Limiting and facilitating access to innovations in medicine and agriculture: a brief exposition of the ethical arguments

Timmermann, Cristian

doi:10.1186/s40504-014-0008-5

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(34 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An ideal environment to ensure recognition is present when the individual members of the farming community recognize one another as peers (see Fraser 1998). Therefore we discuss five types of social relations that nurture recognition taken from the Hegelian school of thought.12 These are relations that are symmetrical, reciprocal, simultaneous, reflexive, and transitive (see Limmer 2005;Timmermann 2014a). We identify which of these relations can be sustained through agroecological farming practices.…”

Section: Recognition As Peersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agroecology as a vehicle for contributive justice

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agroecology has been criticized for being more labor-intensive than other more industrialized forms of agriculture. We challenge the assertion that labor input in agriculture has to be generally minimized and argue that besides quantity of work one should also consider the quality of work involved in farming. Early assessments on work quality condemned the deskilling of the rural workforce, whereas later criticisms have concentrated around issues related to fair trade and food sovereignty. We bring into the discussion the concept of contributive justice to welcome the added labor-intensity of agroecological farming. Contributive justice demands a work environment where people are stimulated to develop skills and learn to be productive. It also suggests a fairer distribution of meaningful work and tedious tasks.Building on the notion of contributive justice we explore which capabilities and types of social relationships are sustainably promoted and reinforced by agroecological farming practices. We argue that agroecological principles encourage a reconceptualization of farm work. Farmers are continuously stimulated to develop skills and acquire valuable experiential knowledge on local ecosystems and agricultural techniques. Further, generalized ecological studies recognize the significance of the farmer's observations on natural resources management. This contributes to the development of a number of capabilities and leads to more bargaining power, facilitating self-determination. Hereby farm work is made more attractive to a younger generation, which is an essential factor for safeguarding the continuity of family farms.

show abstract

Section: Recognition As Peersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agroecology as a vehicle for contributive justice

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For this reason we will use the example of patents in medicines throughout the paper, as these exemplify the high social costs of the system for society and the need to address systemic injustices (11).…”

Section: Uncollected Fruits Of Labourmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That such prize schemes, as often suggested for medicines, have not been institutionalized is a failing per se, and not a legitimation for exclusion (17). This argument gains further support, if the objects of innovation are essential to fulfil human rights, such as improved seed varieties for the right to food and medicines for the right to medicines (11). The fact that one's right to enjoy the fruits of one's labour has not been met, does not legitimize to hinder the fulfilment of other people's rights (17).…”

Section: Uncollected Fruits Of Labourmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harvesting the uncollected fruits of other people’s intellectual labour

Timmermann

2017

Acta bioeth.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Intellectual property regimes necessarily create artificial scarcity leading to wastage, both by blocking follow-up research and impeding access to those who are not able to pay the full retail price. After revising the traditional arguments to hinder access to people's intellectual labour, we examine why we should be more open to allow free-riding of inventive efforts, especially in cases where innovators have not secured the widest access to the fruits of their research. We do so by questioning the voluntariness involved in the consumption of objects of innovation, restating the positive social externalities that arise when wider access to the fruits of innovation is facilitated, and examining the eventual harms innovators face.Key words: patents, wastage, free-riding, public domain, benefiting from scientific advancement Beneficiarse de los frutos inutilizados del trabajo intelectual ajenoResumen: Los regímenes de propiedad intelectual crean necesariamente una escasez artificial que conduce al despilfarro, tanto mediante el bloqueo de investigación derivada y al prohibir el acceso a aquellos que no son capaces de pagar el precio total de venta. Después de analizar los argumentos tradicionales para limitar el acceso al trabajo intelectual ajeno, examinaremos por qué debemos ser más abiertos en permitir el uso gratuito de los esfuerzos inventivos ajenos, especialmente en los casos en que los innovadores no han ofrecido el más amplio acceso a los frutos de sus investigaciones. Para este propósito cuestionaremos la voluntariedad involucrada en el consumo de los objetos de la innovación, mencionaremos las externalidades sociales positivas que surgen cuando se facilita un mayor acceso a los frutos de la innovación, y haremos un examen del tipo de daños que los innovadores eventualmente enfrentan.Palabras clave: patentes, desperdicio, parasitismo, dominio público, beneficiarse del progreso científico Colhendo os frutos não coletados do trabalho intelectual de outras pessoasResumo: Os regimes de propriedade intelectual criam, necessariamente, escassez artificial, levando ao desperdício, tanto por meio do bloqueio de pesquisa de acompanhamento quanto pelo impedimento dreo acesso àqueles que não são capazes de pagar o preço comercial total. Após rever os argumentos tradicionais para dificultar o acesso ao trabalho intelectual, nós examinamos porque nós devemos ser mais abertos e permitir o parasitismo dos esforços inovadores, especialmente em casos no qual os inovadores não têm assegurado o acesso mais amplo aos frutos de sua pesquisa. Nós o fazemos por questionar a voluntariedade envolvida no consumo de objetos de inovação, reafirmando as externalidades sociais positivas que surgem quando o acesso mais amplo dos resultados da inovação é facilitado, e examinar a eventuais prejuízos que os inovadores possam enfrentar.Palavras-chave: patentes, desperdício, parasitismo, domínio público, beneficiando de avanço científico

show abstract

“…Following an interpretation of Locke's property theory, modern legal and political scholars translated the notion of having a "natural right" to enjoy the fruits of one's labour directly into having an "absolute right" to own, manage and destroy natural resources that are essential for human survival, namely food, water and air (Timmermann, 2014). Locke's narrative whereby individual property emerges as a natural consequence of one's own labour over a natural object was later on complemented with another utilitarian ideology: the absolute primacy of (a) proprietary rights over any other type of right and (b) markets over states.…”

Section: 2d-modern Legal Evolutions Of Proprietary Regimesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemic Regards on Food as a Commons: Plurality of Schools, Genealogy of Meanings, Confusing Vocabularies

Pol

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Commons and food are experiencing a revival in recent years and yet the links between both are almost absent in academic and political discourses. Commons are often portrayed as historical and yet innovative governing mechanisms that can challenge the State-Market hegemony. On the other side, food is both a relevant agent of change and a major driver of planetary destruction, being thus cause and solution to multiple crises that affect humankind. Departing from the commodification of food as one root cause of the broken global food system, this text firstly situates and discusses the different schools of thought (or epistemologies) that have addressed the private/public, commodity/commons nature of goods in general, and then explores how those schools have considered food in particular. To do so, the author has defined five epistemologies, four academic (economic, legal, historical and political) and one non-academic (grassroots activists). The analysis highlights how those epistemologies have yielded incommensurable understandings and conflicting vocabularies, hence creating confusion in the socio-political realm and even rejection around the idea of food being considered as a commons. The economic epistemic regard has reigned over the others by applying an approach to commons, public and private goods that is theoretical, reductionist and ontological instead of phenomenological, therefore preventing or obscuring other scholarly or practical understanding of commons. When applied to food, the iron law of economics dictated that food, a private good based on rivalry and excludability, shall be better allocated through market mechanisms with absolute proprietary rights and valued as a pure commodity. This reductionist view collides with the plurality of meanings of food in different societies, civilisations and historical periods, as other schools of thought indicate. The author uses diverse epistemic tools to re-construct food as a commons, based on its essentiality to human beings and societies and the customary and contemporary praxis to produce, consume and govern food collectively through non-market mechanisms for more than 2000 centuries. As commoning has instituting power to create different political and legal frameworks, if food is valued differently the entire architecture of the global food system would change, as the grassroots activist school claims. Re-commoning food defies the legal and political scaffoldings that sustain the hegemony of market and state decision-makers over eaters and food producers and informs sustainable forms of food production (agro-ecology), new collective practices of governance (food democracies) and alternative policies to regain control over the food system (food sovereignty). Food as a commons is an agent of change with transformative power, no matter what economists say.

show abstract

Limiting and facilitating access to innovations in medicine and agriculture: a brief exposition of the ethical arguments

Cited by 8 publications

References 44 publications

Agroecology as a vehicle for contributive justice

Agroecology as a vehicle for contributive justice

Harvesting the uncollected fruits of other people’s intellectual labour

Epistemic Regards on Food as a Commons: Plurality of Schools, Genealogy of Meanings, Confusing Vocabularies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Limiting and facilitating access to innovations in medicine and agriculture: a brief exposition of the ethical arguments

Cited by 8 publications

References 44 publications

Agroecology as a vehicle for contributive justice

Agroecology as a vehicle for contributive justice

Harvesting the uncollected fruits of other people&#8217;s intellectual labour

Epistemic Regards on Food as a Commons: Plurality of Schools, Genealogy of Meanings, Confusing Vocabularies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Harvesting the uncollected fruits of other people’s intellectual labour