COM 0882.009 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ti A correct review would: • Examine the source data (or lack of) for safety rather than take the recommendation of other agencies (FDA). • Ensure that no financial conflict of interests affect recommendations; and • Ensure that community/cultural representatives play a key role in the decision making process. My biggest fear is the irreversible nature of GM mutations released into the environment. Although many mutations occur naturally, they do not have the selective survival advantage that GM mutations have been engineered to have.' PATENTING AND RESEARCHER ETHICS Next there is the issue of patenting and liability. In general the two go hand in hand. Those introducing the product for financial gain (through patent and royalties) should also bear the liability if things go wrong. If industry is telling us that products are developed to "save the world" or save a culture, then why are the companies so intent on taking patents? In the medical field there are examples where patents were given up so that products were available to "save the world". Thomas Jefferson promoted patents to reward innovation. The inventor (innovation) is not the same as the financial investor. A recent National Academy of Sciences survey of scientists (inventors) showed that they have not been concerned with the patent issues.5 Consider Craig Venter (scientist who sequenced the human genome) remarks: "History has proven that those gene patents aren't worth the paper they were written on, and the only ones who made money off them were the patent attorneys."6 It is the CEO's and business managers who are intent on taking patents for financial return to the company. The NAS warns that patenting DNA research may backfire and thwart future work. This may pose a problem to GM taro (or GM papaya) if work against new diseases depends on getting approval to use existing patented DNA (genetic) strains or processes: "Thus the potential for a "perfect storm " exists, in which future discoveries in genomic and proteomics that would benefit the public health and well-being could be thwarted by an increasingly complex intellectual property regime"...' President Jefferson intended to reward innovators, but in his day there was not the extensive system of scientific publication, peer review, and citation. Modern science uses this approach to "reward" scientists. Another form of "recognition" is the one time "bonus" or "awards". In my own case I have conducted many studies looking at safety issues of new products. Sometimes I find side effects and sometimes not. Either outcome is publishable, but certainly not "patentable". These types of publications have led to citations, awards, promotions and professional recognition. The NAS writes on this issue that: "...the act of publishing is a quid pro quo in which authors receive credit and acknowledgement in exchange for disclosure or their scientific findings.... All members of the scientific community - whether working in academia, government, or a commercial enterprise - have equal responsibility for upholding community standards as participants in the publication system, and all should be equally able to derive benefits from it (NRC 2003, p.4) ".5