Intellectual Property Rights and the North-South Contest for Agricultural Germplasm: A Historical Perspective
This article examines intellectual property rights (IPR) regimes as they apply to agricultural germplasm in the context of global North-South relations. The issue is pertinent particularly since TRIPs (Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) became enshrined in the statutes of the World Trade Organization in 1994, institutionalizing the notion of ‘germplasm as property’ throughout the globe. Yet, the idea of ‘germplasm as property’ is a notion culturally specific to the global North historically. It is perhaps no surprise that many germplasm patents are being held on biological matter that originated in the South–in the Vavilovian ‘centers of diversity’. This paradox situates the contest over biodiversity resources in a world-historic context and undermines the declared reasons for germplasm IPRs. Besides, more than just a North-South conflict over resources, this episode features also a confrontation between competing worldviews of nature-human relations.
Agriculture and Intellectual Property Rights: Economic, Institutional and Implementation Issues in Biotechnology
1: Introduction, V Santaniello et al. 2: Patent and Other Private Legal Rights for Biotechnology Inventions (Intellectual Property Rights - IPR), D D Evenson, P.L.L.C., Washington, USA 3: Intellectual Property Rights of Plant Varieties and of Biotechnology in the European Union, V Santaniello 4: Intellectual Property Rights under the Convention on Biological Diversity, W Lesser, Cornell University, USA 5: An Economic Approach to Identifying An `Effective Sui Generis System' for Plant Variety Protection Under TRIPS, W Lesser 6: Recent Intellectual Property Rights Controversies and Issues at the CGIAR, S H Bragdon, IPGRI, Rome, Italy 7: Economics of Intellectual Property Rights for Agricultural Technology, R E Evenson 8: The Market Value of Farmers' Rights, R Mendelsohn, Yale University, USA 9: International Crop Breeding in a World of Proprietary Technology, B D Wright, University of California, USA 10: Knowledge Management and the Economics of Agricultural Biotechnology, D Zilberman and C Yarkin, University of California, USA and A Heiman, Hebrew University, Israel 11: Comparing Allocation of Resources in Public and Private Research, S Lemarie, Universite Pierre-Mendes, Grenoble, France 12: Biotechnology Inventions: What Can We Learn From Patents?, D K N Johnson, Wellesley College, Massachusetts, USA and V Santaniello 13: Biotechnology Inventions: Patent Data Evidence, A Zohrabyan, Yale University, USA and R E Evenson 14: Property Rights and Regulations for Transgenic Crops in North America, G Carlson and M Marra, North Carolina State University, USA 15: Intellectual Property Rights, Canola and Public Research in Canada, P W B Phillips, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
The costs of identifying undiagnosed prostate cancer in asymptomatic men in New Zealand general practice
Background. Screening for prostate cancer (PCa) using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test is widespread in New Zealand. 3 informed testing history in 2007–09 were NZ$8887 compared to NZ$13 870 if the men had PSA tests in 2007–09. If we assumed a PSA test involved a full 15-minute general practice consultation, the estimated costs increased to NZ$26 877 per PCa identified. Conclusions. Screening of asymptomatic men for PCa is widely practiced. Most of the costs of screening were incurred in general practice. Calls for men to receive increased information on the harms and benefits of screening will substantially increase the costs. The current costs could be reduced by better targeting of screening.