Abstract
In November 2009, a group of leading scientists, including two Nobel Prize winners, John Sulston and Joseph Stiglitz, published The Manchester Manifesto (2009), which constituted the conclusion of a long term effort to reflect on the ownership of science and the best way to manage it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
BBF (2015a). BioBricks Foundation. About. http://biobricks.org/about-foundation/. Accessed: 11 May 2015.
BBF (2015b). BioBricks Foundation. Technical Program. https://biobricks.org/programs/technical-program/. Accessed: 12 May 2015.
EC (1998). European Council. Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, OJ 1998 L 213/13.
Henkel, J., & Maurer, S.M. (2007). The economics of synthetic biology. Molecular Systems Biology, 3, 117. doi: 10.1038/msb4100161.
iGEM (n.d.). International Genetically Engineered Machine Foundation. Registry of Standard Biological Parts. http://parts.igem.org/Main_Page. Accessed: 11 May 2015.
The Manchester Manifesto (2009). Who owns Science? The Manchester Manifesto. Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation at the University of Manchester. http://www.isei.manchester.ac.uk/TheManchesterManifesto.pdf. Accessed: 11 May 2015.
Miguel Beriain, I. d. (2014). Synthetic Biology and IP Rights: In Defence of the Patent System. In: I. de Miguel Beriain, C.M. Romeo Casabona (eds.), Synbio and Human Health: A Challenge to the Current IP Framework? (pp. 201–209). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Patent troll (2015). In: Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll. Accessed: 11 May 2015.
Rai, A., & Boyle, J. (2007). Synthetic Biology: Caught between Property Rights, the Public Domain, and the Commons. PLOS Biology, 5(3), e58. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050058.
Rutz, B. (2009). Synthetic biology and patents. A European perspective. EMBO Reports, 10(S1), 14–17.
Rutz, B. (2010). Patent issues in SynBio applications. Presentation at the Synthetic Biology Workshop From Science to Governance, Brussels, 18–19 March 2010. http://ec.europa.eu/health/dialogue_collaboration/docs/ev_20100318_co18.pdf. Accessed: 11 May 2015.
Sapience (n.d.). Applying for Patent. Sapience – home of idea. http://www.sapience.org.uk/Services.aspx?Id=7. Accessed: 12 May 2015.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). UN General Assembly. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/. Accessed: 12 May 2015.
Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (1997). UNESCO General Conference. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001102/110220e.pdf#page=47. Accessed: 12 May 2015.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Miguel Beriain, I. (2016). Synbio and IP rights: looking for an adequate balance between private ownership and public interest. In: Boldt, J. (eds) Synthetic Biology. Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft / Futures of Technology, Science and Society. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10988-2_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10988-2_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-10987-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-10988-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)