History and Past Activities
|
|
History and Past Activities |
Schneider, Ingrid
University of Hamburg
FSP BIOGUM (Biotechnology, Society and the Environment - Medicine/Neuronal Sciences)
Germany, Hamburg - Ingrid.Schneider@uni-hamburg.de
The controversy on the EU- biotechnology directive and its national implementation: Contested concepts and boundaries between human biological "material" and "information" in intellectual property claims
It took more than ten years until the EU-Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (98/44/EG) was passed in 1998. Until today, only eight EU member states have passed legislation to give it effect. This procrastination points to continuing controversies on the patentability of “living material” particularly when derived from the human body. From a discourse analytical perspective my paper first reconstructs how major frames (“economy” and “ethics”) were displaced and relocated in the course of debate. It secondly looks at the role of genes as boundary objects and how different concepts of “the gene” (determinist vs. relational definition) entered the formulation of policies. In a critical analysis of the arguments, I will finally argue that territorial metaphors focussing on a “colonization” of the human body and on ownership of its miniature parts (genes, cells) are hardly convincing. It does make more sense to distinguish between tangible and intangible subject matter, on the one hand, and either scarce or very basic resources on the other. When the subject is categorized as information, it has to be regarded as a non-rivalrous good which can be infinitely used by multiple actors, even simultaneously, without being “used up”. The rationale for patenting therefore is grounded on problems known for common goods: there should be incentives to provide the good and "free riders" be excluded. However, when the number of “human genes” is limited and when certain knowledge on DNA-sequences is basic for genetic research in general, this calls for measures to prevent a “tragedy of the anti-commons” (Heller/Eisenberg). Certain strategies are discussed, either to exclude the DNA-sequence “as such” from patentability or to restrict the scope of a patent. I will also touch questions of access and benefit-sharing, the protection of privacy and confidentiality, and the regulative idea of the “human genome” as a “common heritage of humankind”.
Sociology of Science and Technology NETwork - last update: April 2006