The Relevance of Genetic Resources to the Pharmaceutical Industry

Finston, Susan Kling

doi:10.1111/j.1747-1796.2005.tb00244.x

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The absurdity is even greater if one takes into account that natural drug discovery faces extremely long odds, and that typically only one sample in some 250,000 eventually yields a commercial drug ( cf . Finston, 2005, p. 148). Although using statistics is always a risky undertaking, the chance of Novartis identifying one promising drug target among 30,000 samples seems marginal and the number of samples actually a necessary minimum.…”

Section: Anomalies and Contradictions Observed In The Ongoing Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Break the Deadlock Preventing a Fair and Rational Use of Biodiversity

Straus

2008

World Intellectual Property

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sixteen years after the adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the hopes in successful exploitation of genetic resources for the benefit of biodiversity‐rich host countries, as well as of humanity at large, have not materialized. Instead of aiming all efforts at achieving “the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources”, the defined objectives of the CBD, based on the logical pattern that benefit sharing presupposes a generation of benefits, which in turn presupposes successful utilization of genetic resources, the international debate is captured by more or less politicized and fruitless debates as to how to anchor internationally in patent law a requirement of indication of origin of biological material. Here some reflections on the recent negotiations within the World Trade Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization are offered. However, the main focus is on national access and benefit‐sharing legislation of some biodiversity‐rich countries, which although is the key for achieving the CBD objectives, has not been paid the attention it necessitates. Based on a catalogue of questions of high practical importance, laws of Brazil, India, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa and some other countries are examined and suggestions made as to how to overcome the overall detrimental existing deadlock.

show abstract

Section: Anomalies and Contradictions Observed In The Ongoing Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Break the Deadlock Preventing a Fair and Rational Use of Biodiversity

Straus

2008

World Intellectual Property

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The impetus for this linkage was the commercial protection of value‐added goods that have become crucial to the economies of the most technologically advanced countries. Industry groups involved have argued that strict enforcement of IP protections is necessary for the promotion of innovation and creative industries, and that an international system will ultimately benefit all countries, including developing states, through foreign direct investment and technology transfer (see Finston 2005; Gervais and Nicholas‐Gervais 1999). Key actors have utilised these discourses to enrol the US Trade Representative (USTR) into taking strong extra‐territorial actions against foreign countries that have had a “lenient” approach to intellectual property rights (IPR) protection and enforcement.…”

Section: Background: Trade and Ip In The Post‐multilateral Eramentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing Knowledge: Discourses and Tactics of the European Union in Trade-Related Intellectual Property Negotiations

Robinson

Gibson

2011

Antipode

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With global shifts in the format of international trade negotiations—from multilateral to bilateral and regional fora—possibilities for the unequal exercise of power have amplified. At risk are the trade‐related interests of “developing” economies, as well as public policy issues like access to medicines. In response we analyse some of the emerging governmental approaches currently being employed for trade‐related intellectual property (IP) rules. Our concern is to provide a deeper understanding of the ways power is exercised internationally. Here, we explore the European Union (EU) approaches towards trade negotiations. Examining the role of the EU in IP‐related trade negotiations, recent actions towards “economic partnership agreements” with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries are discussed. Rather than exercise a singular approach, the EU has pursued a range of tactics, including educational and incentive‐based measures, but also surveillance of foreign country IP protection, and increasingly overt disciplinary tactics in their negotiations. A veneer of inclusiveness masks a more sophisticated, diversified governing strategy still ultimately concerned with the sovereign or judicial enrolment and compliance of economically/technologically poorer nations to a regulatory apparatus of security that favours European IP interests.

show abstract

“…The demand from the developing countries requiring openness from patent applicants regarding the origin/source/legal provenance of biological material is equally strongly opposed by the industry and developed countries (Finston 2005; Wolfe and Zycher 2005). The main reason why developing countries want such a requirement in patent law is the hope that this can lead to benefit sharing as required in the CBD (CBD 1992: article 15, (7)) and the maintenance of the public domain and respect for the sovereign rights of countries to genetic resources and biological material.…”

Section: Disclosure Of the Invention: Deposit Of The Biological Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patent law and bioprospecting in Antarctica

Tvedt¹

2010

Polar Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number of patents and patent applications related to inventions based on biological material from the Antarctic is increasing. Bioprospecting in the Antarctic is happening with no explicit regulation of property rights or benefit sharing requirements. This leaves patent law as the only legal system to establish exclusive rights to genes, bacteria, and other biological material found in the Antarctic. Patent law is general in form and is applied to all areas of invention with very few adaptations to single fields of innovation. Therefore, it is interesting to identify the issues in patent law in cases in which the biological material from the Antarctic is likely to create challenges or loopholes. The aim of this article is to couple the understanding of this particular legal regime and of biological circumstances in the Antarctic with knowledge of the international patent system for the purpose of contributing to the work of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCMs) regarding bioprospecting in the Antarctic.

show abstract

The Relevance of Genetic Resources to the Pharmaceutical Industry

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

How to Break the Deadlock Preventing a Fair and Rational Use of Biodiversity

How to Break the Deadlock Preventing a Fair and Rational Use of Biodiversity

Governing Knowledge: Discourses and Tactics of the European Union in Trade-Related Intellectual Property Negotiations

Patent law and bioprospecting in Antarctica

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About