Bram De Jonge

Two Different Ethical Notions of Benefit Sharing of Genetic Resources and Their Implications for Global Development

Can genomics working with crop genetic resources, which can be relevant for developing countries, contribute in reducing the gap between rich and poor countries in using modern biotechnologies? In this paper we concentrate on the extent to which benefit sharing of genetic resources can be a mechanism to harness genomics for development and to reduce the “biotechnology divide” or “genomics divide”. First we analyze the existing arrangements (Convention on Biological Biodiversity, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, FAO 2001) and we conclude that these presuppose predominantly a concept of commutative justice, which is at the basis of considerable drawbacks. Secondly we propose arrangements founded on another concept of justice, distributive justice, which forbids enhancing (existing) inequalities. Upstream benefit sharing of genetic resources is proposed as an interesting alternative, which connects with several coalitions of scientists and poor farmers in the third world. These alternatives offer good prospects to contribute to the reduction of the “genomics divide”.

Valorizing science: whose values?

Valorization—essentially, the creation of economic value—has become a new maxim of modern research, in particular for areas with a strong link to technological development. This trend is a result of the growing influence of the market economy in public policy, which has asserted that public investments into science should generate returns that benefit the economy. Indeed, research managers are evaluated increasingly on the basis of various economic outputs—similar to the bonus‐driven contracts of financial managers—which can include the number and value of patents and license contracts, the number and value of research contracts, and the number of publications. This growing emphasis on valorization goes hand‐in‐hand with the concept of ‘the enterprizing university’ (Williams, 2003). The growing emphasis on intellectual property (IP) rights as crucial elements in the valorization trend, their exploitation, and the inevitable secrecy that is required to protect them, clash with the traditional scientific values of openness, transparency and the sharing of knowledge. Moreover, too strong a focus on exploiting the economic benefits of research impinges on potential societal benefits, particularly those that would improve conditions for poorer communities or developing countries. This discussion, about the use of knowledge generated by public research, is one of the tensions between science and society, and is an important target for convergence work to reconcile different views. However, as our experience has shown, there are major challenges to convergence, notably when stakeholders might not easily agree on the problem to be resolved. The trend towards valorization remains strong. Consider, for example, the Netherlands Genomics Initiative (NGI; The Hague, the Netherlands), which was established in 2002 by the Dutch Government “to get the best from genomics” and “to ensure that society and [the] economy benefit from the breakthroughs enabled by genomics” (www.genomics.nl). NGI sets ambitious goals for its research projects, which …

A solution to the controversy on plant variety protection in Africa

African countries can establish a plant variety protection system that supports commercial seed systems without negatively affecting smallholder farmers.