The commentator who dares wade into the murky waters of intellectual property should do so with plenty of protective gear in place. There are three really big risks here. First, never was a metaphor more appropriate than murky waters. Intellectual property law is truly arcane, especially the branch of it that is most contentious from a global health perspective; i.e., patent law. It is difficult enough to determine how patents are awarded and what constitutes patentable property within any nation. On the international level opacity is magnified by international trade agreements. These agreements create enormous ambiguities in terms of patent enforcement, licensing, ownership and patent life. Second, hidden in the murky waters are property rights sharks ready to make mincemeat of anyone who dares suggest that property rights are not sacrosanct. Third, equally hidden are human rights piranhas who are ready to feed on anyone who dares suggest that property rights deserve any consideration when human life and well-being are at stake.
Well, here goes my first tentative step into those waters. However, I'm taking that step with a white flag clearly flying. I am not taking either a pro human rights or a pro property rights position (I think I just felt a shark's tooth on my right leg and a piranha nibble on the left.). Actually, I value both and am just enough of an idealist to think that while there will always be tension between the two, there is middle riverbed ground to be found. (Now I am feeling full-fledged bites.)
In the February 22, 2008 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, Panjabi, Rajkumar and Kim offer an interesting perspective on the research university's role and responsibility in humanitarian technology transfer (http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i24/24a03201.htm). Panjabi , et al point out something that we too often overlook in the patent fracas. Much of the basic research (and it seems to this author an increasing amount of applied research) that leads to significant technological medical advances takes place in university laboratories. Punjabi, et al suggest that because universities exist to create and disseminate knowledge in the public interest, that they have a responsibility to make sure that potentially life-saving technology developed in their laboratories be shared with the public, including the public that resides in the developing world. The problem for universities is that they are not in a position to take their discoveries from the laboratory bench to the marketplace. Private industry performs that function. To make the development process work, universities transfer their technological developments to private industry through the sale and/or licensing of patents. Panjabi, et al recommend that these licensing agreements contain language that requires the humanitarian dissemination of the new technology.
Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM) works with students and faculty in universities in the U.S., Canada, and Europe to promote humanitarian technology transfer. Readers who are interested in learning more about this topic and/or in becoming involved in promoting the concept of humanitarian technology transfer by universities should review this site.
Because it holds little promise of immediate profit, technology transfer to developing countries has been and will continue to be a challenge. However, the problem is not limited to the developing world. The same pattern holds true within developed countries. Poor people may not have access to the technologies that were developed in university laboratories. Much of the research that takes place in the university is supported either directly (ex., by federal government grants) or indirectly (ex., state tax dollars) by the general public. Everyone who supports this research should have an opportunity to benefit from it. Because they are entrusted with public money given for public purposes, universities have an ethical obligation to consider how to best assure that the intellectual property they transfer will benefit the public that paid for it.
Now to paraphrase the line from Jaws, I think I need a bigger boat.
Well, here goes my first tentative step into those waters. However, I'm taking that step with a white flag clearly flying. I am not taking either a pro human rights or a pro property rights position (I think I just felt a shark's tooth on my right leg and a piranha nibble on the left.). Actually, I value both and am just enough of an idealist to think that while there will always be tension between the two, there is middle riverbed ground to be found. (Now I am feeling full-fledged bites.)
In the February 22, 2008 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, Panjabi, Rajkumar and Kim offer an interesting perspective on the research university's role and responsibility in humanitarian technology transfer (http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i24/24a03201.htm). Panjabi , et al point out something that we too often overlook in the patent fracas. Much of the basic research (and it seems to this author an increasing amount of applied research) that leads to significant technological medical advances takes place in university laboratories. Punjabi, et al suggest that because universities exist to create and disseminate knowledge in the public interest, that they have a responsibility to make sure that potentially life-saving technology developed in their laboratories be shared with the public, including the public that resides in the developing world. The problem for universities is that they are not in a position to take their discoveries from the laboratory bench to the marketplace. Private industry performs that function. To make the development process work, universities transfer their technological developments to private industry through the sale and/or licensing of patents. Panjabi, et al recommend that these licensing agreements contain language that requires the humanitarian dissemination of the new technology.
Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM) works with students and faculty in universities in the U.S., Canada, and Europe to promote humanitarian technology transfer. Readers who are interested in learning more about this topic and/or in becoming involved in promoting the concept of humanitarian technology transfer by universities should review this site.
Because it holds little promise of immediate profit, technology transfer to developing countries has been and will continue to be a challenge. However, the problem is not limited to the developing world. The same pattern holds true within developed countries. Poor people may not have access to the technologies that were developed in university laboratories. Much of the research that takes place in the university is supported either directly (ex., by federal government grants) or indirectly (ex., state tax dollars) by the general public. Everyone who supports this research should have an opportunity to benefit from it. Because they are entrusted with public money given for public purposes, universities have an ethical obligation to consider how to best assure that the intellectual property they transfer will benefit the public that paid for it.
Now to paraphrase the line from Jaws, I think I need a bigger boat.
0 comments:
Post a Comment