Biotechnological patents and morality: A critical view from a developing country
Biotechnology has now become an important factor for the increasing rate of scientific and technological development, particularly in the fields of medicine and agriculture. A great deal of modern pharmaceuticals have been directly and indirectly developed from biotech inventions. For example, it is estimated that nearly 30 per cent of the present world drug market is accounted for by biotechnological products such as antibiotics, steroids, vitamins, and vaccines. The significance of biotechnology may stem from the fact that some modern drugs developed from biotechnology are able to target traditional diseases more precisely than conventional drugs, and biotech medicines provide more precise cures with fewer side effects (Business Week, 1992, pp. 52-53). In agriculture, plant breeding was once restricted to sexually compatible plants, and generations of offspring were selectively bred to create unique varieties. Currently, genetically modified (GM) crops have the fastest adoption rate of any new technology in global agriculture simply because of their claimed benefits from higher yields and lowered production costs. It is estimated that over 9,000 permits have been issued to field-test GM crops by United States Animal and Plant Health ABsTrACT
Genetically Modified Corn— Environmental Benefits and Risks
To plant or not to plant. A discussion of the environmental benefits and risks of genetically modified crops
New Life for Patents: Chakrabarty and Rohm & Haas Co.
The Supreme Court decided two patent cases in June 1980. In each it sustained the validity of the patent. In each it allowed the inventor of a process to monopolize the key product used in the process. In each an ambiguous legislative history was interpreted in favor of broader patent protection. The decisions caused real doubt about the survival of recent opinions in which the Court suggested that the question of broadening patent coverage be left to Congress. Diamond v. CbakrabartyI attracted wide attention in the press because it approved a patent on a new life form created through genetic engineering. Dawson Chemical Co. v. Robinm & Haas Co. 2 drew little attention, apparently because it dealt with the seemingly unexciting question of the scope of protection afforded by a patent on a new method for destroying weed life. Robm & Haas and the overall Court shift in attitude toward patents may, nevertheless, have much greater significance than Chakrabarty. Both cases have already generated considerable commentary and are sure to generate more.3 My analysis will concentrate on the economic and patent policy issues presented by the cases. Detailed