Synbio and IP rights: looking for an adequate balance between private ownership and public interest

  • Iñigo de Miguel Beriain
Chapter
Part of the Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft / Futures of Technology, Science and Society book series (TEWG)

Abstract

In November 2009, a group of leading scientists, including two Nobel Prize winners, John Sulston and Joseph Stiglitz, published The Manchester Manifesto (2009), which constituted the conclusion of a long term effort to reflect on the ownership of science and the best way to manage it.

Keywords

Europe Defend Stake Metaphor Monopoly 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BBF (2015a). BioBricks Foundation. About. http://biobricks.org/about-foundation/. Accessed: 11 May 2015.
  2. BBF (2015b). BioBricks Foundation. Technical Program. https://biobricks.org/programs/technical-program/. Accessed: 12 May 2015.
  3. EC (1998). European Council. Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, OJ 1998 L 213/13.Google Scholar
  4. Henkel, J., & Maurer, S.M. (2007). The economics of synthetic biology. Molecular Systems Biology, 3, 117. doi: 10.1038/msb4100161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. iGEM (n.d.). International Genetically Engineered Machine Foundation. Registry of Standard Biological Parts. http://parts.igem.org/Main_Page. Accessed: 11 May 2015.
  6. The Manchester Manifesto (2009). Who owns Science? The Manchester Manifesto. Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation at the University of Manchester. http://www.isei.manchester.ac.uk/TheManchesterManifesto.pdf. Accessed: 11 May 2015.
  7. Miguel Beriain, I. d. (2014). Synthetic Biology and IP Rights: In Defence of the Patent System. In: I. de Miguel Beriain, C.M. Romeo Casabona (eds.), Synbio and Human Health: A Challenge to the Current IP Framework? (pp. 201–209). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  8. Patent troll (2015). In: Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll. Accessed: 11 May 2015.
  9. Rai, A., & Boyle, J. (2007). Synthetic Biology: Caught between Property Rights, the Public Domain, and the Commons. PLOS Biology, 5(3), e58. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rutz, B. (2009). Synthetic biology and patents. A European perspective. EMBO Reports, 10(S1), 14–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rutz, B. (2010). Patent issues in SynBio applications. Presentation at the Synthetic Biology Workshop From Science to Governance, Brussels, 18–19 March 2010. http://ec.europa.eu/health/dialogue_collaboration/docs/ev_20100318_co18.pdf. Accessed: 11 May 2015.
  12. Sapience (n.d.). Applying for Patent. Sapience – home of idea. http://www.sapience.org.uk/Services.aspx?Id=7. Accessed: 12 May 2015.
  13. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). UN General Assembly. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/. Accessed: 12 May 2015.
  14. Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (1997). UNESCO General Conference. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001102/110220e.pdf#page=47. Accessed: 12 May 2015.

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iñigo de Miguel Beriain
    • 1
  1. 1.Inter-University Chair in Law and the Human GenomeUniversity of Deusto, University of the Basque CountryBilbaoSpain

Personalised recommendations