Systems and Synthetic Biology

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 87–98 | Cite as

Synthetic biology, patenting, health and global justice

Research Article

Abstract

The legal and moral issues that synthetic biology (SB) and its medical applications are likely to raise with regard to intellectual property (IP) and patenting are best approached through the lens of a theoretical framework highlighting the “co-construction” or “co-evolution” of patent law and technology. The current situation is characterized by a major contest between the so-called IP frame and the access-to-knowledge frame. In SB this contest is found in the contrasting approaches of Craig Venter’s chassis school and the BioBricks school. The stakes in this contest are high as issues of global health and global justice are implied. Patents are not simply to be seen as neutral incentives, but must also be judged on their effects for access to essential medicines, a more balanced pattern of innovation and the widest possible social participation in innovative activity. We need moral imagination to design new institutional systems and new ways of practising SB that meet the new demands of global justice.

Keywords

Co-construction Co-evolution Access to knowledge Gene patents Global justice Health impact fund 

References

  1. Andrews L, Shackelton LA (2008) Influenza genetic sequence patents: where intellectual property clashes with public health needs. Future Virol 3:235–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BioBricks Foundation (2012) BioBrick™ public agreement: frequently asked questions. https://biobricks.org/bpa/faq/. Accessed 11 June 2012
  3. Boyle J (2010) Monopolist of the genetic code? http://www.thepublicdomain.org/2010/05/28/monopolist-of-the-genetic-code/. Accessed 10 June 2012
  4. Buchanan A, Cole T, Keohane RO (2009) Justice in the diffusion of innovation. J Polit Philos. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00348.x Google Scholar
  5. Burk DL, Lemley MA (2002) Is patent law technology-specific? Berkeley Tech L J 17:1155–1206Google Scholar
  6. Burk DL, Lemley MA (2003) Policy levers in patent law. Va L Rev 89:1575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan S, Sulston J (2010) Patents in synthetic biology may hinder future research and restrict access to innovation. BMJ 340:1315–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chandrasekharan S, Kumar S, Valley CM, Rai A (2009) Proprietary science, open science and the role of patent disclosure: the case of zinc finger proteins. Nat Biotechnol 27:140–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook-Deegan R (2011) Gene patents: the shadow of uncertainty. Science 331:873–874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeCamp MW (2007) Global health: a normative analysis of intellectual property rights and global distributive justice. Duke University, ThesisGoogle Scholar
  11. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG (2003) The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 22:151–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drugs for Neglected Diseases Working Group (2001) Fatal imbalance: the crisis in research and development for drugs for neglected diseases. Médecins Sans Frontières, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  13. Dutfield G (2009) Intellectual property rights and the life science industries: past, present and future, 2nd edn. World Scientific, New JerseyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Endy D (2011) On biotechnology without borders. Global Reset. Seedmagazine, 3 March 2011Google Scholar
  15. EPO (2007) Scenarios for the future. How might IP regimes evolve by 2025? What global legitimacy might such regimes have? European Patent Office, MunichGoogle Scholar
  16. Fidler DP (2008) Influenza virus samples, international law, and global health diplomacy. Emerg Infect Dis 14:88–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forman L (2007) Trade rules, intellectual property, and the right to health. Ethics Int Aff 21:337–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glass JI (2011) Synthetic biology: a new weapon in our war against infectious diseases. In: Conference on emerging and persistent infectious diseases, Edinburgh, October 23–26, 2011. http://www.scienceforglobalpolicy.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=V0Tiy5JoL0g=&tabid=123. Accessed 10 June 2012
  19. Grootendorst P (2009) Patents, public-private partnerships or prizes: how should we support pharmaceutical innovation? University of Toronto, 22 Sept 2009Google Scholar
  20. Hammond E (2009) Indonesia fights to change WHO rules on flu vaccines. April, SeedlingGoogle Scholar
  21. Harvard iGEM Team (2011) Intellectual property and open source technology. http://2011.igem.org/Team:Harvard/Human_Practices. Accessed 17 Sept 2012
  22. Henkel J, Maurer SM (2009) Parts, property and sharing. Nat Biotechnol 27(12):1095–1098PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herper M (2006) Architect of life: Drew Endy aims to reinvent the biotechnology industry. Forbes, 10 Feb 2006Google Scholar
  24. Hollis A, Pogge Th (2008) The health impact fund: making new medicines accessible to all. Incentives for Global Health (IGH)Google Scholar
  25. Holman CM (2012) Debunking the myth that whole-genome sequencing infringes thousands of gene patents. Nat Biotechnol 30:240–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jasanoff S (2004) Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In: Jasanoff S (ed) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, London, pp 13–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jensen K, Murray F (2005) Intellectual property landscape of the human genome. Science 310:239–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kapczynski A (2008) The access to knowledge mobilization and the new politics of intellectual property. Yale Law J 117:804–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Khalil AS, Collins JJ (2010) Synthetic biology: applications come of age. Nat Rev Genet 11:367–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krikorian G, Kapczynski A (eds) (2010) Access to knowledge in the age of intellectual property. Zone Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Landes WM, Posner RA (2004) The political economy of intellectual property law. The AEI Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Love J (2008) Pogge and Hollis on the trade-off between access and incentives. Knowl Ecol Int. http://keionline.org/blogs/2008/11/27/trade-off-innov-access. Accessed 17 Sept 2012
  33. MacKenzie D, Wajcman J (1998) The social shaping of technology. Open University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  34. May C, Sell S (2006) Intellectual property rights: a critical history. Lynne Rienner Publishers, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  35. Nathan C (2007) Aligning pharmaceutical innovation with medical need. Nat Med 13(3):304–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oye KA, Wellhausen R (2009) The intellectual commons and property in synthetic biology. In: Schmidt M et al (eds) Synthetic biology. Springer, Berlin, pp 121–139Google Scholar
  37. Palombi L (2009) Gene cartels. Biotech patents in the age of free trade. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  38. Pogge Th (2005) Human rights and global health: a research program. Metaphilosophy 36(1/2):182–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Posner RA (2012) Why there are too many patents in America. The Atlantic, 12 July 2012Google Scholar
  40. Rai A, Boyle J (2007) Synthetic biology: caught between property rights, the public domain, and the commons. PLoS Biol 5(3):389–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reichman JH (2009) Rethinking the role of clinical trial data in international intellectual property law: the case for a public goods approach. Marquette Intellect Prop Law Rev 13(1):1–68PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Reuters (2012) Court reaffirms right of myriad genetics to patent genes. NY Times, 16 Aug 2012Google Scholar
  43. Rimmer M (2011) Intellectual property and climate change: inventing clean technologies. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  44. Roemer-Mahler A (2012) Business conflict and global politics: the pharmaceutical industry and the global protection of intellectual property rights. Rev Int Polit Econ iFirst:1–32Google Scholar
  45. Ruder WC, Lu T, Collins JC (2011) Synthetic biology moving into the clinic. Science 333:1248–1252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rutz B (2009) Synthetic biology and patents. A European perspective. EMBO Rep 10:S14–S16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schwarz J, Pollack A (2010) Judge invalidates human gene patent. NY Times, 29 March 2010Google Scholar
  48. Shaver L (2009) The right to science and culture. Wisc Law Rev 2010(1):121–184Google Scholar
  49. Smolke CD (2009) Building outside the box: iGEM and the BioBricks Foundation. Nat Biotechnol 27(12):1099–1102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sonderholm J (2010) Intellectual property rights and the TRIPS agreement. An overview of ethical problems and some proposed solutions. World Bank: Policy Research Working Paper 5228Google Scholar
  51. Sunder M (2012) From goods to a good life: intellectual property and global justice. Yale University Press, New Haven and LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. Van den Belt H (2009) Philosophy of biotechnology. In: Meijers A (ed) Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1301–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van den Belt H, Rip A (1987) The Nelson–Winter–Dosi model and synthetic dye chemistry. In: Bijker WE, Hughes TP, Pinch T (eds) The social construction of technological systems. New directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 135–158Google Scholar
  54. Venter JC (2007) A DNA-driven world. The 32nd Richard Dimbleby lecture. BBC One. December 4, 2007. www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/12_december/05/dimbleby.shtml. Accessed 10 June 2012
  55. WHO (2005) Genetics, genomics and the patenting of DNA: review of potential implications for health in developing countries. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  56. WIPO (2007) Patent issues related to influenza viruses and their genes. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhang JY (2011) The ‘national’ and the ‘cosmos’: the emergence of synthetic biology in China. EMBO Rep 12(4):302–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations