed-consent procedures and reviewby research ethics committees. Yet the scopeof the existing guidelines is restricted andthere is considerable confusion about howthe rules would be applied. We fear that dataprotection based solely on voluntaryguidelines is insufficient to win public trust.

Progress in large-scale human genomeresearch has dramatically increased theamount and content of personal data usedin many areas of biomedical research.Large online databases linking personal

information with genomic and clinicaldata are now feasible. For example,BioBank UK (see Nature 417, 9; 2002) isseen by many observers as an importantstep forward for clinical-genomics researchin Britain. But its success will depend onthe participation of UK citizens. Suchsupport is unlikely without a well-conceivedscientific strategy and, equally important,a convincing legal and regulatoryframework for privacy protection.

Assembling large-scale cohorts forgenome research remains very difficult in Japan; we believe a more widespreadsharing of resources is now inevitable. Yetwithout a coherent, transparent approachto data security and data protection, theJapanese public is unlikely to supportefforts to build large databases containingmedical information and lifestyle detailslinked with genetic samples, because ofdistrust and the perception that Japan’smedical and scientific community isunable to govern itself.

An inadequate data-protection regimecould harm progress in clinical geneticsand other biomedical sciences in Japan formany years. The result could well be thatJapanese scientists and enterprises go

elsewhere — already, Japanese companiesare choosing Singapore and even Mongoliafor new clinical-genomics researchfacilities. The Japan Association ofBioindustries Executives, a grouprepresenting the chief executives of Japan’smajor biotechnology companies, has justreleased a statement (www.jba.or.jp/jabex)urging the government to strengthengenetic privacy protection.

We believe that large databasescontaining both genetic and medicalinformation are inevitable for the future ofbiomedical research. But without adequatedata protection or public trust, suchdatabases are unlikely to be set up in Japan.For biomedical research to progress inJapan we, as members of its scientific andmedical community, believe it is time forJapanese scientists to engage in aconstructive public debate on this issue.Eitaka TsuboiPresident, Japan Medical Association, WorldMedical Association, 28-16, Honkomagome 2-chome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8621, JapanOther signatories to this letter:

Norie Kawahara (freelance journalist)

Tadahiro Mitsuishi (attorney-at-law)

Akira Oshima President, Japan Association of Cancer Registries

Shohei Yonemoto Director, Center of Life Science and Society

correspondence

NATURE | VOL 417 | 13 JUNE 2002 | www.nature.com/nature 689

Data security is crucial for Japanese scienceRules that are based solely on voluntary guidelines will not gain the trust of the public.

Collaboration can work ifinequality is recognizedSir — Your News report “Science collaboration stymied by relentless MiddleEast conflict” (Nature 417, 209–210; 2002)mentioned my support for Palestinian–Israeli cooperation. I would like to expandon my views. The Palestinian–Israeliconflict is neither a scientific issue nor apersonal conflict but a struggle betweentwo peoples over the same land. Thereforeneither scientific collaboration in itself nor the personal relationships developedtherein can advance the cause of peaceunless conflict-related issues are alsoaddressed and resolved.

Israelis have a strong army, resources,freedom and control over the land;Palestinians have none of these. One isoccupier and the other is occupied. Thisinequality underlies any interactionbetween Palestinians and Israelis, includingscientific cooperation, and should be theframework for any constructive dialogue.Unfortunately, this imbalance is oftenreplicated in the collaboration and becomesa cause of frustration and disengagementon the part of the Palestinian partner.

It requires courage and commitment to

widen the partnership beyond the realm of science, to rise above the currentpolarization and high emotional pitch inour respective societies, to place universalhumanitarian values above nationalism andto take a clear stand for justice and peace. Yetit is possible, as demonstrated by individualacademics as well as organizations such asMédicins sans Frontières, Physicians forHuman Rights and the Alliance of MiddleEastern Scientists and Physicians. Anexample of such a stand is a recentstatement by 300 Israeli faculty members,which can be seen at www.seruv.org.il/UniversitySupportEng.asp.

The international scientific communityshould become more actively engaged.Foreign collaborators and funding agenciescan request a commitment to basic humanrights and equality, and to the principle ofequal academic freedom and access toeducation for Palestinians and Israelis.Israeli scientists and institutions shouldexpress solidarity with Palestinian univer-sities under siege and use their politicalclout to assist them. All partners shouldinsist on a return to negotiations based onUN resolutions and international law.

A boycott of Israeli science would berelatively easy but, in the long run, counter-productive. Much more challenging and

important is to use scientific interactionscreatively, to promote true reconciliation.Yehuda TzfatiAlliance of Middle Eastern Scientists and Physiciansand Department of Genetics, The HebrewUniversity of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel

Scientific links supportan unjust peace processSir — Cooperation between Israeli andPalestinian academics since the 1993 Oslopeace agreement (see Nature 417, 209–210;2002) has been primarily donor-led —that is, imposed or strongly encouraged viathe carrot of money in a money-starvedenvironment, with the underlyingassumption that such cooperation wouldassist the peace process.

This push for “Israeli–Palestinianscientific cooperation”, as if science weredivorced from society, was regarded bymany Palestinian academics as suspect.Most Palestinians opposed a basicallyunjust and non-sustainable peace process,as recent events in the area clearly confirm.

Palestinian academics have been payingthe very heavy price of occupation formany years, both personally and in the

© 2002 Nature Publishing Group

under-development of their institutions.More recently, the conditions of closureand siege have reduced our scientificendeavours to near-paralysis, leaving usunable to teach, let alone conduct research.I believe it would be more rational to worktowards preserving Palestinian academicinstitutions against the Israeli army’sonslaughts, and rebuilding them, beforecollaborating with Israeli academics.

To me, this seems the right moment toact, including endorsing boycotts, insteadof turning to the easier yet ineffective pathsof building personal relationships, scientificor otherwise. Boycotts have been effectivein raising issues and influencing change.

Israeli and other academics need tostand up for the right of Palestinians toscientific and educational development,academic freedom and freedom of speechfor all, not simply on one side of the border.Cooperation with individuals may makeacademics feel better, but is not helpful,and can possibly be harmful, in generalterms. Saying no to academic boycotts maymean that academics are not willing to paya price for their stated ideals. To many of ushere, this translates as a de factoendorsement of the Israeli government’sattempt to destroy ‘anything Palestinian’,including the academic institutions thatthese relationships are supposed to assist.Rita GiacamanInstitute of Community and Public Health, BirzeitUniversity, Palestine

Did an academic boycotthelp to end apartheid?Sir — The assertion made by Steven andHilary Rose in Correspondence (Nature417, 221, 2002) that the boycott of South Africa by the world’s academiccommunities “was instrumental in ending apartheid in South Africa” is a deception. Apartheid was actuallyterminated by two pivotal and interrelated political events.

First, the United States Congress, on 29 September 1986, overrode PresidentReagan’s veto and imposed strict economicsanctions on South Africa. Second, F. W. de Klerk was elected president of SouthAfrica on 14 September 1989. Two monthslater (16 November 1989), de Klerkannounced the scrapping of the SeparateAmenities Act, then, on 11 February 1990,freed Nelson Mandela from prison. Therest is historical detail.

So if the Roses, and the signatories oftheir petition, wish to bring Israel evenfurther to its knees, they may need topersuade Europe and the United States to increase by an order of magnitude thestringency of the Arab-led internationaltrade boycott of Israel that has been in placesince 1948.

As it stands, the petitioners have notmade a cogent argument for why theyselected Israel alone — from the many

imperfect nations of the world — for their proposed academic boycott. George FinkC/o Scotbrain, 78/22 Levi Eshkol, Tel Aviv 69361, Israel

Violence versus freedom Sir — I read with great interest your Newsstory about academic cooperation duringthe recent violence here (Nature 417,209–210; 2002). Unfortunately, scientificwork has become another victim of theviolence. A related point is that of freedomof movement.

For many years, Palestinians couldtravel fairly freely in Israel. Thousandsworked here on a daily basis. The increasein terrorist attacks, especially the suicidebombings, has made this freedom ofmovement unwise and dangerous. Manyinnocent people, including scientists,suffer as a result. Israelis are forbidden bythe Israeli government to visit the areascontrolled by the Palestinian Authority, for their own safety. Israelis who visitPalestinian cities are likely to pay with theirlives: hardly “freedom of movement”.

I hope that we will manage to achieve a more rational, calm atmosphere in thispart of the world — but I fear that it willtake some time.Joel BigmanELS Photonics, PO Box 252, Nesher 36602, Israel

correspondence

690 NATURE | VOL 417 | 13 JUNE 2002 | www.nature.com/nature

The International Human RightsNetwork of Academies and ScholarlySocieties (http://www4.nas.edu/oia/oiahome.nsf/web/network) was createdto address grave issues of science andhuman rights throughout the world. It aims to put into practice the profes-sional duty of scientists and scholars toassist those colleagues whose humanrights have been — or are threatened tobe — infringed, and to promote andprotect the independence of academiesand scholarly societies worldwide. Thebasis of the network’s activities is theuniversal declaration of human rights.

The network seeks to promote thefree exchange of ideas and opinionsamong scientists and scholars in allcountries and, thereby, to stimulate thedevelopment of collaborative educational,research and human-rights endeavourswithin academies and the institutionswith which they are affiliated.

Moratoria on scientific exchangesbased on nationality, race, sex, language,religion, opinion and similar factorsthwart the network’s goals. They would

deny our colleagues their rights tofreedom of opinion and expression;interfere with their ability to exercisetheir bona fide academic freedoms;inhibit the free circulation of scientistsand scientific ideas; and impose unjustpunishment. They would also be animpediment to the instrumental roleplayed by scientists and scholars in thepromotion of peace and human rights.

This statement, although that of ageneral principle with universal applic-ability, was prompted by a petition (seeNature 417, 1 and 221–222; 2002) thatadvocates a moratorium on all grantsand contracts to Israel from Europeancultural and research institutions. Themoratorium being advocated, althoughsurely well-intentioned, is misguidedand inevitably counterproductive.

We all look forward to an equitablesolution to the crisis in the Middle East,with lasting peace and stability for bothIsrael and the Palestinian Authority. Butthe strongest impact of a moratoriumwould, rather than influencing Israelipolicy-makers, seriously and unfairly

harm our scientific colleagues in Israel— many of whom have activelypromoted peace through collegialengagement and open communicationamong academic centres in the region.

Arjuna Aluwihare University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

Claude Cohen-Tannoudji Collège de France, Paris, France

Ayse Erzan Istanbul Technical University, Turkey

François Jacob Institut Pasteur, Paris, France

John Polanyi University of Toronto, Canada

Pieter van Dijk Former Professor of Public International Law,

Utrecht University, The Netherlands

Edoardo Vesentini Politecnico di Torino, Italy

Torsten Wiesel The Rockefeller University, New York, USA

Contact: Carol Corillon

Executive Director, The International Human Rights Network

of Academies and Scholarly Societies, 500 Fifth Street NW,

Suite 5-530, Washington DC 20001, USA

This statement was issued on 28 April 2002by the members of the executive committeeof the International Human Rights Networkof Academies and Scholarly Societies. It wassent privately to some 60 national academiesaffiliated with the network. In response to arequest by Nature, the committee (whosemembers’ institutions are listed for identifi-cation purposes only) has agreed to itspublication — Editor, Correspondence.

In support of scientific exchange

© 2002 Nature Publishing Group