Ethical Impacts of Human Health-Related Biotechnology in Brazil

  • Marilia Bernardes Marques


The expression “modern biotechnology” alludes to a very diffuse and expansive arena of diverse interest groups that has been rising internationally in the last three decades. In fact, since the 1970s, modern biotechnology has been surrounded by remarkable controversies and public concern, with numerous debates polarised between economic arguments and ethical dilemmas. This situation was stimulated by the sharp flow of genetic engineering methods, which has increased the potential of biotechnology to modify and interfere with life.1 It was also during the 70s and the 80s that the word bioethics became progressively popular, contemporaneously to this outburst of genetic engineering techniques.


Intellectual Property Human Genome Project Modern Biotechnology Bioethical Issue Ethical Impact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adler, R.G. (1992), ‘Genome Research: fulfilling the public’s expectations for knowledge and commercialization’, Science Vol. 257, pp. 908–914.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blumenthal, D.; Gluck, M.; Louis, KS.; Wise, D. (1986), ‘Industrial support of university research in biotechnology’, Science Vol. 231, pp. 242–246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brasil, Senado Federal (1995), Projeto de Lei No 306, Autoria: Senadora Marina Silva.Google Scholar
  4. Brasil, Congresso Nacional (1995), Lei No 8974, Janeiro.Google Scholar
  5. Brasil, Congresso Nacional (1995b), Projeto de Lei No 1153, Autoria: Deputado Sergio Arouca.Google Scholar
  6. Brasil, Congresso Nacional (1996) Lei No 9279, 14 de Maio.Google Scholar
  7. Brasil, Conselho Nacional de Saúde (1996), Resolução No. 196, 10 de Outubro.Google Scholar
  8. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., (1989) Biotechnology Law for the 1990s: Analysis and Perspective Special Report, N 4.Google Scholar
  9. Caskey, T.; Eisenberg, R.S.; Lander, E.S.; Straus, J., (1995) HUGO Statement on the Patenting of DNA Sequences, Document, The Human Genome Organization, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Champagne, P. and Marchetti, D. (1994), ‘L’information medicale sous contrainte. A propos du scandale du sang contaminé’, Actes de La Recherche en Sciences Sociales, Mars, pp. 40–62.Google Scholar
  11. Churchill, I.J. (1994), ‘Patenting humanity: the development of property rights in the human body and the subsequent evolution of patentability of living things’, Intellectual Property Journal Vol. 8, pp.249–284.Google Scholar
  12. Cook-Deegan, R.M., (1994), ‘Origins of the Human Genome Project’ Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, Vol.5N.2, pp. 97–118.Google Scholar
  13. Crucible Group (1994), People, Plants and Patents: the Impact of Intellectual Property on Biodiversity, Conservation, Trade, and Rural Society, The International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  14. Drews, J., (1996) Intent and Coincidence in Drug Research: The Impact of Biotechnology Editiones Roche F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  15. Edelman, B. (1991), ‘Expérimentation sur l’homme: une loi sacrificielle’, La Recherche Vol. 22, pp. 1056–1065.Google Scholar
  16. Gillam L. (1994), ‘Bioethics and public policy in Australia’, Politics and the Life Sciences Vol. 3, pp. 87–88.Google Scholar
  17. Hanna, K.E.; Cook-Degan, R.M. and Nishimi, R. (1993) ‘Finding a forum for bioethics in U.S. Public Policy’, Politics and the Life Sciences Vol. 12, pp. 205–219.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Healy, B., (1992) ‘Special Report on Gene Patenting’, The New England Journal of Medicine Vol. 327N. 9, pp. 664–668.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jasanoff, S. (1995), ‘Procedural choices in regulatory science’, Technology in Society Vol. 17, pp. 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keats, T. (1995), ‘Bioethics in Italy’, The Lancet Vol. 345, pp. 182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kiley, T.D. (1992), ‘Patents on random complementary DNA fragments?’, Science Vol. 257, pp. 915–918.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lederberg, J.; Shope, R.E.; Oaks, S.C. (1992), Emerging Infectious: Microbial Threats to Health in the United States, Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lenoir, N. (1991), Aux Frontières de la Vie: Une Éthique Biomédicale à la Française, Paris: La Documentation Française.Google Scholar
  24. Marques, M.B. (1994), ‘Brazil-US controversy on the impact of patenting in biotechnology: some relevant questions for Pharmaceuticals’, Science and Public Policy Vol. 21N. 3, pp. 165–172.Google Scholar
  25. Marques, M.B. (1996a), ‘An overview of health-related industrial biotechnology in Latin America and the Caribbean’, Bulletin of PAHO Vol. 30N.2, pp. 95–105.Google Scholar
  26. Marques, M. B. (1996b), ‘In search of a national forum for bioethics in Brazilian public policy’, Cadernos de Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, Vol. 12N. 4, pp. 443–454.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martinez-Palomo, A. and Sepúlveda, J. (1989), ‘Biomedical research in Latin America: old and new challenges’, in Bloom B.R. and Cerami A. (ed.) Biomedical Science and the Third World: under the volcano, New York: Annals of The New York Academy of Science Vol. 569, pp. 36–44.Google Scholar
  28. Mervis, J. (1995), ‘Conflict of interest: final rules put universities in charge’, Science Vol.269, pp.294.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller, J. (1994), ‘What to do until the philosopher kings come: bioethics and public policy in Canada’, Politics and the Life Sciences Vol. 3, pp. 93–95.Google Scholar
  30. Mudurg, G. (1995), ‘New rules push researchers closer to biotech industry’, Science Vol. 269, pp.297–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nowak, R. (1994), ‘Problems in clinical trials go far beyond misconduct’, Science Vol. 264, pp. 1538–1541.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pellegrini Filho, A. (1993), ‘La investigación en salud en cinco países de América Latina’, Bol Oficina Sanit Panam Vol. 114N. 2, pp. 142–157.Google Scholar
  33. Polanco, X. (1990), Naissance et développement de la science-monde: production et reproduction des communautés scientifiques en Europe et en Amérique Latine. Paris: UNESCO, Conseil de l’Europe, Éditions La Découverte.Google Scholar
  34. Rabino, I. (1994), ‘How European and US genetic engineering scientists view the impact of public attention on their field: a comparison’, Science, Technology & Human Values Vol. 19N. 1, pp. 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosenberg, B.H. (1993), ‘North vs. South: Politics and the Biological Weapons Convention’, Politics and the Life Sciences Vol. 12N. 1, pp. 69–77.Google Scholar
  36. Santos, R. V. and Coimbra, Jr C. (1996), ‘Sangue, bioética e populações indigenas’, Parabólicas, Brasil, Boletim do Instituto Sócio-Ambiental, N. 20, Ano 3, Julho.Google Scholar
  37. Shapiro, D. (1994), ‘A single national voice for bioethics: reflections from Europe’, Politics and the Life Sciences Vol. 3, pp. 98–99.Google Scholar
  38. Swinnerton-Dyer, P. (1995), ‘The importance of academic freedom’, Nature Vol. 373, pp. 186–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. USA Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, (1989) New Developments in Biotechnology: Patenting Life—Special Report OTA-BA-370, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  40. USA Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1991), Biotechnology in a Global Economy OTA-BA-494, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  41. Weinsteim, J.N.; Myers, T.G.; O’Connor, P.M.; Friend, S.H.; Fornace, Jr A.J.; Kohn, K.W.; Fojo, T.; Bates, S.E.; Rubinstein, L.V.; Anderson, N.L.; Buolamwini, J.K.; van Osdol, W.W.; Monks, A.P.; Scudiero, D. A.; Sausville, E.A.; Zaharevitz, D.W.; Bunow, B.; Viswanadhan, V.N.; Johnson, G.S.; Wittes, R.R.; Paull, K.D., (1997) ‘An information-intensive approach to the molecular pharmacology of cancer’, Science, Vol. 275, pp. 343–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marilia Bernardes Marques
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Scientific and Technological InformationOswaldo Cruz FoundationRio de JaneiroBrasil

Personalised recommendations