Benefit-sharing in the new genomic marketplace: Expanding the ethical frame of reference

Populations and Genetics: Legal and Socio-Ethical Perspectives

Volumn , Issue , 2003, Pages 405-421

  Schrecker, Ted ^a  

^a LAWSON HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845601687     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (80)

1. Allan Rock. Welcomes Framework on Federally Funded University Research. Press release, November, 1 9, 2002. Available at: http://www.ic.gc.ca/cmb/welcomeic.nsf/558d636590992942852564880052155b/85256 a220056c2a485256c76004c7d44!OpenDocument.
2. Harvard College v. Canada Commissioner of Patents, 2002 SCC 76. Available at: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/erFrec/html/harvard.en.html.
3. University of Toronto Innovations Foundation. Available at: www.innovationsfoundation.utoronto. ca.
4. Abraham C. Mouse ruling may stall research. Globe and Mail, December 6, 2002: Al.
5. Krimsky S. The profit of scientific discovery and its normative implications. Chicago Kent Law Review 1999; 75(3): 15-39. *
6. Parizeau M. Are the universities and sciences subservient to the economy? [translation]. Isuma: Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2001; 2(4): 133-141.
7. Kevles D. Diamond v. Chakrabarty and Beyond: The Political Economy of Patenting Life. In Private Science: Biotechnology and the Rise of the Molecular Sciences. Thackray A, ed. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 1998: 65-79.
8. Cook-Deegan R. National Policies Influencing Innovation Based on Human Genetics. In The Commercialisation of Genetic Research: Ethical, Legal and Policy Issues. Caulfield T, Williams-Jones B eds. New York: Kluwer Academic, 1999: 13-27.
9. Malinowski M, Littlefield L. Transformation of a Research Platform into Commercial Products: The Impact of United States Federal Policy on Biotechnology. In The Commercialisation of Genetic Research: Ethical, Legal and Policy Issues. Caulfield T, Williams-Jones B eds. New York: Kluwer Academic, 1999: 29-53.
10. Rai A, Eisenberg R. The Public and the Private in Biopharmaceutical Research. In: Conference on the Public Domain: Focus Paper Discussion Drafts. Durham, N.C.: Duke University School of Law; 2001: 157-176. Available at: http://www.law.duke.edu/pd/papers/raieisen.pdf.
11. Cook-Deegan R, Chan C, Johnson A. World Survey of Funding for Genomics Research: Final Report to the Global Forum for Health Research and the World Health Organisation. Washington, DC: Stanford-in-Washington Program, September 2000. Available at: http://www.stanford.edu/class/siw 198q/websites/genomics/WorldGenomics$SurveyFinal Rpt25Sep00.pdf.
12. Opportunities for Industry Partnerships. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes for Health Research, 2002. Available at: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/about_cihr/organization/partnerships/industry_e.shtml.
13. Soros G. The Crisis of Global Capitalism. New York: Public Affairs, 1998.
14. Greely H. The control of genetic research: involving the "groups between. " Houston Law Review 1997; 3 3:13 97-143 0.
15. Greely H, et al. Proposed model ethical protocol for collecting DNA samples. Houston Law Review 1997; 3 3:1431-1473.
16. Harrison C. Neither moore nor the market: alternative models for compensating contributors of human tissue. Am. J. Law Med. 2002; 28:77-105.
17. Hill A. One man's trash is another man's treasure, bioprospecting: protecting the rights and interests of human donors of genetic material. Journal of Health Care Law & Policy 2002;5:259-281.
18. Greely H. Iceland's plan for genomics research: facts and implications. Jurimetrics 2000; 40:153-191.
19. Gold R. Patenting Life Forms: An International Comparison. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, February 2001. Available at: http://www.cbac-cccb.ca/documents/en/IPPHL_IntComparison.pdf.
20. US Patent no. 6, 200, 806 (Primate embryonic stem cells), issued March 13, 2001.
21. Pollack A. University resolves dispute on stem cell patent. The New York Times, January 10, 2002.
22. US Patent no. 6, 090, 622 (Human embryonic pluripotent germ cells), issued July 18, 2000. "
23. US Patent no. 6, 245, 566 (Human embryonic germ cell line and methods of use), issued June 12, 2001.
24. Industry Canada. Making a Difference: Our Priorities for 2001-2002. Ottawa: Communications Branch, Industry Canada; 2001.
25. Industry Canada. Think Canada for Biotechnology Innovation and Investment [Powerpoint presentation]. Ottawa: Industry Canada; October 2001. Available at: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/scdt/invest/presentations/biotech.pdf.
26. Aventis Facts and Figures. Strasbourg, France: Aventis; June 2002, at 71. Available at: http://www.aventis.eom/main/0, 1003, EN-XX-l 0680-3 5 890--.00.html.
27. Lindblom C. Politics and Markets. New York: Basic Books, 1977.
28. Harris J. Globalisation and the technological transformation of capitalism. Race & Class 1998; 40(2)(3):21-3 6, 3 2.
29. Kazis R, Grossman R. Fear at Work: Job Blackmail, Labor and the Environment. New York: Pilgrim Press, 1982.
30. Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. Patenting of Higher Life Forms, report to Government of Canada Biotechnology Ministerial Coordinating Committee. Ottawa: CBAC, June 2002, at 10. Available at: http://www.cbac-cccb.ca/documents/en/E980_IC_IntelProp.pdf.
31. Heller M, Eisenberg R. Can patents deter innovation? the anticommons in biomedical research. Science 1998; 280:698-701.
32. Merz J. Disease gene patents: overcoming unethical constraints on clinical laboratory medicine. Clin. Chern. 1999; 45:3 24-30.
33. Blanton K. Corporate Takeover: Exploiting the US patent system, a single company has gained control over genetic research and testing for breast cancer. Boston Globe Magazine, February 24, 2002. Available at: http://www.boston.com/globe/magazine /2002/0224_patent_part 1.htm.
34. Gold R, Caulfield T, Ray P. Gene patents and the standard of care. CMAJ 2002; 167:256-257.
35. Merz J, Kriss A, Leonard D, Cho M. Diagnostic testing fails the test: The pitfalls of patents are illustrated by the case of haemochromatosis. Nature 2002; 415:577-579.
36. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MoHLTC). Charting New Territory in Healthcare: Genetics, Testing & Gene Patenting, Report to Premiers. Toronto: MoHLTC, January 2002, at 39 Available at: http://www.gov.on.ca/health/english /pub/ministry/geneticsrep02/genetics.html.
37. Mokdad A, et al. The continuing epidemics of obesity and diabetes in the United States. JAMA 2001;286:1195-1200.
38. Katzmarzyk P. The Canadian obesity epidemic, 1985-1998. CMAJ 2002; 166:1039-1040.
39. Willett W. Balancing life-style and genomics research for disease prevention. Science 2002; 296:695-698.
40. World Bank. Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries 2001. Washington, DC: World Bank 2001; 36-38.
41. 41 Global Forum on Health. The 10/90 Report on Health Research 2001-2002. Geneva: Global Forum on Health; April 2002, at 5. Available at: http://www.globalforumhealth.org/pages/index.asp.
42. Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. London: CIPR; September 2002, at 18-24. Available at: http://www.iprcommission.org/papers/pdfs/fmal_report/reportpdf.pdf.
43. United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 2001: Making New Technologies Work for Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001: 102-103.
44. Ryan M. Knowledge Diplomacy: Global Competition and the Politics of Intellectual Property. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1998: 26-31.
45. Bond P. Against Global Apartheid. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press, 2001: 154-176.
46. nd Edition. London: Routledge, 1999: 307-334.
47. United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 1999: Globalisation with a Human Face. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999: 57-76.
48. United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 2000: Human Rights and Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 95-117.
49. Sidley P. Drug companies withdraw law suit against South Africa. BMJ 2001; 322:10-11.
50. Attaran A, Gillespie-White L. Do patents for antiretroviral drugs constrain access to AIDS treatment in Africa? JAMA 2001; 286:1886-1892.
51. World Trade Organisation. Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and Public Health, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2, 20 November 2001. Geneva: World Trade Organzation. Available at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_trips_e.htm.
52. Oxfam International. TRIPs and Public Health: The Next Battle, Briefing Paper 15. Oxford, UK: Oxfam International; March 2002. Available at: www.oxfam.org.uk /policy/papers/15trips/15 trips, html.
53. Veeken H, Pécoul B. Drugs for "neglected diseases": a bitter pill. Trop Med Int Health 2000;5:309-311.
54. Pécoul B, Chirac P, Trouiller P, Pinel J. Access to Essential Drugs in Poor Countries: A Lost Battle? JAMA 1999; 281:361-367.
55. Trouiller P, et al. Drug development for neglected diseases: A deficient market and a public-health policy failure. Lancet 2002; 3 59:2188-94.
56. Global Forum on Health. Available at: http://www.globalforumhealth.org.
57. Attaran A. Human rights and biomedical research funding for the developing world: discovering state obligations under the right to health. Health and Human Rights 1999; 4(1):26-58. ~
58. Daar A., et al. Top ten biotechnologies for improving health in developing countries. Nat. Genet. 2002; 32:229-232.
59. Brundtland G. [Speech to] Opening Dinner, Massive Effort Advocacy Meeting, Winterthur, Switzerland, October 3, 2000. Geneva: WHO, 2000. Available at: http://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/2000/english/20001003_massive_effort.html.
60. Commission on Macroeconomics and Health. Macroeconomics and Health: Investing in Health for Economic Development. Geneva: WHO; December 2001. Available at: http://www3.who.int/whosis/menu.cfm?path=whosis, cmh&language=english.
61. Crespi S. Biotechnology patenting: the wicked animal must defend itself. European Intellectual Property Review 1995; (9):431-441.
62. Drahos P. Biotechnology patents, markets and morality. European Intellectual Property Review 1999; (9):441-449.
63. Patenting Life: Special Report. The Guardian, November 15, 2000. Available at: http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/genes.
64. Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. Biotechnology and Intellectual Property: Patenting of Higher Life Forms and Related Issues, Interim report to the Government of Canada Biotechnology Ministerial Coordinating Committee. Ottawa: CBAC, November 2001, 8.
65. Clement T [Ontario Minister of Health and Long-Term Care]. Speech Re: Myriad Gene Patent Issue. Toronto: September 19, 2001. Available at: http://www.gov.on.ca/health /english/news/speech/sp_091901 _tc.html.
66. Gold R, Caulfield T. The moral tollbooth: a method that makes use of the patent system to address ethical concerns in biotechnology. Lancet 2002; 359:2268-2270.
67. Schrecker T, Wellington A. Patenting of Biotechnological Innovations Concerning Animals and Human Beings. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee; 2000 [completed 1999], at 48-49. Available at: http://www.cbac-cccb.ca/documents/en /Biolnnov _Schrecker_Wellington.pdf.
68. Sheremeta L, Gold R, Caulfield T. Harmonizing commercialisation and gene patent policy with other social goals. This volume.
69. Medical Research Council of Canada now the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Ottawa: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; 1998. Available at: http://www.nserc.ca/programs/ethics/english/policy.htm.
70. Tri-Council Working Group. [Proposed] Code of Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans July 1997, article 6.2. Available at: http://www.ethics.ubc.ca.
71. Somerville M. Death Talk: The Case against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001: 286-302.
72. st Century. Ottawa: ETC Group; November/December 2001. Available at: http://www.etcgroup.org.
73. Anon. Whose Common Future? Special issue The Ecologist 1992; 20.
74. Wilson K. Exclusive Rights, Enclosure and the Patenting of Life. In Redesigning Life? The Worldwide Challenge to Genetic Engineering. Tokar B ed. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001: 290-296.
75. Mantoux P. The Industrial Revolution in the Eighteenth Century (tr. M. Vernon). London: Jonathan Cape; 1928 Methuen, 1961: 136-185.
76. Thompson E. Custom, Law and Common Right. In Customs in Common: Studies in Traditional Popular Culture. Thompson E. New York: New Press, 1993.
77. Pratt T. Small Yellow Bean Sets Off International Patent Dispute. The New York Times, March 20, 2001.
78. Shams Dorsey M. Shamans and the Commercialisation of Biodiversity. In Redesigning Life? The Worldwide Challenge to Genetic Engineering. Tokar B ed. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001: 271-282.
79. Boyle J. The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain. In Conference on the Public Domain: Focus Paper Discussion Drafts. Durham, NC: Duke University School of Law; November 2001: 1-43. Available at: http://www.law.duke.edu/pd/papers/boyle.pdf.
80. Pepa S. International trade and emerging genetic regulatory regimes. Law & Policy in International Business 1998; 29:415-450, 416.