| Abstrakt: |
Patents on plant-derived products, and subsequent adverse impacts on the economic and environmental well-being of indigenous populations, have generated numerous high-profile controversies. Critics of intellectual property law typically call the actions and outcomes involved "biopiracy"or worse. On the other hand, critics of "biopiracy" arguments reasonably point out that revisions in the law would not adequately address the underlying causes of harm. However, the two sides am not in disagreement as to the desirability of protecting natural resources and traditional lifestyles. Rather, their disagreement is largely about how to frame the problem rhetorically, and which alterations in patent law would achieve this goal. This Comment posits that a major factor in this disagreement is a lack of rigor in addressing the separate roles of science, technology, and expertise in the events which inspire biopiracy accusations. It considers the nature of these three systems of human knowledge, and their respective roles in human advancement patent law, and traditional knowledge. The Comment then considers specific cases of harm to indigenous populations, the extent and nature of patentability of inventions based on living things, and arguments on each side of the biopiracy debate. The Comment concludes that a fresh approach would be useful in reconciling the disparate views of science, technology, and expertise that have fueled the biopiracy debate. Specifically, those who decry "biopiracy" should embrace the creative energies of science to serve their ends, while their critics should embrace the goal of altering patent law in ways that would support innovation more efficiently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
