A Review on Intellectual Property Rights of Biosafety
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29070/qyrjqf91Keywords:
Biosafety, Biological Diversity Act, Patent Act, Intellectual Property Rights, RegulationsAbstract
The interconnection between intellectual property rights (IPRs) and biosafety has become increasingly significant in the era of biotechnology and genetic modification. While IPRs aim to promote innovation and economic development by protecting new biotechnological inventions, they also raise complex ethical, environmental, and social challenges. This review explores the delicate balance between the protection of genetic innovations through patents and the preservation of biodiversity and environmental safety. It examines global & Indian legal frameworks, including the TRIPS Agreement, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, and national legislations such as the Biological Diversity Act (2002), the Patent Act (2005), and the Seeds Bill (2004). The study highlights how biosafety regulations are essential in managing the potential risks posed by GMOs to human health and ecosystems. Furthermore, it discusses the need for aligning intellectual property regimes with sustainable development goals, emphasizing liability, public participation, and the precautionary principle. The review concludes that an integrated approach combining biosafety governance and intellectual property protection can promote responsible innovation while safeguarding environmental and social interests.
References
1. Juma, C. 1989. ‘The Gene Hunters: Biotechnology and the Scramble for Seed’. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
2. Kohnen, A. S., 2000. ‘Responding to the Threat of Agroterrorism: Specific Recommendations for the United States Department of Agriculture’. BCSIA Discussion Paper 2000-02, ESDP Discussion Paper ESDP-2000-04, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, October.
3. Koo, B., Nottenburg, C. and Pardey, P.G. 2004. ‘Intellectual Property: Enhanced: International Appraisal’, Science , 306: 1295-1297.
4. Lesser, W. 1994. ‘Institutional Mechanisms supporting Trade in Genetic Materials’. Environment and Trade Series No. 4, UNEP, Geneva.
5. Lesser, W. 1997. ‘Assessing the Implications of IPR on Plant and Animal Agriculture’. Staff Paper 97-04, Ithaca: Cornell University, June.
6. Parker H. S. 2002. ‘Agricultural Bioterrorism: A Federal Strategy to Meet the Threat’. Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University. McNair paper. March. (http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/biosecurity/ag-biosec/ biofacts/agbiooview.html)
7. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, 20 January 2000, 39 Int’l Leg Mat 1027 (2000).
8. Note that this language is almost a verbatim transfer from article 27.3(b) of TRIPS, where these terms are similarly left undefined. Apart from WTO obligations, the amendments also reflect obligations to the WIPO Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). Briefly, the PCT aims to facilitate a process whereby parties wishing to invoke a patent in many countries can do so with one application, though WIPO itself cannot grant protection.
9. Sharma 2005
10. Kalpavriksh Grain, IIED, India, 2007, a Guide to the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
11. Greenpeace, 2004
12. See, eg. BCIL/MOEF/DBT, Biosafety Issues Related to Genetically Modified Organisms (New Delhi: Biotech Consortium India, 2002).
This work is licensed under a 