Advertisement

Ethical Challenges of Patenting “Nature”: Legal and Economic Accounts of Altered Nature as Property

  • Mary Anderlik Majumder
  • Margaret M. Byrne
  • Elias Bongmba
  • Leslie S. Rothenberg
  • Nancy Neveloff Dubler
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 97)

Contemporary American society is increasingly focused on business and profit rather than social justice and the common good. As this direction gained ascendancy in the three decades before the 21st century the idea of asserting a monopoly over some idea or substance derived from nature seemed more and more justified and commonplace. So, for example, patenting the changes wrought in otherwise found compounds, substances and genetic material began to seem less and less like violation or mere copying of “nature” and more in balance with the government and social policies that surround general scientific development. A new boundary began to emerge from the mélange of judicial opinions, legislation and business practice: nature itself cannot be patented, but processes that alter nature and the products of those processes can be patented. The biotechnology industry, ever aware of its dramatic position and possibly controversial role, has attempted to reassure the public that it does not want to usurp the role of creator, claiming authorship of nature. However, when biotechnology companies augment, refashion or reconfigure products of nature, they assert that their investment should be recognized and recompensed. Controversy persists nonetheless, and hence it is worthwhile to consider how ethical concepts of nature might place limits on efforts to alter nature and make it property.

Keywords

Intellectual Property Indigenous People Patent Protection European Patent Ethical Challenge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amoah, Elizabeth (1998). “African Indigenous Religions and Inter-religious Relationship: Autumn Lecture.” Oxford International Interfaith Centre. Retrieved December 24, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.interfaith-center.org/lectures/amoah98.htm.
  2. Anderlik, Mary, and Jan Heller (2003). “The Economics and Politics of the New Genetics,” In D. Smith (ed.), A Christian Response to Our New Genetic Powers. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Md.Google Scholar
  3. Anderlik, Mary A., and Mark A. Rothstein (2003). “Canavan Decision Favors Researchers Over Families,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 31, 450-453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrews, Lori B. (2002). “Genes and Patent Policy: Rethinking Intellectual Property Rights,” Nature Reviews Genetics 3, 803-808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrews, Lori, and Dorothy Nelkin (2001). Body Bazaar: The Market for Human Tissue in the Biotechnology Age. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
  6. Anonymous (2004). “Gates Cash Lifts Hope of Cheaper Malaria Drug,” Nature 432, 792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Appiah-Kubi, Kofi (1981). Man Cures, God Heals: Religion and Medical Practice Among the Akans of Ghana. Totowa, NJ: Allanheld & Osumn.Google Scholar
  8. Arrow, Kenneth J. (1962). “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Inventions,” In Richard Nelson (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 US 192, 200 (1882).Google Scholar
  10. Atyi, Eba’a (1998). Cameroon’s Logging Industry: Structure, Economic Importance and Effects of Devaluation. Jakarta: Centre for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
  11. Baker, Dean (2004). Financing Drug Research: What Are the Issues? Center for Economic and Policy Research. http://www.cepr.net/publications/patents_what_are_the_issues.
  12. Ball, Nan T. (2000). “The Reemergence of Enlightenment Ideas in the 1994 French Bioethics Debates,” 50 Duke Law Journal 545, 585.Google Scholar
  13. Barton, John H. (2002). “Patent, Genomics, Research, and Diagnostics,” Academic Medicine 77(Part 2), 1339-1347.Google Scholar
  14. Bekelman, Justin E., Yan Li, and Cary P. Gross (2003). “Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review,” Journal of the American Medical Association 289, 454-465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Beltran, Javier (ed.) (2000). Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Protected Areas: Principles, Guidelines and Case Studies. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN - The World Conservation Union.Google Scholar
  16. Bendekgey, Lee, and Diana Hamlet-Cox (2002). “Gene Patents and Innovation,” Academic Medicine 77(December, Part 2), 1373-1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bessen, James, and Eric Maskin (2000). “Sequential Innovation, Patents and Imitation.” Working Paper 00-01. Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  18. Bewley, Truman (2003). “Fair’s Fair,” Nature 422, 124-126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bierer, Donald E., Thomas J. Carolson, and Steven R. King (1996). “Shaman Pharmaceuticals: Integrating Indigenous Knowledge, Tropical Medicine Plants, Medicine, Modern Science and Reciprocity into a Novel Drug Discovery Approach.” Network Science (NetSci). Retrieved January 9, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.netsci.org/science/special/feature11.htm. Biogen Inc. v. Medeva Plc, R.P.C. 1 (1997).
  20. Blaike, P. (1996). Environmental Conservation in Cameroon: On Paper and in Practice. Occasional Papers Series. Copenhagen: Centre for African Studies, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  21. Blank, Rebecca M. (1992). Do Justice: Linking Christian Faith and Modern Economic Life. Cleveland, OH: United Church Press.Google Scholar
  22. Blanton, Kimberly (2002). “Corporate Takeover,” Boston Globe Magazine, April 18.Google Scholar
  23. Bloom, Floyd E. (2003). “Science as a Way of Life: Perplexities of a Physician-Scientist,” Science 300, 1680-1685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Blumenthal David, Eric G. Campbell, Melissa Anderson, Nancy Causino, and Karen Seashore Louis (1997). “Withholding Research Results in Academic Life Science,” Journal of the American Medical Association 277, 1224-1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Brody, Baruch (1996). “Public Goods and Fair Prices: Balancing Technological Innovation with Social Well-Being,” Hastings Center Report, March-April, 5-11.Google Scholar
  26. Bugbee, Bruce W. (1967). Genesis of American Patent and Copyright Law. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.Google Scholar
  27. Campbell, Courtney S. (2000). “Research on Human Tissue: Religious Perspectives,” In Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance, Vol. II. Rockville, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.Google Scholar
  28. Campbell, Eric G., Brian R. Clarridge, Manjusha Gokhale, Lauren Birenbaum, Stephen Hilgartner, Neil A. Holtzman, and David Blumenthal (2002). “Data Withholding in Academic Genetics: Evidence from a National Survey,” Journal of the American Medical Association 287, 473-480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Canadian Council of Churches (online). “Life: Patent Pending,” available at www.ccc-cce.ca. CBS Evening News (2002). Eye on America, “Battle over the ownership of human genes,” September 18.
  30. Chapman, Audrey (online). “The Contributions and Limitations of Christian Ethics on the Genetics Revolution,” www.kalam.org/papers/audrey.htm, 21-22.
  31. Charlton, William, Tatiana Mallinson, and Robert Oakeshott (1986). The Christian Response to Industrial Capitalism. London: Sheed & Ward.Google Scholar
  32. Chiron v. Murex, F.S.R. 153 (1996).Google Scholar
  33. Chisum, Donald S. (2002). Chisum on Patents. New York: Matthew Bender.Google Scholar
  34. Clement D. (2003). “Creation Myths: Does Innovation Require Intellectual Property Rights?” Reason Online, March. www.reason.com/0303/fe.dc.creation.shtml.
  35. Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (2002). “Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy.” Retrieved April 10, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.iprcommission.org/papers/text/final_report/chapter4htmfinal.htm.
  36. Cohen, Wesley J., Richard R. Nelson, and John P. Walsh (2000). “Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why US Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not).” Working Paper, January. Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  37. Congress of South African Trade Unions (2002). “COSATU Statement on the Importation of Generic Antiretrovirals from Brazil,” January 29.Google Scholar
  38. Cook-Deegan, Robert (1995). The Gene Wars: Science, Politics, and the Human Genome. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  39. Deloria, Barbara, Kristen Foehner, and Sam Scinta (eds.) (1999). Spirit and Reason: The Vine Deloria, Jr., Reader. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum.Google Scholar
  40. Deloria, Vine Jr. (1994). God Is Red: A Native View of Religion. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum.Google Scholar
  41. Deloria, Vine Jr. (2002). Evolution, Creationism, and Other Modern Myths: A Critical Inquiry. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum.Google Scholar
  42. Demaine, Linda J., and Aaron X. Fellmeth (2003). “Natural Substances and Patentable Inventions,” Science 300, 1375-1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. De Vries, Barend A. (1998). Champions of the Poor: The Economic Consequences of Judeo-Christian Values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 US 303, 309 (1980).Google Scholar
  45. DiMasi, Joseph A., Ronald W. Hansen, and Henry G. Gradowski (2003). “The Price of Innovation: New Estimates of Drug Development Costs,” Journal of Health Economics 22, 151-185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions, 6 July 1998, available at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/1998/l_213/l_21319980730en00130021.pdf.
  47. Dowie, Mark (2004). “Gods and Monsters,” Mother Jones, January/February 2004, available at http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_401.html.
  48. Drewal, Henry John, John Pemberton III, and Roland Abiodun, Yoruba (1989). Nine Centuries of African Art and Thought. New York: The Center for African Art.Google Scholar
  49. Editorial (2003). “Patenting Pieces of People,” Nature Biotechnology 22, 341.Google Scholar
  50. Eisenberg, Rebecca S. (2002). “How Can You Patent Genes?,” American Journal of Bioethics 2, 3-11.Google Scholar
  51. Eisenberg, Rebecca S., and Richard R. Nelson (2002). “Public vs. Proprietary Science: A Fruitful Tension?,” Academic Medicine 77(Part 2), 1392-1399.Google Scholar
  52. Ekpere, Johnson (2001). “The OAU Model Law and Africa’s Common Position on the TRIPS Review Process.” International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development Ad-Hoc Papers, available at www.ictsd.org/dlogue/2001-07-30/Ekpere.pdf.
  53. Eliot, Charles W. (ed.) (online). The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, available at http://eserver.org/books/franklin/ (visited June 20, 2003). Original publication: New York: P.F. Collier, 1909.
  54. Ernhofer, Ken (2003). “Ownership of Genes at Stake in Potential Lawsuit,” Christian Science Monitor, February 27.Google Scholar
  55. European Patent Convention (EPC), 5 October 1973, available at http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc/index.html.
  56. European Patent Office Guidelines for Examination, June2005, available at http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/guiex/.
  57. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (2001). “Genetics! Where Do We Stand as Christians?” Chicago, IL:ELCA, available at http://www.elca.org/dcs/genetics.study.html.
  58. Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America (1908). “Social Creed of the Church.”Google Scholar
  59. Fehr, Ernst, and Bettina Rockenbach (2003). “Detrimental Effects of Sanctions on Human Altruism,” Nature 422, 137-140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Fehr, Ernst, and Simon Gächter (2003). “Reply: The Puzzle of Human Cooperation,” Nature 421, 911-912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Fleischer, Matt (2001). “Pitfalls of Pro Se Patenting,” The American Lawyer, June.Google Scholar
  62. Foster, Charles (2003). “Current Issues in the Law of Genetics,” New Law Journal 9, January 10.Google Scholar
  63. Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 US 127 (1948).Google Scholar
  64. Gilbert R, Shapiro C. (1990). “Optimal Patent Length and Breadth,” Rand Journal of Economics 21, 106-112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Gilchrist, John (1969). The Church and Economic Activity in the Middle Ages. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  66. Glennerster Rachel, and Kremer Michael (2000). “A Better Way to Spur Medical Research and Development,” Regulation 200, 23(2), 34-39.Google Scholar
  67. Glitzenstein, Kurt L. (1994). “A Normative and Positive Analysis of the Scope of the Doctrine of Equivalents,” Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 281, 314.Google Scholar
  68. Golden, John M. (2001). “Biotechnology, Technology Policy, and Patentability: Natural Products and Invention in the American System,” 50 Emory Law Journal 101, 110.Google Scholar
  69. Goldstein, Jorge A., and Golod, Elina (2002). “Human Gene Patents,” Academic Medicine 77, 1315-1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Greenberg v. Miami Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Inc., 264 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (S.D. Fla 2003).Google Scholar
  71. Grim, John A. (1998). “Indigenous Traditions and Ecology.” Retrieved April 10, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://environment.harvard.edu/religion/religion/indigenous.
  72. Grim, John A. (2001). “Indigenous Traditions and Deep Ecology,” In David L. Barnhill and Roger S. Gottlieb, (eds.), Deep Ecology and World Religions: New Essays on Sacred Grounds. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 35-57.Google Scholar
  73. Hall, Bronwyn H., and Rosemarie Ziedonis H. (2001). “The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the US Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995,” Rand Journal of Economics 32, 101-128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Hanson, Mark J. (1997). “Religious Voices in Biotechnology: The Case of Gene Patenting,” Hastings Center Report 27(6), 1-22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 21 C.P.R. (4th) 417 (S.C.C. 2002), at para. 199.Google Scholar
  76. HARVARD/Onco-mouse (T19/90), E.P.O.R. 501 (1990).Google Scholar
  77. Heller, Michael A., and Rebecca S. Eisenberg (1998). “Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research,” Science 280, 698-701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Henry, Michelle R., Mildred K. Cho, Meredith A. Weaver, and Jon F. Merz (2002). “DNA Patenting and Licensing,” Science 297, 1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Henry, Michelle R., Mildred K. Cho, Meredith A. Weaver, and Jon F. Merz (2003). “A Pilot Survey on the Licensing of DNA Inventions,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 3, 442-449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Hirschman, Albert O. (1977). The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism Before Its Triumph. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Howard Florey/Relaxin, E.P.O.R. 541, 551 (1995).Google Scholar
  82. Hughes, Justin (1988). “The Philosophy of Intellectual Property,” 77 Georgetown Law Journal 287, 319-324.Google Scholar
  83. Independent Commission on International Humanitarian Issues (1987). Indigenous Peoples: A Global Quest for Justice: A Report for the Independent Commission on International Humanitarian Issues. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  84. Jacobs, Philippe, and Geertrui Van Overwalle (2001). “Gene Patents: A Different Approach,” European Intellectual Property Review 23, 505.Google Scholar
  85. Janzen, John (1978). The Quest for Therapy in Lower Zaire. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  86. Jenkins, Neil (2001). “The Impact of the EU Biotechnology Directive on the Patenting of Biotechnology,” 128 Patent World 9, January, 9-10.Google Scholar
  87. Kamien, Morton, and Schwartz, Nancy (1974). “Patent Length and RandD Rivalry,” American Economics Review 64, 183-187.Google Scholar
  88. Kemf, Elizabeth (ed.) (1993). The Law of the Mother: Protecting Indigenous Peoples in Protected Areas. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.Google Scholar
  89. King, Paul G., and David O. Woodyard (1999). Liberating Nature: Theology and Economics in a New Order. New York: Pilgrim Press.Google Scholar
  90. Kirin-Amgen Inc. v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, R.P.C. 1 (2002).Google Scholar
  91. Klemperer, Paul (1990). “How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?,” Rand Journal of Economics 21, 113-130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Korn, David (2002). “Industry, Academia, Investigator: Managing the Relationships,” Academic Medicine 77, 1089-1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Kortum, S., and Lerner J. (1998). “Stronger Protection or Technological Revolution: What Is Behind the Recent Surge in Patenting?,” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 48 247-304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Krimsky, Sheldon (1999). “The Profit of Scientific Discovery and its Normative Implications,” 75 Chicago-Kent Law Review, 15.Google Scholar
  95. Lanjouw, Jean O. (1998). “The Introduction of Pharmaceutical Product Patents in India: ‘Heartless Exploitation of the Poor and Suffering?’ ” Working Paper 6366. National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  96. Last, Murray (1986). “The Professionalisation of African Medicine: Ambiguities and Definitions,” In Murray Last and G.L. Chavunduka (eds.), The Professionalisation of African Medicine. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Lerner, Josh (2002). “Patent Protection and Innovation Over 150 Years.” Working Paper 8977. National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  98. Levin, Richard, Alvin Klevorick, Richard R. Nelson, and Sidney Winter (1987). “Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics. Washington, 783-820.Google Scholar
  99. L’ Institut Curie, “Révocation par l’Office Européen des Brevets du 1er brevet de Myriad Genetics,” http://www.curie.fr/upload/presse/190504_fr.pdf; “Another victory for opponents of patents held by Myriad Genetics: European Patent Office rejects the essential points of BRCA1 gene patents,” http://www.curie.fr/upload/presse/myriadpatents310105.pdf.
  100. Locke, John (1952). The Second Treatise of Government, In Thomas P. Peardon (ed.). New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  101. MacLeod, Christine (1988). Inventing the Industrial Revolution: The English Patent System, 1660-1800. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Magesa, Laurenti (1997). African Religion: The Moral Traditions of the Abundant Life. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.Google Scholar
  103. Marshall, Eliot (1997).“Secretiveness Found Widespread in Life Sciences,” Science 276, 523-525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Médecins Sans Frontières (2000). HIV/AIDS Medicines Pricing Report.Google Scholar
  105. Merrill, Stephen A., Richard C. Levin, and Mark B. Myers (eds.), For the Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Knowledge-Based Economy, National Research Council (2004). A Patent System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  106. Merz, Jon F. et al. (1998). “Patenting Genetic Tests: Putting Profits Before People,” Gene Watch (October), Cambridge, MA: Council for Responsible Genetics.Google Scholar
  107. Merz, Jon F., Antigone G. Kriss, Debra G.B. Leonard, and Mildred K. Cho (2002). “Diagnostic Testing Fails the Test: The Pitfalls of Patenting are Illustrated by the Case of Haemochromatosis,” Nature 415, 577-579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 51 Cal.3d 120 (Cal. 1990).Google Scholar
  109. Murashige, Kate (2002). “Patents and research-an uneasy alliance,” Academic Medicine 77(Part 2), 1329-1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Ngu, Victor (1997). “The Viral Envelope in the Evolution of HIV: A Hypothetical Approach to Inducing an Effective Immune Response to the Virus,” Medical Hypothesis 48, 517-521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Ngubane, Harriet (1977). Body and Mind in Zulu Medicine. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  112. NIH (National Institutes of Health) (2001). Report to the US Congress: A Plan to Ensure Taxpayers’ Interests Are Protected, July.Google Scholar
  113. NIH (National Institutes of Health) (2004). Report to Congress on Affordability of Inventions and Products, July 2004, available at http://ott.od.nih.gov/NewPages/211856ottrept.pdf.
  114. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2002). The Ethics of Patenting DNA (June), available at http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/patentingdna/introduction.
  115. Nyamiti, Charles(n.d.). African Tradition and the Christian God. Eldoret, Kenya: Gaba, Spearhead, No. 49.Google Scholar
  116. Nyamiti, Charles (1973). The Scope of African Theology. Kampala, Uganda: Gaba.Google Scholar
  117. Olupuna, Jacob K. (ed.) (1991). African Traditional Religions in Contemporary Society. New York: Paragon House.Google Scholar
  118. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Genetic Inventions, Intellectual Property Rights and Licensing Practices) (2002). Evidence and Policies. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  119. Panel on Bioethical Concerns (1984). National Council of the Churches of Christ/USA, Genetic Engineering: Social and Ethical Consequences. New York: Pilgrim Press.Google Scholar
  120. Pérez, Carmen, and Pascale Boulet (2000). HIV/AIDS Medicines Pricing Report. Setting Objectives: Is There a Political Will? Geneva: Médecins Sans Frontiéres.Google Scholar
  121. Peters, Ted (1997). Playing God? Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  122. Peterson, Alan, and Robert Bunton (2002). The New Genetics and the Public’s Health. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  123. Peterson, Kris, and Olatubosun Obileye (2002). “Access to Drugs for HIV/AIDS and related Opportunistic Infections in Nigeria,” Policy Project, Nigeria.Google Scholar
  124. Pollack, Andrew (2003). “University’s’ Drug Patent is Invalidated by a Judge,” New York Times, March 6.Google Scholar
  125. Pontifical Academy for Life (2003). “Concluding Communiqué on the ‘Ethics of Biomedical Research for a Christian Vision,” 24-26 February, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pont-acd_life_doc_20030226_ix-gen-assembly-final_en.html.
  126. President’s Council on Bioethics(2002). Transcript of Fifth Meeting, July11, Session2: Regulation 5: Patentability of Human Organisms, available at http://bioethicsprint.bioethics.gov/transcripts/jul02/session2.html.
  127. President’s Council on Bioethics (2004). “Reproduction and Responsibility: The Regulation of New Biotechnologies,” March, available at www.bioethics.gov, 157-163.
  128. Pufendorf, Samuel (1994). Political Writings 177. Michael J. Seidler (trans.), Craig L. Carr (ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  129. Raghavan, Chakravarthi (1999). “Protecting IRPs of Local and Indigenous Communities,” October 12. Third World Network. Retrieved April 10, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/local-cn.htm.
  130. Raghavan, Chakravarthi (2000). “ASEAN for Protecting Indigenous/Traditional Knowledge,” May 5. Third World Network. Retrieved April 10, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/asean.htm.
  131. Rai, Arti K. (2002). “Genome Patents: A Case Study in Patenting Research Tools,” Academic Medicine 77, 1368-1372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Rai, Arti K., and Rebecca S. Eisenberg(2003).“Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine,” 66 Law and Contemporary Problems, 289.Google Scholar
  133. Rasmussen, A. Terrill (1965). Christian Responsibility in Economic Life. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press.Google Scholar
  134. Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  135. Reichard, Gladys A. (1950). Navaho Religion: A Study of Symbolism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  136. Resnik, David B. (2001). “DNA Patents and Human Dignity,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 29, 152-165.Google Scholar
  137. Richardson, John R. (1966). Christian Economics: Studies in the Christian Message to the Market Place. Houston, TX: St. Thomas.Google Scholar
  138. Rose, Carol M. (2003). “Romans, Roads, and Romantic Creators: Traditions of Public Property in the Information Age,” 66 Law and Contemporary Problems, 89.Google Scholar
  139. Rose, Mark (2003). “Nine-tenths of the Law: The English Copyright Debates and the Rhetoric of the Public Domain,” 66 Law and Contemporary Problems, 75.Google Scholar
  140. Sakakibara, M. Branstetter L. (2001). “Do Stronger Patents Induce More Innovation? Evidence from the 1998 Japanese Patent Law Reforms,” Rand Journal of Economics 32, 77-100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Schaffner, Joan E. (1995). “Patent Preemption Unlocked,” 1995 Wisconsin Law Review 1081, 1088.Google Scholar
  142. Scherer, F.M. (2002).“The Economics of Human Gene Patents,” Academic Medicine 77, 1348-1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Scherer, F.M., and Sandy Weisburst (1995). “Economic Effects of Strengthening Pharmaceutical Patent Protection in Italy,” International Review of Industry Property and Copyright Law 6, 1009-1024.Google Scholar
  144. Schertenleib, Dennis (2003). “The Patentability and Protection of DNA Based Inventions in the EPO and the European Union,” European Intellectual Property Review 124, 127.Google Scholar
  145. Schissel, Anna, Jon F. Merz, and Mildred K. Cho (1999). “Survey Confirms Fears about Genetic Tests,” Nature 402, 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Schwartz, M. Trudelle (1997). Molded in the Image of Changing Woman: Navajo Views on the Human Body and Personhood. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  147. Schweitzer, Stuart O.(1997).“Patent Protection,” Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy, 195-206.Google Scholar
  148. Scotchmer, S. Green J. (1990). “Novelty and Disclosure in Patent Law,” Rand Journal of Economics 21, 131-146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Setiloane, Gabriel(1976). The Image of God Among the Sotho-Tswana. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: A. A. Balkema.Google Scholar
  150. Sharp, David (2004).“Not-for-Profit Drugs—No Longer an Oxymoron?,” Lancet 364, 1472-1474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Slater, Dashka (2002). “Humouse™,” Legal Affairs, November/December, available at http://www. legalaffairs.org/issues/November-December-2002/feature_slater_novdec2002.html.
  152. Smith, Claire, Heather Burke, and Graeme Ward (2000). “Globalisation and Indigenous Peoples,” In Claire Smith and Graeme K. Ward (eds.), Indigenous Cultures in an Interconnected World. St. Leonards, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  153. Solovitch, Sara (2001). “The Citizen Scientists,” WIRED Magazine 9.09, September.Google Scholar
  154. Steele, Richard (1684). The Tradesman’s Calling, being a Discourse concerning the Nature, Necessity, Choice, etc., of a Calling in general. London.Google Scholar
  155. Stevens, Stan (ed.) (1997). Conservation Through Cultural Survival: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  156. Stone, Richard (1995). “Religious Leaders Oppose Patenting Genes and Animals,” Science 268, 1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Tangwa, Godfrey (2002). “The HIV/AIDS Pandemic, African Traditional Values and the Search for a Vaccine in Africa,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27(2), 217-230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Tauli-Corpuz (online). Biotechnology and indigenous peoples. Third World Network. Retrieved April 10, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/tokar.htm.
  159. Tawney, Richard H. (1926). Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  160. Tawney, Richard H., and Eileen Power (eds.) (1924). “The Debate on Monopolies in the House of Commons, 1601,” Tudor Economic Documents, vol. 2 of 3, 269-292. London: Longmans, Green.Google Scholar
  161. Thomas, Sandy M., Michael M. Hopkins, and Brady, Max (2002). “Shares in the Human Genome—The Future of Patenting DNA,” Nature Biotechnology 20, 1185-1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Travaglini, Arcangelo (2001). “Reconciling Natural Law and Legal Positivism in the Deep Seabed Mining Provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea,” 15 Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, 313, 318.Google Scholar
  163. Troeltsch, Ernst (1931). The Social Teachings of the Christian Churches, vol. 1, Olive Wyon (trans.). New York: MacMillan, pp. 115-117.Google Scholar
  164. Troeltsch, Ernst (1986). Protestantism and Progress: The Significance of Protestantism for the Rise of the Modern World. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.Google Scholar
  165. Tuma, Rabiya S. (2003). “AAAS president’s Surprise Plea for Low-tech Research,” BioMedNet News, 13 February.Google Scholar
  166. United Church of Christ Pronouncement on Christian Faith (1989). Economic Life and Justice, passed by General Synod 17 of the United Church of Christ in July.Google Scholar
  167. University of Rochester Medical Center (2000). “University of Rochester Awarded Patent for New Class of Drugs Known as Cox-2 Inhibitors; Files Infringement Suit Against Searle, Pfizer,” April 12, available at http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/Cox-2/pr.html.
  168. USDHHS (US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health) (1999). “Principles and Guidelines for Recipients of NIH Research Grants and Contracts on Obtaining and Disseminating Biomedical Research Resources,” 64 Federal Register 72090 (December 23, 1999).Google Scholar
  169. USDHHS (US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health) (2004). “Best Practices for the Licensing of Genomic Inventions,” 69 Federal Register 67747 (November 19), at 67747-67748.Google Scholar
  170. USGAO (U.S. General Accounting Office) (2002). “Intellectual Property: Federal Agency Efforts in Transferring and Reporting New Technology,” GAO-03-47, October, at 5-7. US Office of Technology Assessment (1987). “New Developments in Biotechnology: Public Perceptions of Biotechnology,” May.Google Scholar
  171. US Patent and Trademark Office (2001). “Utility Examination Guidelines,” 66 Federal Register 1092, January 5.Google Scholar
  172. Van Niekerk, Anton A. (2001). “Moral and Social complexities of AIDS in Africa,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27(2), 143-162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Virus Weekly (2002). February 19-February 26, 2002.Google Scholar
  174. Walterscheid, Edward C. (1998). To Promote the Progress of Useful Arts: American Patent Law and Administration, 1787-1836. Littleton, CO: Fred B. Rothman.Google Scholar
  175. Warren, Dennis M. (1974). “Disease, Medicine and Religion Among the Techiman-Bono of Ghana: A Study in Cultural Change,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Indiana, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  176. Waterson, Michael (1990). “The Economics of Product Patents,” American Economics Review 80, 860-869.Google Scholar
  177. Williams-Jones, Bryn (2002). “History of Gene Patent: Tracing the Development and Application of Commercial BRCA Testing,” 10 Health Law Journal, 123.Google Scholar
  178. Working Group on Bioethics and Biotechnology, European Ecumenical Commission for Church and Society (1996). “Clarification of the Submission on the EC Draft Patenting Directive,” November 5, available at http://www.srtp.org.uk/eeccpt12.htm.
  179. Wright, Susan, and David A. Wallace (2000). “Varieties of Secrets and Secret Varieties: The Case of Biotechnology,” Politics and the Life Sciences 19(1), 45-57.Google Scholar
  180. Young, Allan (1975). “Magic as a Quasi-Profession: The Organization of Magic and Magical Healing Among Amhara,” Ethnology 14, 245-265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Anderlik Majumder
    • 1
  • Margaret M. Byrne
    • 2
  • Elias Bongmba
    • 3
  • Leslie S. Rothenberg
    • 4
    • 5
  • Nancy Neveloff Dubler
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.Center for Medical Ethics and Health PolicyBaylor College of MedicineUSA
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Miller School of MedicineUniversity of MiamiUSA
  3. 3.Religious Studies DepartmentRice UniversityUSA
  4. 4.David Geffen School of MedicineUCLAUSA
  5. 5.Kaiser PermanenteLos Angeles
  6. 6.Division of Bioethics and the Center for Ethics and Law in Medicine, Department of Family and Social MedicineMontefiore Medical CenterUSA
  7. 7.The Albert Einstein College of MedicineUSA

Personalised recommendations