Exclusion by inclusion? On difficulties with regard to an effective ethical assessment of patenting in the field of agricultural bio-technology
Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (6):521-539 (2006)
|Abstract||In order to take ethical considerations of patenting biological material into account, the so-called “ordre public or morality clause” was implemented as Article 6 in the EC directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, 98/44/EC. At first glance, this seems to provide a significant advantage to the European patent system with respect to ethics. The thesis of this paper argues that the ordre public or morality clause does not provide sufficient protection against ethically problematic uses of the patent system within the area of life. On the contrary, there are worrisome obstacles to any effective and comprehensive critical analysis of the ethical aspects of bio-patenting, especially in the field of agriculture. These obstacles can be seen as indirect consequences of the implementation of ethical considerations in form of the ordre public and morality clause in the EC Directive. Therefore, Article 6 of the EC Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions seems to ultimately weaken the position of ethics in the debate concerning bio-patenting because the ordre public and morality clause is usually interpreted in an exclusively bio-ethical way in the sense of an “intrinsic ethics,” which is primarily interested in questions regarding the moral status of particular entities. It is argued that an important cause of this phenomenon is that the decisive reasons against bio-patenting are concerns of social ethics, and not bio-ethics|
|Keywords||agricultural bio-technology EC bio-patenting directive ethics ordre public and morality clause patents|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ruth McNally & Peter Wheale, Bio-Patenting and Innovation:Nomads of the Present and a New Global Order.
Hans Radder (2004). Exploiting Abstract Possibilities: A Critique of the Concept and Practice of Product Patenting. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (3):275-291.
Brigitte Jansen & Juergen Simon (2005). Some Ethical and Legal Issues in Germany Involving Informed Consent and Patenting. Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (1).
Max Charlesworth (2005). Don't Blame the 'Bio' — Blame the 'Ethics': Varieties of (Bio) Ethics and the Challenge of Pluralism. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 2 (1):10-17.
R. Stephen Crespi (2000). An Analysis of Moral Issues Affecting Patenting Inventions in the Life Sciences: A European Perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (2):157-180.
Jose Elizalde (1998). The Patentability of Human Genes: An Ethical Debate in the European Community. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23 (3):318 – 323.
Stephen E. Wear, William H. Coles, Anthony H. Szczygiel, Adrianne McEvoy & Carl C. Pegels (1998). Patenting Medical and Surgical Techniques: An Ethical-Legal Analysis. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23 (1):75 – 97.
R. Stephen Crespi (2005). Ethico-Legal Issues in Biomedicine Patenting: A Patent Professional Viewpoint. Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (1):117-136.
Rogeer Hoedemaekers (2001). Human Gene Patents: Core Issues in a Multi-Layered Debate. [REVIEW] Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4 (2):211-221.
Rafał Witek (2005). Ethics and Patentability in Biotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (1):105-111.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #154,981 of 738,317 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,778 of 738,317 )
How can I increase my downloads?