Abstract
In global bioethics, the concept benefit sharing refers to the promotion of equitable access to and the sharing of benefits derived from scientific and technological progress, with a focus on facilitating the transfer of benefits from developed to developing countries and communities. This entry focuses on four benefit-sharing aspects: international declarations, guidelines, and statements; contextual discourses to justify benefit sharing; legal considerations of benefit sharing; and international instruments to protect traditional knowledge and natural resources. The most important international declarations, guidelines, and statements include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, the CIOMS Guidelines, and the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data. The contextual discourses to justify benefit sharing are the following: common heritage of humankind (justice-as-equality), benefit sharing of genetic resources within the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol (justice-as-exchange), and international clinical research (solidarity, reciprocity, fair benefit, procedural justice, capacity building, maximin, humanitarian needs). The legal considerations of benefit sharing focus on intellectual property systems, patents, compulsory licensing, and biopiracy. Lastly, the international instruments to protect traditional knowledge and natural resources are the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Nagoya Protocol, and the Doha Declaration.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alter, G. C., & Vardigan, M. (2015). Addressing global data sharing challenges. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 10(3), 317–323.
Chetwood, J. D., Ladep, N. G., & Taylor-Robinson, D. (2015). Research partnerships between high and low-income countries: Are international partnerships always a good thing? BMC Medical Ethics, 16, 36. doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0030-z.
CIOMS. (2002). International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Bulletin of Medical Ethics, 182, 17.
Dauda, B., & Dierickx, K. (2013). Benefit sharing: An exploration on the contextual discourse of a changing concept. BMC Medical Ethics, 14, 36. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-14-36.
Galjaard, H. (2009). Article 15: Sharing of benefits. In H. A. M. J. Ten Have & M. S. Jean (Eds.), The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights: Background, principles and application (pp. 231–241). Paris: UNESCO.
Hughes, R. C. (2014). Justifying community benefit requirements in international research. Bioethics, 28(8), 397–404.
Pratt, B., & Loff, B. (2014). A framework to link international clinical research to the promotion of justice in global health. Bioethics, 28(4), 387–396. doi:10.1111/bioe.12009.
UNESCO. (2004). In Records of the general conference, 32nd session, Paris, 29 Sept–17 Oct 2003. Vol. 1, Resolutions (pp. 39–46). Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2005). Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2010). Report of the International Bioethics Committee (IBC) of UNESCO on the principle of social responsibility and health. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2013a). Future vision of UNESCO’s bioethics programme. Document SHS/EGC/IBC-20/13/INF.4, 10 June 2013. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2013b). Report of the IBC on traditional medicine systems and their ethical implications. Document SHS/EGC/IBC-19/12/3 Rev, 8 Feb 2013. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2014). Report of the IBC on the principle of non-discrimination and non-stigmatization. Document SHS/EGC/IBC-20/13/2 REV.3, 6 Mar 2014. Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN general assembly resolution 217 A (III), 10 Dec 1948. New York: United Nations.
Yassi, A., Breilh, J., Dharamsi, S., Lockhart, K., & Speigel, J. M. (2013). The ethics of ethics review in global health research: case studies applying a new paradigm. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11, 83–101. doi:10.1007/s10805-013-9182-y.
Further Readings
Sofaer, N. (2014). Reciprocity-based reasons for benefiting research participants: Most fail, the most plausible is problematic. Bioethics, 28(9), 456–471.
United Nations Environmental Programme. (2011). Nagoya protocol on access to genetic resources and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity.. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
World Trade Organization (WTO). (2001). Doha Declaration on TRIPs Agreement and Public Health, Doha WTO ministerial declaration. Document WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2, 20 Nov 2001. Geneva: World Trade Organization.
Wynberg, R., & Chennels, R. (2009). Green diamonds of the South: An overview of the San-Hoodia case. In R. Wynberg, D. Schroeder, & R. Chennels (Eds.), Indigenous peoples, consent and benefit sharing: Lessons from the San-Hoodia case (pp. 89–124). London: Springer.
Acknowledgments
This entry is the work product of an academic of the Tshwane University of Technology, South Africa. However, the statements, opinions, or conclusions contained therein do not necessarily represent the statements, opinions, or conclusions of the university.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this entry
Cite this entry
Hoffmann, W.A. (2015). Benefit-Sharing. In: ten Have, H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_38-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_38-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05544-2
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities