The Human Genome as Common Heritage: Common Sense or Legal Nonsense?

Ossorio, Pilar N.

doi:10.1111/j.1748-720x.2007.00165.x

Cited by 20 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Paired with racially stratified global biobanks, “admixture-mapping” technologies that engage in genetic “population stratification,” especially by continent, are proliferating racialized genetic correlations to a wide variety of health and phenotypic outcomes (Bolnick et al 2007; Fullwiley 2008). These practices and technologies have spurred (and in turn been encouraged by) a range of race-based biotech investments, including drugs (e.g., BiDil and Iressa) purported to be race specific, “DNA PhotoFit” software that claims to build a digital “mugshot” of African descendants from genetic material, and DNA Talent Tests aimed at white and Asian parents (Bliss forthcoming; Kahn 2012; Ossorio 2007). These products are based on statistical genetic correlations, which do not take into account the full range of possible biological or social processes (Ossorio and Duster 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambiguity and Scientific Authority

Panofsky

Bliss

2017

Am Sociol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most commented upon puzzles of the postgenomic era is the paradox of race. When President Clinton held a press conference on June 26, 2000, to announce the completion of the first draft of the sequence of the human genome, the main message he and scientific leaders Francis Collins and Craig Venter chose to emphasize was that of universal human similarity: "in genetic terms, all human beings, regardless of race, are more than 99.9 percent the same" (quoted in Bliss 2012:1). Venter, Collins, and other leading scientists strongly stated that contemporary genetics shows race not to be a scientific concept, and that "precise racial boundaries" cannot be legitimated scientifically. Yet this apparent consensus was soon broken. Geneticists 685812A SRXXX10.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambiguity and Scientific Authority

Panofsky

Bliss

2017

Am Sociol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this brings controversial path dependencies. After all, although public opinion tends to accept patents and copyrights on music and film, as well as on technological innovations, it is different with patents on forms of life, with patenting of the human genome, and of seeds dominating the debate (Ossorio 2007). As one author has argued: "biotechnology" [...] " has made it possible to colonize and control that which is autonomous, free and self-regenerative" (Shiva 1994:154).…”

Section: Knowledge: the Example Of Marine Patentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Broadening the perspective on ocean privatizations: an interdisciplinary social science enquiry

Schlüter¹,

Bavinck²,

Hadjimichael³

et al. 2020

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Privatization of the ocean, in the sense of defining more exclusive property rights, is taking place in increasingly diverse ways. Because of more intensive and diversified use patterns and increasing sustainability challenges, it is likely that this process will continue into the future. We argue that the nature of privatization varies from one oceanic domain to another. We differentiate four idealtypical domains: (1) resources, (2) space, (3) governance control, and (4) knowledge, and nine criteria for the assessment of privatization. We apply those criteria to a selection of examples from the realm of marine life (from microorganisms to fish) to highlight similarities and differences and establish foundations for broader analysis. We aim hereby to develop the groundwork for a balanced, interdisciplinary perspective on ocean privatization. Our analysis demonstrates that privatization has multiple dimensions and cannot be condemned or embraced in its entirety. Instead it requires more nuanced assessment and deliberation.

show abstract

“…Intellectual property considerations are of increasing importance in all areas of biotechnology research, including genetic research [19][20][21][22]. The debate over whether scientific progress is best fostered by awarding patent rights or preserving open access is ongoing.…”

Section: Commercial Usesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biobanking, consent, and commercialization in international genetics research: the Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Purpose This article describes several ethical, legal, and social issues typical of international genetics biobanking, as encountered in the Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium (T1DGC).Methods By studying the examples set and lessons learned from other international biobanking studies and by devoting considerable time and resources to identifying, addressing, and continually monitoring ethical and regulatory concerns, T1DGC was able to minimize the problems reported by some earlier studies.Conclusions Several important conclusions can be drawn based on the experience in this study: (1) Basic international standards for research ethics review and informed consent are broadly consistent across developed countries. (2) When consent forms are adapted locally and translated into different languages, discrepancies are inevitable and therefore require prompt central review and resolution before research is initiated. (3) Providing separate ‘check-box’ consent for different elements of a study creates confusion and may not be essential. (4) Creating immortalized cell lines to aid future research is broadly acceptable, both in the US and internationally. (5) Imposing some limits on the use of stored samples aids in obtaining ethics approvals worldwide. (6) Allowing potential commercial uses of donated samples is controversial in some Asian countries. (7) Obtaining government approvals can be labor-intensive and time-consuming, and can require legal and diplomatic skills.

show abstract

The Human Genome as Common Heritage: Common Sense or Legal Nonsense?

Abstract: This essay identifies two legal lineages underlying the common heritage concept, and applies each to the human genome. The essay notes some advantages and disadvantages of each approach, and argues that patenting of human genes would be allowable under either approach.

Cited by 20 publications

References 21 publications

Ambiguity and Scientific Authority

Ambiguity and Scientific Authority

Broadening the perspective on ocean privatizations: an interdisciplinary social science enquiry

Biobanking, consent, and commercialization in international genetics research: the Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About