- Home
- What's New
- Outline of Project
- Participants
- Working Group Documents
- Resources
- Workshops
- Patenting Lives Conference
- Events
- Media Releases
- Archives
- Links
- Search
 |
 |
Patenting Lives Conference
Human Rights and Ethical Frameworks Panel
Life as Chemistry or Life as Biology? An Ethic of Patents on Genetically Modified Organisms
Kathryn Garforth
This paper uses the metaphor of the triptych - painted altars set in three panels - to explore the interaction of biotechnology, ethics, and patent law. Each of these topics is represented by a panel in the triptych, and when viewed together, the panels tell a story. To begin, each panel is explored individually. The section on "Scientific Background and Definitions" examines the science of biotechnology and genetic engineering. The "Ethical and Philosophical Background" focuses on the debate between materialists and vitalists as it relates to the history of genetics. It also introduces the core ethical principles of the paper through a series of antonyms: autonomy and control; uniqueness and fungibility; sanctity and violability. In order to understand the case law on patents and biotechnology, part 4 provides an overview of "Key Concepts from Patent Law". This section also provides a timeline of the American and Canadian case law in which patent protection has been expanded to include living organisms. Next, the panels of the triptych are brought together to convey their story. Part 5 examines the language shifts between biology and chemistry. The section argues that the blurring of DNA and life, and chemistry and biology have facilitated the inclusion of living organisms in patent law. Section 6 returns to the antonyms from section 3 and asks "What are the Ethics of Patenting Life?" It concludes that the legal fictions created by patent law in order to accommodate genetically modified organisms are unethical because they deny the true complexity of life as well as the lack of human understanding of this complexity. We ignore the complexity of life at our peril.
Some Moral Principles Affecting Intellectual Property Rights
Rev Fr Roberto Latorre
Catholic Moral Theology can provide some foundations for the moral justification of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). At the same time, the very same moral principles regulate the exercise of these rights in accordance with the Christian vision of man and society. The most basic moral principle applicable to IPR is the right to private property . However, this right must be subordinated to the principle of the universal destination of the goods of the earth . Furthermore, the very nature of intellectual property as a spiritual good renders it materially "inalienable" and hence increases the "social mortgage" on it. From the vantage point of Catholic moral teaching, IPR can be seen as the rightful compensation for the efforts of the inventor, discoverer or "creator" of an intellectual good. Such compensation is regulated by civil laws which are morally binding in conscience. However, the moral binding force of a civil law is subject to the "just" character of the law in question. An unjust civil law does not bind in conscience. Finally, Catholic Moral Theology, while upholding the primacy of the moral object, also emphasizes the need to evaluate the circumstances. Hence, one should be careful when making general moral judgments of alleged violations of IPR since it often involves complex situations of an interdisciplinary character.
The Raelian Vision of Eternal Life Through Cloning: An Examination of a Filipino Sect's Beliefs on Cloning and the Reaction of the Philippine Public
Loyd Brendan P Norella
The Raelian vision of the future is one where eternal life is possible. The Raelians, named after their founder and spiritual leader, Frenchman Claude "Rael" Vorilhon, believe that this is possible through cloning. They also believe that in the future, humans will enter a golden age of scientific advancement and peace under one government, explore space by travelling at a speed hundreds of times faster than the speed of light, and that there will be a whole new race that will inhabit other planets. The movement, which claims human were created by extraterrestrials through genetic engineering, is reported to be 60 000 strong in over 80 countries worldwide. The Philippine chapter has around 200 members in Luzon and the Visayas regions, composed mostly of poor and low income rural dwellers. They argue that the Catholic Church, which is openly critical of their movement, is being hypocritical by opposing the development of science, especially human cloning. Not only strangers, but even their friends and relatives laugh at the Raelians' beliefs and doubt their claims. Many find it difficult to accept that such a group actually exists. They've been portrayed as a bunch of lunatics by newspapers and televisions programs, called "wacky" by academics, and written off as a cult by religious groups. However, the existence of such groups deserves to be examined as a possible reflection of people's understanding of what cloning and recent advances in genetic engineering mean in their lives. The Raelians believe that cloning will become a common practice someday and they're confident that the day will come when they will be proved right. This paper presents the Raelian sect's beliefs pertaining to cloning and genetic engineering. It examines the arguments forwarded by this group in relation to their beliefs on creation and the future, in the broader context of social structures present in the Philippines that reinforce such notions. This paper also provides an interesting look into a specific group from a developing country context, whose lives are much affected by the issue of cloning, and the reactions of the public. The learnings from the Raelians may help social scientists determine the dynamics and social factors that shape the way people accept and value science and the change it offers to their lives.
The Right to Development, African Countries, and the Patenting of Living Organisms: A Human Rights Dilemma
Adejoke Oyewunmi
In the last two decades or so, the emergence of new technologies in the global marketplace has changed the focus of intellectual property protection (IPP) debate between the developed and developing countries. Due to higher expenditures on a wider scope of research and development (R&D) mainly by the developed North, international discussion on IP has become dominated by demands from the North to strengthen IPP worldwide. The global shift in technological paradigm is particularly felt in the field of biotechnology, where the historical exploitation of living matter through traditional fermentation, cross planting and cross breeding has evolved into a more sophisticated system involving the sequencing of genes and proteins, recombinant DNA technology, cell fusion techniques and protein engineering. The developments are particularly influential in the health and agricultural sectors, areas of crucial importance to a largely impoverished south, thus making these innovations increasingly valuable. As with other valuable resources, there is conflict over ownership and control. Many of the raw materials for biotechnology are obtained from the South whilst most of the development occurs in the North leading to a divergence of the interests of the developed and the developing worlds over the end product of biotechnology in terms of claims of ownership, schemes of protection and profit sharing. Beyond this, the fundamental differences between indigenous and Western conceptions of rights to knowledge and nature is also an issue. These differences are not taken into account under existing IPP schemes which rather toe the line of Western individualistic view of ownership, contrary to indigenous recognition and protection of communal rights and interests. Thus, knowledge held by indigenous farmers and peoples are largely discounted under the existing international framework for IPP, as represented by TRIPs. The CBD which appears to take better account of some of these issues has not enjoyed the level of global acceptance and force which has been accorded the TRIPs, quite apart from the fact that the CBD itself is rather vague and indecisive on many of the crucial issues at stake. Within the western framework of protection, the adaptation of IPP regimes to encompass living organisms has been done largely through the Plant Breeder's Rights System. However, due to the perceived limitations of the PBRS, resort is increasingly being had by industrialized countries to the more stringent patent system as a means of protection. On its part, the patenting of life raises moral and ethical questions about the propriety of viewing our God-given living organisms and their workings as commodities to be owned and commercialized. Even the propriety of exploiting genes and organisms, and then creating IPP over them has been questioned.
This paper examines the above issues from a developing country, and more particularly, an African perspective. This is because even among the so called developing countries, there is some diversity in respect of the social and economic conditions and technological competence of each country. While some have significant scientific and technological capabilities,(e.g.India), others labour under relatively weak technical capacity(many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa fit into the latter category) Therefore the appropriate IPP policies to address the needs of these countries ought to vary accordingly. The broader social and economic implications of patenting of living organisms under the IPP systems of developing (mainly African) countries, with their largely agrarian economy, is analysed. The paper observes that ideally, strong IPP systems for the protection of crucial biotechnological products ought to be a factor in developing indigenous technological capabilities in the food and health sectors of these countries. However the reality is that strong IPP systems have, in the past, done little to stimulate indigenous inventive capabilities in these countries, because of the absence or inadequacy of the necessary human and technical capacity. In the meantime, the alternative of technological learning through imitation is foreclosed. Beyond this, the outcome of patented biotechnology research may be of little practical benefit to the poor masses, who may be unable to afford the costs. With regard to the issue of physical challenges, the problem of inadequate infrastructure is also critical. In Nigeria for example, over one hundred years after the introduction of the patent system, the Patents legislation and the administrative machinery (the Registry) are still grappling with the challenges of administering inanimate inventions. The paper identifies some possible advantages that may enure to the system, particularly in the context of the privatization and commercialization drives of many governments and the possibility of attracting private sector investments in the biotechnology sector, to collaborate with, and eventually take over from publicly funded research institutes.
The paper concludes that rather than resorting to the patent system in its present form, the peculiar circumstances of many of these countries compel a need to put in place IPP systems which would facilitate their growth and developmental objectives, rather than merely creating avenues for their further colonization, exploitation and impoverishment by the developed countries. In this regard, reference will be made to the African Model legislation for the Protection of the Rights of Local communities, Farmers and Breeders, which, though not without its own problems, appears to be somewhat helpful in striking the right balance between these competing and divergent considerations.
