Intellectual property and biotechnology: the U.S. internal experience--Part II.
Continuing the discussion begun in the March 2006 issue of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, this paper further documents the failure of the United States to adequately consider possible modifications in the traditional robust system of intellectual property rights as applied to biotechnology. It discusses concrete suggestions for alternative disclosure requirements, for exemptions for research tools, and for improved access to clinical advances. In each of these cases, the modifications might be more responsive to the full set of relevant values.
Brody
Baruch
B
Center for Medical Ethics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
D022126:Access to Information / Q000941:ethics; D001483:Base Sequence; D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D001709:Biotechnology / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D030881:Disclosure; D020224:Expressed Sequence Tags; D005380:Financing, Government; D005796:Genes; D019398:Genes, BRCA1; D036281:Genetic Research / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D016045:Human Genome Project; D006801:Humans; D007221:Industry / Q000191:economics; D018973:Intellectual Property; D009316:National Institutes of Health (U.S.); D010330:Patents as Topic / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D017149:Private Sector; D012109:Research Support as Topic; D018581:Technology Transfer; D014481:United States; D014495:Universities / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence