Whose knowledge? What values? The comparative politics of patenting life forms in the United States and Europe

Policy Sciences

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 267-288

  Parthasarathy, Shobita ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Democracy; Ethics; Expertise; Governance; Intellectual property

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DEMOCRACY; ECONOMIC POLICY; ETHICS; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; POLICY APPROACH; STRATEGIC APPROACH;

EUROPE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 80055085681     PISSN: 00322687     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11077-011-9133-7     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. Adelman, M. J. (1986). The new world of patents created by the court of appeals for the federal circuit. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 20, 979-1008.
2. American Anti-Vivisection Society, International Center for Technology Assessment, and Alternatives Research & Development Foundation. (2007). Re US patent no. US-6, 924, 413-B2, inter-partes re-examination, March 23.
3. Animal Legal Defense Fund et al. vs. Quigg. (1990). US court of appeals, 9th circuit. No. 89-15129.
4. American Patent Law Association. (1979). Brief on Behalf of the American Patent Law Association, Amicus Curiae, In the Supreme Court of the United States, Sidney A Diamond vs. Ananda M Chakrabarty. No. 79-136.
5. Bagley, M. (2007). A global controversy: The role of morality in biotechnology patent law. University of Virginia Law School Public Law and Legal Theory working paper series, paper 57.
6. Bayrak, S. (2007, July-August 15). Ethical issues in engineering and science. EPO gazette. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office.
7. Bearden, T. (2005 July). Extended interview: Stuart Newman. Newshour with Jim Lehrer.
8. Benjamin, S. M., & Rai, A. (2008). Fixing innovation policy: A structural perspective. George Washington Law Review, 77(1), 1-88.
9. British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and Compassion in World Farming. (1993). Opposition under part V of the European patent convention to the grant of a patent for the Oncomouse to the president and fellows of Harvard college [in Oncomouse Patent Prosecution, EP0169672].
10. Brown, P., Zavestoski, S., McCormick, S., Mayer, B., Morello-Frosch, R., & Altman, R. G. (2004). Embodied health movements: New approaches to social movements in health. Sociology of Health & Illness, 26(1), 50-80.
11. Busbey, H., Hervey, T. K., & Mohr, A. (2008). Ethical EU law? The influence of the European group on ethics in science and new technologies. European Law Review, 33(6), 803-842.
12. Carpenter, D. P.(2007). Robust action and the strategic use of ambiguity in a bureaucratic cohort: FDA officers and the evolution of new drug regulations, 1950-1970. In S. Skowronek & M. Glassman (Eds.), Formative acts: American politics in the making. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
13. Church of Scotland Science, Religion, and Technology Project. (1997). Churches challenge European parliament on patenting life. http://webzone1. co. uk/www/srtproject/meppat. htm. Accessed 19 May 1998.
14. Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe. (1949). Creation of a European patents office: Recommendation to the committee of ministers. Doc 110, 8 September.
15. Coughlin, S. M. (2006). The Newman application and the PTO's unnecessary response-Patentability of humans and human embryos. Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property, 5, 90-105.
16. Coyne, P., & Crouch, D. (1999). Amendment and response. Patent application no. 08/993, 564.
17. Crouch, D., & Coyne, P. (1999). Final rejection. Patent application no. 08/993, 564.
18. Diamond vs. Chakrabarty. (1980). 447 US 303.
19. Dinham, B., Pesticides Trust, et al., & Stevenson, P., Compassion in World Farming et al. (1997, July 24). Suggested plans for meeting with John Battle MP.
20. Dowie, M. (2004). Gods and monsters. Mother Jones.
21. Drahos, P. (1999). Biotechnology patents, markets, and morality. European Intellectual Property Review, 21(9), 441-449.
22. Drahos, P. (2010). The global governance of knowledge: Patent offices and their clients. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Duffy, J. (2000). The FCC and the patent system: Progressive ideals, jacksonian realism, and the technology of regulation. University of Colorado Law Review, 71, 1071.
24. Emmott, S. (2001). No patents on life: the incredible ten-year campaign against the European patent directive. In B. Tokar (Ed.), Redesigning life? The worldwide challenge to genetic engineering. New York: Palgrave.
25. EPO Employee a. (2008). Personal interview.
26. EPO Employee c. (2008). Personal interview.
27. EPO Employee d. (2008). Personal interview.
28. EPO Employee e. (2008). Personal interview.
29. EPO Employee f. (2009). Personal interview.
30. Epstein, S. (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
31. European Parliament Council. (1998). Directive 98/44/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. Official Journal, L213, 13-21.
32. European Patent Convention. (1973). Adopted 5 October 1973, entered into force 7 October 1977.
33. European Patent Office. (1993a). Facts and submissions [in European PGS patent prosecution, EP0122791].
34. European Patent Office. (1993b). Grounds for the decision [in European PGS patent prosecution, EP0122791].
35. European Patent Office. (2002). Opposition hearing on genetic stem-cell patent at the European patent office. Press release. http://www. epo. org/about-us/press/releases/archive/2002/18972002. html. Accessed 17 June 2009.
36. European Patent Office. (2003a). Interlocutory decision in opposition proceedings (Article 106(3) EPC) [in European Oncomouse Patent Prosecution, EP0169672].
37. European Patent Office. (2003b). Hintergrundinfromationen zum 'Öl-Mais'-patent. Fact sheet. Munich: European Patent Office.
38. European Patent Office. (2007a). Scenarios for the future. Vienna: European Patent Office.
39. European Patent Office. (2007b). European patent forum, 18 and 19 April 2007 in Munich. Press release. http://www. epo. org/about-us/press/releases/archive/2007/20070417. html. Accessed 22 April 2009.
40. European Patent Office. (2009). EPO-The administrative council of the European patent organisation. Website. http://www. epo. org/about-us/epo/administrative-council. html. Accessed 24 December 2009.
41. Evangelischen Stadtkirchenverbandes Köln. (1993). Einspruch gegen das Europäische patent 0169672 [in EPO Oncomouse Patent Prosecution EP0169672].
42. Falcone, J. A., Group Director, to TC 2800 Managers. (2006). Reminder on TC2800 guidelines for sensitive application warning system (SAWS) program reminder.
43. Feldman, M. S., Khademian, A. M., Ingram, H., & Schneider, A. S. (2006). Ways of knowing and inclusive management practices. Public Administration Review, 66, 89-99.
44. Global 2000, & Kein Patent Auf Leben. (1997, May 25). Directive "legal protection of biotechnological inventions", Munich/Brussels.
45. Graham, S., Hall, B., Harhoff, D., & Mowery, D. (2002). Post-issue patent 'quality control': A comparative study of US patent re-examinations and European patent oppositions. NBER working paper no. W8807.
46. Grain and Gen-ethisches Netzwerk to Europäisches Patentamt. (1990). Einspruch durch Dritte nach Artikel 115 [in Oncomouse Patent Prosecution, EP0169672].
47. Greene, J. (1999). He's not just monkeying around. Legal Times, pp. 16-20, 24-25.
48. Greenpeace. (2001). Greenpeace and Misereor challenge DuPont Biopiracy patent. Press release.
49. Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The Anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280(5464), 698-701.
50. Hess, D. (2007). Alternative pathways in science and industry: Activism. innovation, and the environment in an era of globalization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51. Jasanoff, S. (2007). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
52. Jensen, P. H., Palangkaraya, A., & Webster, E. (2005). Patent application outcomes across the trilateral patent offices. Melbourne Institute working paper no. 5/05.
53. Kadidal, S. (1996). Subject-matter imperialism? Biodiversity, foreign prior art and the neem patent controversy. IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review, 37, 371.
54. Karet, B. (1992). Patents and ethics in the context of modern technology. EPO gazette (pp. 13-17). Munich, Germany: European Patent Office.
55. Kein Patent Auf Leben. (2010). Kein patent Auf Leben! http://www. keinpatent. de/.
56. Khan, B. Z. (2005). The democratization of invention: Patents and copyrights in American economic development, 1790-1920. New York: Cambridge University Press.
57. Koechlin, F., & Schenkelaars, P., European Network of No Patents on Life. (1993). Einspruch gegen das Europäisches Patent 0169672 [in EPO Oncomouse Patent Prosecution EP0169672].
58. Küng, V. (1995). Gutachten zur Bedeutung der Harvard-Onkomaus für die Krebsforschung und zur Reproduzierbarkeit des patentierten Verfahrens im Auftrag des Vereins Keine Patente auf Leben [in EPO Oncomouse Patent Prosecution EP0169672].
59. Levidow, L., Carr, S., & Wield, D. (2005). European union regulation of agri-biotechnology: Precautionary links between science, expertise, and policy. Science and Public Policy, 32(4), 261-276.
60. McKenzie, J. (1998). A closer look. World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. ABC News, April 2.
61. Merz, J. F., & Pace, N. M. (1994). Trends in patent litigation: The apparent influence of strengthened patents attributable to the court of appeals for the federal circuit. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, 76, 579-590.
62. Newman, S. (1997). Chimeric embryo and animals containing human cells. Patent application no. 08/993, 564.
63. O'Neill, M. (1997). Green parties and political change in contemporary Europe: New politics, old predicaments. Brookfield: Ashgate.
64. Osterwalder, R. (2007). European patent forum, 18 and 19 April 2007 in Munich. Press release. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office.
65. Ottinger, G. (1993). Patente auf Lebewesen und Gene. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. July 14, N1.
66. Ottinger, G. (2010). Buckets of resistance: Standards and the effectiveness of citizen science.Science, Technology, and Human Values, 35(2), 244-270.
67. Parthasarathy, S. (2007). Building genetic medicine: Breast cancer, technology, and the comparative politics of health care. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
68. Parthasarathy, S. (2010). Breaking the expertise barrier: Understanding activist strategies in science and technology policy domains. Science and Public Policy, 37(5), 355-367.
69. People's Business Commission. (1980). Brief on behalf of the people's business commission, Amicus Curiae. In the Supreme Court of the United States, Sidney A. Diamond vs. Ananda M. Chakrabarty. No. 79-136.
70. Plomer, A. (2008). The European group on ethics: Law, politics, and the limits of moral integration in Europe. European Law Journal, 14(6), 839-859.
71. Pralle, S. (2006). Branching out, digging. In Environmental advocacy and agenda setting. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
72. PTO Employee a. (2009). Personal interview.
73. PTO Employee d. (2009). Personal interview.
74. PTO Employee g. (2008). Personal interview.
75. Public Patent Foundation. (2006a). PubPat challenges Monsanto patents being used to bankrupt American farmers: Patent office asked to review and revoke agricultural giant's widely asserted patents. http://www. pubpat. org/monsantofiled. htm. Accessed 10 February 2010.
76. Public Patent Foundation. (2006b). Groups challenge stem cell patents that loot taxpayer funds and force research overseas. http://www. pubpat. org/warfstemcellsfiled. htm Accessed 13 October 2010.
77. Public Patent Foundation. (2010). Patent on human embryonic stem cells rejected after consumer groups' appeal. http://www. pubpat. org/stemcellbpaidecision. htm. Accessed 13 October 2010.
78. Quigg, D. J. (1987). Animals-Patentability. Official Gazette, Vol. 1077, p. 24.
79. Sabatier, P. (Ed.). (2007). Theories of the policy process. Boulder: Westview Press.
80. Schlager, E. (2007). A comparison of frameworks, theories, and models of the policy process. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 293-320). Boulder: Westview Press.
81. Schneider, K. (1987). Patenting life: US policy decision sets off a debate over morals and lure of vast profits. The New York Times, A1.
82. Schneider, K. (1988). Harvard gets mouse patent, a world first. The New York Times, April 12.
83. Schneider, I. (2009). The evolution of a 'european mode' of patent governance: Legislation on the patenting of biotechnology in the European Union and Germany. In J.-P. Gaudillière, D. J. Kevles, & H.-J. Rheinberger (Eds.), Living properties: Making knowledge and controlling ownership in the history of biology (pp. 187-223). Berlin, Germany: Max-Planck Institute for the History of Science.
84. Shorthouse, A. J., et al. (1980). The human tumour xenograft-A valid model in experimental chemotherapy? British Journal of Surgery, 67, 715-722.
85. Swanson, K. W. (2009). The emergence of the professional patent practitioner. Technology and Culture, 50, 519-548.
86. Then, C., & Dr. to Europäische Patentamt. (2001). Betrifft. Patent EP 169 672, Anhörung am 6. November 2001 [in EPO Oncomouse Patent Prosecution EP0169672].
87. Tickner, J. A., & Wright, S. (2003). The precautionary principle and democratizing expertise: A US perspective. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 213-218.
88. Tilly, C., & Tarrow, S. (2006). Contentious politics. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
89. United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice. (1988). Patents and the constitution: Transgenic animals. 100th Congress, 1st session. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Hearing on June 11, July 22, August 21, and November 5, 1987.
90. United States Patent and Trademark Office. (1998). Facts on patenting life forms having a relationship to humans. Media Advisory, 98-6.
91. Vogel, D. (2004). The new politics of risk regulation in Europe and the US. In M. Levin & M. Shapiro (Eds.), Trans-atlantic policymaking in an age of austerity. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
92. Weiss, R. 1998. Patent sought on making of part-human creatures. Washington Post, April 2, A12.
93. Women's Environmental Network Representative. (2007). Personal interview.
94. Yanow, D. (2009). Ways of knowing: Passionate humility and reflective practice in research in management. American Review of Public Administration, 29, 579-601.
95. Zwerdling, D. (1998). Humanimals: Weekend all things considered. National Public Radio, April 5.