Premio Nobel Sulston: "How science is shackled by intellectual property" (Guardian)
How science is shackled by intellectual property Ownership rights pose a real danger to scientific progress for the public good John Sulston The Guardian, Thursday 26 November 2009 The idea of ownership is ubiquitous. Title deeds establish and protect ownership of our houses, while security of property is as important to the proprietors of Tesco and Sainsbury's as it is to their customers. However, there is a profound problem when it comes to so-called intellectual property (IP) - which requires a strong lead from government, and for which independent advice has never been more urgently required. The David Nutt affair has illustrated very well the importance of objective analysis of complex social issues. The myth is that IP rights are as important as our rights in castles, cars and corn oil. IP is supposedly intended to encourage inventors and the investment needed to bring their products to the clinic and marketplace. In reality, patents often suppress invention rather than promote it: drugs are "evergreened" when patents are on the verge of running out - companies buy up the patents of potential rivals in order to prevent them being turned into products. Moreover, the prices charged, especially for pharmaceuticals, are often grossly in excess of those required to cover costs and make reasonable profits. IP rights are beginning to permeate every area of scientific endeavour. Even in universities, science and innovation, which have already been paid for out of the public purse, are privatised and resold to the public via patents acquired by commercial interests. The drive to commercialise science has overtaken not only applied research but also "blue-skies" research, such that even the pure quest for knowledge is subverted by the need for profit. [...] Continua qui: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/26/science-shackles-intelle...
J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto:
How science is shackled by intellectual property
Ownership rights pose a real danger to scientific progress for the public good
John Sulston The Guardian, Thursday 26 November 2009
The idea of ownership is ubiquitous. Title deeds establish and protect ownership of our houses, while security of property is as important to the proprietors of Tesco and Sainsbury's as it is to their customers. However, there is a profound problem when it comes to so-called intellectual property (IP) - which requires a strong lead from government, and for which independent advice has never been more urgently required. The David Nutt affair has illustrated very well the importance of objective analysis of complex social issues.
The myth is that IP rights are as important as our rights in castles, cars and corn oil. IP is supposedly intended to encourage inventors and the investment needed to bring their products to the clinic and marketplace. In reality, patents often suppress invention rather than promote it: drugs are "evergreened" when patents are on the verge of running out - companies buy up the patents of potential rivals in order to prevent them being turned into products. Moreover, the prices charged, especially for pharmaceuticals, are often grossly in excess of those required to cover costs and make reasonable profits.
IP rights are beginning to permeate every area of scientific endeavour. Even in universities, science and innovation, which have already been paid for out of the public purse, are privatised and resold to the public via patents acquired by commercial interests. The drive to commercialise science has overtaken not only applied research but also "blue-skies" research, such that even the pure quest for knowledge is subverted by the need for profit.
[...]
Continua qui: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/26/science-shackles-intelle...
_______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
nessuno dei temi di Nexa è importante come questo. Raf
Grazie molte, Meo. Segnalo, soprattutto a chi non ha letto l'articolo di Sulston fino in fondo, che oggi l'Institute for Science Ethics and Innovation dell'Universita' di Manchester ha pubblicato il Manifesto di Manchester "Who Owns Science?": http://www.isei.manchester.ac.uk/TheManchesterManifesto.pdf juan carlos Angelo Raffaele Meo wrote (on 26-11-2009 17:09):
J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto:
How science is shackled by intellectual property
Ownership rights pose a real danger to scientific progress for the public good
John Sulston The Guardian, Thursday 26 November 2009 The idea of ownership is ubiquitous. Title deeds establish and protect ownership of our houses, while security of property is as important to the proprietors of Tesco and Sainsbury's as it is to their customers. However, there is a profound problem when it comes to so-called intellectual property (IP) - which requires a strong lead from government, and for which independent advice has never been more urgently required. The David Nutt affair has illustrated very well the importance of objective analysis of complex social issues.
The myth is that IP rights are as important as our rights in castles, cars and corn oil. IP is supposedly intended to encourage inventors and the investment needed to bring their products to the clinic and marketplace. In reality, patents often suppress invention rather than promote it: drugs are "evergreened" when patents are on the verge of running out - companies buy up the patents of potential rivals in order to prevent them being turned into products. Moreover, the prices charged, especially for pharmaceuticals, are often grossly in excess of those required to cover costs and make reasonable profits.
IP rights are beginning to permeate every area of scientific endeavour. Even in universities, science and innovation, which have already been paid for out of the public purse, are privatised and resold to the public via patents acquired by commercial interests. The drive to commercialise science has overtaken not only applied research but also "blue-skies" research, such that even the pure quest for knowledge is subverted by the need for profit.
[...]
Continua qui: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/26/science-shackles-intelle...
_______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
nessuno dei temi di Nexa è importante come questo. Raf
Grazie per la segnalazione, il Manifesto di Manchester è un passaggio interessante ed è incoraggiante vedere che il bisogno di superare la Proprietà Intellettuale riscuota l'attenzione di tanti accademici e intellettuali...perfino in Inghilterra. Speriamo si mettano in campo altrettanto efficaci alternative per la produzione di conoscenza, scienza e innovazione come beni comuni :) francesca 2009/11/26 J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin@polito.it>:
Grazie molte, Meo.
Segnalo, soprattutto a chi non ha letto l'articolo di Sulston fino in fondo, che oggi l'Institute for Science Ethics and Innovation dell'Universita' di Manchester ha pubblicato il Manifesto di Manchester "Who Owns Science?": http://www.isei.manchester.ac.uk/TheManchesterManifesto.pdf
juan carlos
Angelo Raffaele Meo wrote (on 26-11-2009 17:09):
J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto:
How science is shackled by intellectual property
Ownership rights pose a real danger to scientific progress for the public good
John Sulston The Guardian, Thursday 26 November 2009 The idea of ownership is ubiquitous. Title deeds establish and protect ownership of our houses, while security of property is as important to the proprietors of Tesco and Sainsbury's as it is to their customers. However, there is a profound problem when it comes to so-called intellectual property (IP) - which requires a strong lead from government, and for which independent advice has never been more urgently required. The David Nutt affair has illustrated very well the importance of objective analysis of complex social issues.
The myth is that IP rights are as important as our rights in castles, cars and corn oil. IP is supposedly intended to encourage inventors and the investment needed to bring their products to the clinic and marketplace. In reality, patents often suppress invention rather than promote it: drugs are "evergreened" when patents are on the verge of running out - companies buy up the patents of potential rivals in order to prevent them being turned into products. Moreover, the prices charged, especially for pharmaceuticals, are often grossly in excess of those required to cover costs and make reasonable profits.
IP rights are beginning to permeate every area of scientific endeavour. Even in universities, science and innovation, which have already been paid for out of the public purse, are privatised and resold to the public via patents acquired by commercial interests. The drive to commercialise science has overtaken not only applied research but also "blue-skies" research, such that even the pure quest for knowledge is subverted by the need for profit.
[...]
Continua qui: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/26/science-shackles-intelle...
_______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
nessuno dei temi di Nexa è importante come questo. Raf
_______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
-- Francesca Bria Phd Researcher Imperial College London skype: bfrancesca f.bria09@imperial.ac.uk mobile IT:+393389773899 mobile UK: +447531766446 francescabria.wordpress.com
participants (3)
-
Angelo Raffaele Meo -
Francesca Bria -
J.C. DE MARTIN