Biologists vs. Genetic IP Laws 8
An Anonymous Coward writes: "An article in the NYTimes discusses a recent international treaty aimed at protecting countries against 'recent efforts by some companies to commercialize substances from tropical plants and animals without seeking permission or paying royalties.' The treaty makes it almost impossible for honest biologists to collect samples or even conduct studies of indigenous wildlife. In some cases biologists with permits have been detained and their samples destroyed."
parallels with freedom of speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like speech is the same way. Restrict it for some purposes, and before you know it, nobody can speak freely.
Let the dishonest biologists take a crack at it (Score:2)
These countries (and ours) can't even stop smugglers from transporting live animals not to mention agricultural products. Just get the locals interested in your "cause", and a black market will suddenly appear. After that, just complain bitterly about the black market and blame it on the ill-conceived bans.
Even patents on human stem cells? (Score:3, Informative)
The Group considers that only human stem cells lines which have been modified by an inventive process to get new characteristics for specific industrial application are patentable. However, that stem cell which are been isolated and cultured but which have not been modified should not be considers as patentable inventions. Quoting from the press statement. [eu.int]
The full report is available here [eu.int] (here).
It's Only Fair (Score:4, Insightful)
No, look at it from the perspective of a poor country whose only real value is their natural, indigenous, resources. Why should they give them up for a medication that they probably won't be able to afford? Then, to add insult to injury, we try to get them to not destroy these resources for little things like farmland to feed their people.
So, yeah, good for them. If these scientists/companies want to take samples on the chance that something miraculous will come of it, they should start taking risks a little earlier, and paying these countries for the resources they are stewards of. Or, give them a stake in any patents that come out of it (with the royalties and profits to match). And if they don't like that, them leave that plant there and go home.
do substances *derived* from living things count? (Score:3, Insightful)