Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Agriculture and Non-proprietary Science

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Social Justice and Agricultural Innovation

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the different innovation types and streams that are not covered or insufficiently incentivized by intellectual property regimes. It starts by discussing the benefits of non-proprietary science systems, in relation to increased participation, good scientific practice, the common heritage of humankind, competitive markets and public trust in science. After that it discusses types of innovation that are insufficiently incentivized. It concludes by discussing two agricultural innovation streams that are currently in danger due to the enclosure, expansion and overpromotion of intellectual property rights: traditional ecological knowledge and open science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See research and development expenditure (% of GDP) at https://data.worldbank.org/.

  2. 2.

    Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (1996), art. 27(1).

References

  • Agrawal, Arun. 2002. Indigenous knowledge and the politics of classification. International Social Science Journal 54 (173): 287–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, Miguel A. 2002. Agroecological principles for sustainable agriculture. In Agroecological Innovations: Increasing Food Production with Participatory Development, ed. Norman Uphoff, 40–46. London & Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Molly D. 2018. Scientific knowledge of food and agriculture in public institutions: movement from public to private goods. In Routledge Handbook of Food as a Commons, ed. José Luis Vivero-Pol, Tomaso Ferrando, Olivier De Schutter and Ugo Mattei, 185–202. Oxon & New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atenas, Javiera, and Leo Havemann. 2014. Questions of quality in repositories of open educational resources: A literature review. Research in Learning Technology 22: 20889.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basu, Soutrik, Joost Jongerden, and Guido Ruivenkamp. 2017. The emergence of a hybrid mode of knowledge production in the Generation Challenge Programme Rice Research Network (GCP-RRN) in India: Exploring the concept of Commons-Based Peer Production (CBPP). Geoforum 84: 107–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Yochai. 2017. Peer production, the commons, and the future of the firm. Strategic Organization 15 (2): 264–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Yochai, and Helen Nissenbaum. 2006. Commons-based peer production and virtue. The Journal of Political Philosophy 14 (4): 394–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besson, Samantha. 2015. Science without borders and the boundaries of human rights. European Journal of Human Rights 4: 462–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, Michael. 2019. Remedying the Misappropriation of Genetic Resources. In Intellectual Property Issues in Microbiology, ed. Harikesh Bahadur Singh, Chetan Keswani and Surya Pratap Singh, 147–161. Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, James. 2007. Mertonianism Unbound?: Imagining free, decentralized access to most cultural and scientific material. In Understanding Knowledge as a Commons, ed. Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom, 123–143. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, James. 2008. The Public Domain. Enclosing the Commons of the Mind. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. http://thepublicdomain.org.

  • Chesbrough, Henry. 2004. Managing open innovation. Research-Technology Management 47 (1): 23–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coolsaet, Brendan. 2015. transformative participation in agrobiodiversity governance: Making the case for an environmental justice approach. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (6): 1089–1104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deibel, Eric. 2013. Open variety rights: Rethinking the commodification of plants. Journal of Agrarian Change 13 (2): 282–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deibel, Eric. 2014. Open genetic code: On open source in the life sciences. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10: 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • di Norcia, Vincent. 2005. Intellectual property and the commercialization of research and development. Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (2): 203–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutfield, Graham. 2006. Protecting traditional knowledge: Pathways to the future. In ICTSD Programme on IPRs and Sustainable Development. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, Rebecca S., and Richard R. Nelson. 2002. Public vs. proprietary science: A fruitful tension? Daedalus 131 (2): 89–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández Pinto, Manuela. 2015. Commercialization and the limits of well-ordered science. Perspectives on Science 23 (2): 173–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertsema, Willemien, Walter A.H. Rossing, Douglas A. Landis, Felix J.J.A. Bianchi, Paul C.J. Rijn, Joop H.J. Schaminée, Teja Tscharntke, and Wopke Werf. 2016. Actionable knowledge for ecological intensification of agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14 (4): 209–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilson, Erinn Cunniff. 2015. Vulnerability, relationality, and dependency: Feminist conceptual resources for food justice. IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 8 (2): 10–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gliessman, Stephen R. 2007. Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, Maya J. 2016. Public misunderstanding of science? Reframing the problem of vaccine hesitancy. Perspectives on Science 24 (5): 552–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grey, Sam, and Raj Patel. 2015. Food sovereignty as decolonization: Some contributions from Indigenous movements to food system and development politics. Agriculture and Human Values 32 (3): 431–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, Anil K. 2006. From sink to source: The Honey Bee Network documents indigenous knowledge and innovations in India. Innovations (summer): 49–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, Anil K. 2010. Grassroots green innovations for inclusive, sustainable development. In The Innovation for Development Report 2009–2010, Strengthening Innovation for the Prosperity of the Nations, ed. Augusto, Lopez-Claros, 137–146. Houndmills & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halewood, Michael. 2013. What kind of goods are plant genetic resources for food and agriculture? Towards the identification and development of a new global commons. International Journal of the Commons 7 (2): 278–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, Charlotte, and Elinor Ostrom. 2007. Understanding Knowledge as a Commons. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt-Giménez, Eric. 2006. Campesino a campesino: Voices from Latin America’s farmer to farmer movement for sustainable agriculture. Oakland: Food First Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honoré, Anthony M. 1961. Ownership. In Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, ed. A. Guest, 107–147. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intemann, Kristen, and Inmaculada de Melo-Martín. 2014. Addressing problems in profit-driven research: How can feminist conceptions of objectivity help? European Journal for Philosophy of Science 4 (2): 135–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, Richard A. 2006. Science as social enterprise: The CAMBIA BiOS initiative. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization 1 (4): 13–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelbessa, Workineh. 2015. African environmental ethics, indigenous knowledge, and environmental challenges. Environmental Ethics 37 (4): 387–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kierkegaard, Patrick, and Angela Adrian. 2010. Wikitopia: Balancing intellectual property rights within open source research databases. Computer Law & Security Review 26 (5): 502–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klerkx, Laurens, Barbara Van Mierlo, and Cees Leeuwis. 2012. Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: Concepts, analysis and interventions. In Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic, ed. Ika Darnhofer, David Gibbon, and Benoît Dedieu, 457–483. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, Jack. 2005. First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology, 2nd ed. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, Jack. 2010. Impeding dispossession, enabling repossession: Biological open source and the recovery of seed sovereignity. Journal of Agrarian Change 10 (3): 367–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, Jack. 2014. Re-purposing the master’s tools: The open source seed initiative and the struggle for seed sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 1225–1246. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.875897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koepsell, David. 2010. Back to basics: How technology and the open source movement can save science. Social Epistemology 24 (3): 181–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonelli, Sabina. 2007. Growing weed, producing knowledge an epistemic History of Arabidopsis thaliana. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 29 (2): 193–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonelli, Sabina. 2017. MLE on Open Science: Altmetrics and Rewards—Incentives and Rewards to engage in Open Science Activities. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonelli, Sabina, Daniel Spichtinger, and Barbara Prainsack. 2015. Sticks and carrots: Encouraging open science at its source. Geo: Geography and Environment 2 (1): 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Changhua, and Gu Man. 2011. Protecting traditional knowledge of Chinese medicine: Concepts and proposals. Frontiers of medicine 5 (2): 212–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louwaars, Niels. 2007. Seeds of confusion: The impact of policies on seed systems: Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen Universiteit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luby, Claire H., Jack R. Kloppenburg, and Irwin L. Goldman. 2016. Open source plant breeding and the open source seed initiative. Plant Breeding Reviews 40: 271–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucier, Paul. 2019. Can marketplace science be trusted? Nature 574: 481–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig, David. 2015. Indigenous and scientific kinds. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 68 (1): 187–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane, Bruce, and Ming Cheng. 2008. Communism, universalism and disinterestedness: Re-examining contemporary support among academics for Merton’s scientific norms. Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (1): 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9055-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, Christopher. 2006. Patents, universities and the provision of social goods in the information society. Ethical Perspectives 13 (2): 289–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, Robert K. 1942. Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1 (1–2): 115–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moahi, Kgomotso H. 2007. Globalization, knowledge economy and the implications for indigenous knowledge. International Review of Information Ethics 7: 55–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montenegro de Wit, Maywa. 2019. Beating the bounds: How does ‘open source’ become a seed commons? The Journal of Peasant Studies 46 (1): 44–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, Elinor, and Charlotte Hess. 2007. A framework for analyzing the knowledge commons. In Understanding Knowledge as a Commons, ed. Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom, 41–82. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peres, Sara. 2016. Saving the gene pool for the future: Seed banks as archives. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 55: 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.09.002.

  • Piesse, Jenifer, and C. Thirtle. 2010. Agricultural R&D, technology and productivity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365 (1554): 3035–3047.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plumwood, Val. 2006. The concept of a cultural landscape: Nature, culture and agency in the land. Ethics and the Environment 11 (2): 115–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prathapan, K.Divakaran, and Priyadarsanan Dharma Rajan. 2011. Biological diversity: A common heritage. Economic & Political Weekly 46 (14): 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, Christopher J., and Fern Wickson. 2016. Broadening the lens for the governance of emerging technologies: Care ethics and agricultural biotechnology. Technology in Society 45: 48–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radder, Hans. 2010. The commodification of academic research. In Science and the Modern University, ed. Hans Radder, 1–23. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, Eric. 1999. The cathedral and the bazaar. Knowledge, Technology & Policy 12 (3): 23–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyes-García, Victoria, Petra Benyei, and Laura Calvet-Mir. 2018. Traditional agricultural knowledge as a commons. In Routledge Handbook of Food as a Commons, ed. José Luis Vivero-Pol, Tomasso Ferrando, Olivier De Schutter and Ugo Mattei, 173–184. Oxon & New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricciardi, Vincent, Navin Ramankutty, Zia Mehrabi, Larissa Jarvis, and Brenton Chookolingo. 2018. How much of the world’s food do smallholders produce? Global Food Security 17: 64–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, Daniel. 2008. Beyond ‘protection’: Promoting traditional knowledge systems in Thailand. In Patenting Lives: Life Patents, Culture and Development, ed. Johanna Gibson, 121–138. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Röling, Niels G., Joseph Ascroft, and Fred Wa Chege. 1976. The diffusion of innovations and the issue of equity in rural development. Communication Research 3 (2): 155–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosset, Peter Michael, Braulio Machin Sosa, Adilén María Roque Jaime, and Dana Rocío Ávila Lozano. 2011. The Campesino-to-Campesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: Social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies 38 (1): 161–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozzi, Ricardo. 2012. Biocultural ethics: Recovering the vital links between the inhabitants, their habits, and habitats. Environmental Ethics 34 (1): 27–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sá, Creso, and Merli Tamtik. 2011. Structural genomics and the organisation of open science. Genomics, Society and Policy 7 (1): 20–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiebinger, Londa. 2004. Feminist history of colonial science. Hypatia 19 (1): 233–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoonmaker, Sara. 2007. Globalization from below: Free software and alternatives to neoliberalism. Development and Change 38 (6): 999–1020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweik, Charles M. 2007. Free/open-source software as a framework for establishing commons in science. In Understanding Knowledge as a Commons, ed. Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shackelford, Scott J. 2008. The tragedy of the common heritage of mankind. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 27: 101–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, Lea. 2010. The right to science and culture. Wisconsin Law Review 121: 121–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, Brad. 2016. Reconceptualizing intellectual property to promote food security. In The Intellectual Property and Food Project, ed. Charles Lawson and Jay Sanderson, 39–54. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, Vandana. 2009. Women and the gendered politics of food. Philosophical Topics 37 (2): 17–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shivarajan, Sridevi, and Aravind Srinivasan. 2013. The poor as suppliers of intellectual property: A social network approach to sustainable poverty alleviation. Business Ethics Quarterly 23 (3): 381–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soria-López, Manuel, and Israel Fuentes-Páramo. 2016. The identification of biopiracy in patents. World Patent Information 47: 67–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinvorth, Ulrich. 2009. The right to work and the right to develop one’s capabilities. Analyse & Kritik 1: 101–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, Paula E. 2012. How Economics Shapes Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterckx, Sigrid. 2011. Patenting and licensing of university research: Promoting innovation or undermining academic values? Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (1): 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, Joseph E. 1999. Knowledge as a global public good. In Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century, ed. Inge Kaul, Isabelle Grunberg and Marc A. Stern, 308–325. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Šūmane, Sandra, Ilona Kunda, Karlheinz Knickel, Agnes Strauss, Talis Tisenkopfs, Ignacio des Ios Rios, Maria Rivera, Tzruya Chebach, and Amit Ashkenazy. 2018. Local and farmers’ knowledge matters! How integrating informal and formal knowledge enhances sustainable and resilient agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies 59: 232–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taubman, Antony. 2005. Saving the village: Conserving jurisprudential diversity in the international protection of traditional knowledge. In International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology Under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime, ed. Keith E. Maskus and Jerome H. Reichman, 521–564. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tietze, Frank, Elisabeth Eppinger, Jan Sternkopf, and Pratheeba Vimalnath. 2017. IP strategies for sustainability, in 2017 IEEE Technology & Engineering Management Conference (TEMSCON). Santa Clara: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMSCON.2017.7998373.

  • Timmermann, Cristian. 2014. Sharing in or benefiting from scientific advancement? Science and Engineering Ethics 20 (1): 111–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermann, Cristian, and Georges F. Félix. 2015. Agroecology as a vehicle for contributive justice. Agriculture and Human Values 32 (3): 523–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermann, Cristian, and Zoë Robaey. 2016. Agrobiodiversity under different property regimes. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (2): 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9602-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timmermann, Cristian, and Henk van den Belt. 2012. Global justice considerations for a proposed “Climate Impact Fund”. Public Reason 4 (1–2): 182–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tittonell, Pablo. 2013. Farming Systems Ecology: Towards Ecological Intensification of World Agriculture. Wageningen: Wageningen Universiteit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, Andrew W., and Eric von Hippel. 2015. The right to innovate. Michigan State Law Review 2015 (2): 793–829.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trerise, Jonathan. 2016. The influence of patents on science. Politics, Philosophy & Economics 15 (4): 424–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Belt, Henk. 2010. Robert Merton, intellectual property, and open science. In The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University, ed. Hans Radder, 187–230. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Parijs, Philippe. 2011. Linguistic Justice for Europe and for the World. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanloqueren, Gaëtan, and Philippe V. Baret. 2009. How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Research Policy 38 (6): 971–983.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigmann, Katrin. 2005. The consequence of errors. EMBO Reports 6 (4): 306–309. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickson, Fern. 2016. Do we care about synbiodiversity? questions arising from an investigation into whether there are GM crops in the Svalbard global seed vault. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (5): 787–811.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfrum, Rüdiger. 1983. The principle of the common heritage of mankind. Heidelberg Journal of International Law 43: 312–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Conference of Science. 1999. Declaration of Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge. Budapest: UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/eng/declaration_e.htm.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interdisciplinary Center for Studies in Bioethics, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile

    Cristian Timmermann

Authors
  1. Cristian Timmermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristian Timmermann .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Timmermann, C. (2020). Agriculture and Non-proprietary Science. In: Social Justice and Agricultural Innovation. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics, vol 31. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56193-2_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation