T M 10 G M O (3)

377 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
377
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Keywords: consequentialist; deontological; freedom to operate; intellectual property; justice; monopoly; patent; plant variety; power; TRIPS Summary Institutional policy within the major patent jurisdictions supports the legitimacy of plant genes as subject matter, provided that they are part of a truly inventive disclosure. In ethical terms, given that patents do not assign ownership of genes, there does not appear to be a convincing argument that patents are abhorrent when compared with other forms of control of genetic material, e.g. ownership of breeding animals and plants. Indeed, the overturning of this aspect of the patenting system would lead to serious consequences for the flow of knowledge into the public domain and for innovation. Nevertheless, there are problems based around the ownership of patents by international corporate monopolies (with the attendant centralisation of power and decision-making) but this relates more to market trends and globalisation than anything ethically unsound in patenting per se. However, the balancing of intellectual property rights between new scientific knowledge and indigenous knowledge remains problematic.
  • T M 10 G M O (3)

    1. 1. Part III : Ethical Issues in Agriculture and Food Production
    2. 2. Chapter 10. The Patenting of Genes for Agricultural Biotechnology
    3. 3. Keywords: consequentialist; deontological; freedom to operate; intellectual property; justice; monopoly; patent; plant variety; power; TRIPS Chapter 10. The Patenting of Genes for Agricultural Biotechnology
    4. 4. Institutional policy within the major patent jurisdictions supports the legitimacy of plant genes as subject matter, provided that they are part of a truly inventive disclosure. Chapter 10. The Patenting of Genes for Agricultural Biotechnology
    5. 5. In ethical terms, given that patents do not assign ownership of genes, there does not appear to be a convincing argument that patents are abhorrent when compared with other forms of control of genetic material, e.g. ownership of breeding animals and plants. Chapter 10. The Patenting of Genes for Agricultural Biotechnology
    6. 6. Indeed, the overturning of this aspect of the patenting system would lead to serious consequences for the flow of knowledge into the public domain and for innovation. Chapter 10. The Patenting of Genes for Agricultural Biotechnology
    7. 7. Nevertheless, there are problems based around the ownership of patents by international corporate monopolies (with the attendant centralisation of power and decision-making) but this relates more to market trends and globalisation than anything ethically unsound in patenting per se. Chapter 10. The Patenting of Genes for Agricultural Biotechnology
    8. 8. However, the balancing of intellectual property rights between new scientific knowledge and indigenous knowledge remains problematic. Chapter 10. The Patenting of Genes for Agricultural Biotechnology

    ×