Abstract Topic This Thesis deals with the topic: Benefit-sharing in framework of Taiwan Bi-obank. This Mechanism refers to giving something, especially monetary feedback in Taiwanese legal system, back to research participants. Questions Not on justification, but rather on the background, history and contexts in which Benefit-sharing became a topic in Taiwan. Does it reflect any desire of Taiwan society and could they be responded by Benefit-sharing suitably? Methods I would work in perspective of „big disputable issue in a society“, rather than traditional Methodology of Law because of its possible limits while dealing with social contexts and problems of communication in a society. So I take related (ju-risprudential) discourses as event which could be studied for their origins and changes. Most important is to see what kind of ethical situation is located in Taiwan society. Arguments In light of the essence about gathering people, to which the traditional way of governance wouldn’t work, Taiwan should think about an alternative way of producing political legitimacy. Not like “rule of law” (“Rechtsstaat” in German), Democracy emphasizes the ruled realize their own interests by themselves, which means to be rulers and promotes the “Identity of rulers and the ruled.” Therefore public participation would be needed. However there is different be-tween passive participation (being recruited) and positive one (leading a good life in a community), for which formation of politics is essential. Results 1.Two contexts of Benefit-sharing discourses have been confirmed: the injustice in research relation, especially in view of global inequity; the “communal turn” in bioethics. These two flows intersect at two points: collectivization of ethical sub-ject and “universal Benefit-sharing.” 2.Current researches focusing on public concern discover that most make con-cerns about risk of privacy and how to extend their control over donated objects. Then the idea of “gift” comes up as ground of benefit-sharing which is generally understood. Furthermore conflicts between public and privacy could be eased, therefore a community could be built up. 3.Winickoff’s idea of benefit-sharing (“Biotrust” and “Power-sharing”) is consid-ered not only as the ideal form of one, but also to be alike to Rousseau’s idea of social contract. It should be no coincidence. Winickoff has ever promoted “Bio-ethics as social contract.” Besides, reciprocity and identity of all and part are two essences in Rousseau’s system. The later is also the motive of democratization. Rousseau’s “general will” calls for public participation, too, so that publici-ty/community/citizens would come up. 4. A “big disputable issue in a society” occurs usually in the transforming stage in a society with multiple ethnics and colonial experience. Its cause should be the complex lack of political legitimacy, ex, political, economical and cultural dimen-sions. I made an observation along with these three dimensions and found: There is still strong sentiment relating reaction against authoritarian rule, be-cause it could be seen that human rights are so stressed, clinical experiment is the main image of Bioethics, opposition between government and civil society and rejection of community-idea are another evidences. In economical dimen-sion people criticize the competing/developing-narrative and elite-based mode of decision-making more and more. In cultural dimension one could find a lot from STS academic field pointing out that the foundation of TBB would be in-tended to build up identity of Taiwan-community by geneticing human catego-ries, so that Taiwan could deal with the isolation in the international society and global competing ideology. 5. The question is: Is this nation-building positive or not? My thought is that ben-efit-sharing need a community because reciprocity comes always with collec-tives together. Its ground is that a value-creating activity only occurs in a com-munity. Furthermore, a community could be identified through practice, for which the framework of Biobank is essential. Then agency might be got to realize one’s own subjectivity, echoing with the importance of public participation and identity-democracy. 6.My concrete suggestions for Taiwan society are: First, a ethical subject in the sense of rule of law (Rechtsstaat), namely a free individual, could be abandoned. However I don’t believe logocentric subject with agency, either. Rather an inter-mediate community with publicity and care about local need could be trusted. Second, a newly created framework only applied to Benefit-sharing of Biobank is not needed, instead we could think about utilizing the existing framework, con-texts or nets of “local community building.” Taking consider of the shifting-trend of social drives from social movement to local community work in Taiwan, bene-fit-sharing based on local community might be competent reacting to the dis-contents about the total lack of political legitimacy. Important would be, to provide a community with authority of control and decision-making, to change the developing ideology, while being aware of the “outsider”-nature of bene-fit-sharing and equipped with flexibility, so that a local community would be built up, vitalized and have autonomy. “Conclusion” To deliberate this topic would actually be a chance for Taiwan society to see, in perspective of technical democracy, how a common good life could be possible. Keywords Taiwan Biobank; Benefit-sharing; politics of Identity; community; Democracy and Rule of law (Rechtsstaat); political legitimacy/legitimacy of governance; public participation; ethical subject/agency/empowerment; community-building