Unrealistic claim of espionage

米経済スパイ事件の日本人被告

According to the U.S. indictment, Mr. Takashi Okamoto, a former employee of the Japanese government-affiliated Institute of Physical and Chemical Research, or Riken, in 1999 stole DNA samples on Alzheimer's disease from a laboratory of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, where he was working; and he gave some of the material to Riken when he moved there from the U.S. institute.

The hearing is based on the 1980 Japan-U.S. extradition treaty. In principle, the Japanese government has an obligation to protect its people from trial abroad — that is, it can extradite a Japanese citizen only to a country with which it has an extradition treaty. Japan has such a pact with one other country: South Korea.

This is a very peculiar case in that industrial spying charges have been filed for acts that seem to have more to do with workplace troubles between researchers. In Mr. Okamoto's words, bad relations between him and a Japanese subordinate "threatened" his research career.

One key condition for extradition is "double criminality," meaning that the crime involved is of a kind that is punishable in both countries under their respective laws. This condition seems difficult to meet because Japan has no legislation comparable to the U.S. industrial espionage act.

Another requirement is that the crime is punishable either by death or by imprisonment of one year or more. The Justice Ministry says Mr. Okamoto's deeds amounted to theft and other offenses (vandalism and obstruction of research) as defined by Japanese law. That conclusion, reached almost two years after the ministry received a U.S. extradition request, suggests the legal complexity of the case.

During the hearing March 10, Mr. Okamoto's lawyers rejected the charge that he had stolen DNA samples, saying the material belonged to him and had little value. Prosecutors said he had sneaked into the laboratory late at night to steal those samples, destroyed other samples and thus obstructed research activity. These offenses, they maintained, constitute reasonable grounds for his extradition. Yet a key question has been left unanswered: Why should Japan surrender him for theft when the United States wants to try him for spying?

The case needs to be put in perspective. First, U.S. authorities allege that Mr. Okamoto was trying to benefit Riken. The institute denied the charge and Mr. Okamoto testified that his motive was personal: that he did not want his research material to be used by an "unreliable" Japanese subordinate at the Cleveland Clinic.

The report says the DNA samples that Mr. Okamoto had taken to Riken were not used in experiments, indicating that the samples had little commercial value. This seems to reflect the largely basic nature of Alzheimer's research to date — a fact that would undercut the U.S. claim that he was trying to bring material gains to Riken.

The prevailing view in Japan's research community is that applying the crime of industrial spying to basic scientific research is unrealistic. As Mr. Okamoto pointed out, DNA researchers often take samples with them when they move from one laboratory to another.

In today's research community, it is not uncommon that samples are traded by air mail. Researchers come and go across national borders. The U.S. espionage act, established in 1996 to protect a broad range of industrial secrets, is a double-edged sword: Unless prudently used, it will undermine the free exchange of researchers.

Mr. Okamoto, who left Riken after the scandal came to light, is no longer a researcher. In some respects, he has only himself to blame. He violated a code of ethics in removing samples and destroying others in secret. He owes an apology to his one-time subordinate who has been accused of complicity. In the eyes of the law, however, what he did seems a far cry from industrial espionage.

The Japan Times Weekly
March. 20, 2004
(C) All rights reserved

      オハイオ州クリーブランド・クリニック財団の元研究員、岡本卓被告は、財団からアルツハイマー病のDNA試料を盗み、一部を日本の理化学研究所へ持ち込んだとされる。被告は、容疑は自身と日本人部下とのトラブルがからんでいると主張している。

      日米犯罪人引き渡し条約は、引渡しに条件をつけている。条件 1) 被告の行為について両国の法律で刑罰が規定されていること。しかし日本には経済スパイ法に相当する法律がないので、この条件を満足させることは困難だ。条件 2) 当該犯罪に対する刑罰が、死刑か1年以上の懲役・禁固であること。法務省は、身柄引き渡し要求を受けてから約2年後に、被告の行為は日本の法律で窃盗などに当たると結論づけたが、この事実は事件の複雑さを象徴している。

      審問では、被告弁護団はDNA試料を盗んだという容疑を否認、試料は被告自身の所有で、ほとんど無価値だったと主張した。検察側は、被告は深夜に研究所に忍び込んで試料を盗み、他の試料を破壊して、研究を妨害したと主張、引渡しを求めた。

      米側は、容疑者が理研に利益をもたらそうとしていたというが、理研はこれを否定している。容疑者は、研究所の信用できない日本人部下に試料を利用されたくなかったと主張した。理研は、岡本被告が盗み出したとされる試料を実験に使っていない。

      日本の研究者らは、経済スパイ法を基礎科学研究に適用するのは非現実的だという。DNA研究者が転職するときに試料を持ってゆくのは一般的行為だ。米経済スパイ法は、慎重に運用せねば研究者の自由な交流を妨げる。

      試料を持ち出し、破壊するなどの岡本被告の行為は倫理的に問題があるが、法的には経済スパイ行為には当たらない。