WHO OWNS SCIENCE? A DRAFT STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Draft for consideration Prepared by Professor John Sulston, Chair of isei Professor John Harris, Director of isei and Lord Alliance Professor of Bioethics Sarah Chan, Research Fellow, isei
WHO OWNS SCIENCE? THE MANCHESTER MANIFESTO Science and the innovation it generates is a vast enterprise: commercial and probono, public and private, industrial and educational, amateur and professional. It permeates our lives and shapes the world. Some would say it is the defining characteristic of humanity, stimulating and harnessing our innate curiosity and, more than any other endeavour, shaping our world and, increasingly, ourselves. For many reasons, some of which are set out below, it is increasingly important to consider the question who owns science?. The answer to this question will have broad-ranging implications: for scientific progress, for equity of access to scientific knowledge and its fruits and for the fair distribution of the benefits and the burdens of science and innovation in short, for global justice and human progress. This meeting will launch a process of attempting to achieve an expert consensus on the issues, the problems and dangers, the opportunities and hopefully also some of the solutions which will enable science and innovation to flourish in ways compatible with human progress (perhaps even survival) and global justice. Today we want to achieve two things: To identify the issues, problems and dangers surrounding questions of the ownership of science and innovation and to canvass some of the possible roads to finding answers and solutions. We also want your ideas on other key stakeholders and expertise we need to include so that at a subsequent meeting or meetings we can hope to arrive at an expert consensus on both problems and on at least some possible solutions. The idea is that this consensus document, tentatively called The Manchester Manifesto will be a point of departure both for future discussion and for progress towards solutions. Our approach The Manchester Consensus aims to bring together international experts from relevant disciplines to address the question of Who Owns Science? Led by two world-class research institutes at the University of Manchester, the Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation and the Brooks World Poverty Institute, each of which is chaired by a Nobel Laureate (Professor John Sulston and Professor Joseph Stiglitz, respectively), the Consensus Group will represent a critical mass of research expertise that will be uniquely equipped to meet the challenges and problems outlined above. The Group s members are drawn from a broad range of academic disciplines and relevant sectors, including economics, science, innovation, law, philosophy, ethics and public policy. Our goal is not only to investigate the question of who owns science but to present and apply our findings to maximum effect in order to make a difference in the real world as to how science is used, and hence to build a better future for humanity. Statement of the problem Science is a rapidly growing industry. Beyond basic research, the commercialisation of technologies and development of new products from bench top to marketplace is a complex process. The way in which this process is managed, and in particular the way in which access to technologies is facilitated and controlled, is having and will inevitably have an increasing impact on the course of science and innovation. An important component of the innovation process is the idea of ownership of science and technology, particularly in the context of profiting from research and development. To manage the ownership of science and the fruits of research, an intricate system of
intellectual property law has developed. The justifications for IP law as it exists at present include the idea that it is necessary to facilitate scientific and economic benefit from innovation, and that it provides a fair and morally justifiable way of regulating access to these benefits. It is contended, however, that the current method of managing innovation (and perhaps in particular IP in its present form) suffers several disadvantages in terms of its effects on science and economic efficiency, and raises ethical issues because of its (often adverse) effects on people and populations. Whether this is in fact the case and, if so, what can be done about it (for if it is, then something should be done) is a broad question, but one of vital, perhaps paramount, importance, that will require investigation across a number of disciplines including law, economics, ethics and philosophy. Questions to be considered These are a few of the questions that a preliminary consideration of the subject suggests might be relevant in addressing the problem. This list should in no way be taken as comprehensive: we hope that through the discussion process, many other issues will come to light. We look forward to receiving your input on these in order to develop, as a group, our awareness of the full scope of the problem of Who Owns Science? Why is this an important question? - obvious significance from financial point of view profits to be gained from commercialisation of science and technology - because of its effect on people potential for science to do good or harm impact that ownership of science and how this is regulated will have to manage and modulate this potential - because the progress and the future of humanity depend in many ways on freely exploring science, and the ownership of science has vast potential to facilitate or impede this process of exploration What is science for what should science be for? - is it important to establish whether science ought to be for the public good or for something else? - what is the proper business of science? - What differing incentives are there for pursuing science - How do these differing incentives relate to the purposes for which science is or may be used? (eg pure curiosity; profit; harm or good?) - what are the reasons why science should be a public good?
because science can do good, and we always have powerful moral reasons to do good and avoid harming others.. because it is an institution that relies (and has relied on) public support, both financial, political and personal because it facilitates science itself, because publication, unfettered discourse and free communication amongst the global scientific community are crucial for the progress of science because the growing power of some of the products of science are capable of causing harm, either deliberate (e.g. biowarfare) or accidental, and the best defence is to ensure that practices are open to public scrutiny Some of the answers to questions concerning the proper business of science clearly indicate that science and innovation are broadly speaking in the public interest. If that is right, then the questions concerning the obligations of all to promote (or at least not damage) the public interest arise. To be clear about the obligations of all involved in science and about the proper scope of the aims of science we need to ask: What obligations does science have? - to the public (and to the various publics, local and global communities etc) the reciprocal side of the social contract and the public duty to support science - to funders and people who resource it to generate knowledge which may be used in various ways to generate profit to benefit humankind to advance human culture does the duty to create maximum profits and return on investment for shareholders of technology-based corporations conflict with the kinds of duties that (we may want to assert) exist towards others? If there is a conflict, how can/should it be resolved? - to those who contribute to the research, such as donors of biomaterials, other research participants, communities who contribute resources (eg biopiracy) - to science itself? (e.g. not to discredit science, not to do harm, to promote scientific progress, scientific integrity, honesty, openness and transparency, etc) How should these obligations be fulfilled? How (if at all) should their achievement be regulated or overseen? - can scientists regulate science? Is this effective? Desirable?
compare with other professional regulation bodies (eg GMC) what attempts have there been to establish internal regulation of science? National Academies of Science guidelines Peer-review and academic standards - what difficulties might be associated with national-level regulation of global science? eg transnational issues, data sharing, scientific tourism - and what about difficulties with international regulation that may not be responsive to the needs of local populations? eg internationally enforceable IP rights that may be inappropriate in terms of granting equitable access What are the effects of the current model of innovation and commercialisation of science? This question must be asked not just in the context of IP but the entire process of innovation, from support for commercialisation to marketing, distribution, regulation etc - in terms of access to technology in the general population? eg licensed vs generic drugs. Marketing as a way of controlling access and enforcing effective monopoly. - on communities in developing nations and on disadvantaged and vulnerable groups locally and globally? exclusive licensing preventing disadvantaged countries from accessing technology even where a parent company is itself unable to profit in this context? rise of generics companies in the developing world, especially India and China what effects does this have if exclusive rights patents are enforced internationally, TRIPS etc? What other effects might it have, eg health and safety? - on the process of research and development itself? Eg does the patent system and other devices for the ownership of IP discourage data sharing and timely publication because of the requirement that discoveries not be in the public domain at time of filing? does patenting allow suppression of ideas in terms of patent-sitting? This may be bad both because it hampers scientific progress and economically, because it is anti-competitive. does the entire system facilitate or frustrate science? For example, in the pharmaceutical industry, more money is currently spent on
marketing than on R&D, and new forms of old patents are rewarded more than true innovation What are the goals of managing science and innovation? What is IP law supposed to do? - reward creative effort just deserts, rights to benefit from invested labour. what is an appropriate reward? Cf what might be the differing incentives for science. Appropriate rewards are not necessarily always financial - hence encourage innovation and stimulate R&D is a system that ensures financial reward necessary for this purpose? And what level of recompense is required is the current form sufficient, is it over the top? - ensure public access to science (eg patents require publication after granting) Does the present model of intellectual property (in particular the patent system) fulfil these supposed aims? - this might be answered in light of some of the evidence gathered in response to questions above What should be done, and what can be done, to address the problems identified above? - is it possible to address these problems within the current system? compulsory licensing how is this to be managed? differential tariffs - what are the alternative methods of managing innovation, and what advantages and disadvantages might they offer? benefit sharing narrowly construed or more broadly in the sense of beneficence generally? are there reasons that benefit sharing should be restricted (or prioritised) to those who have contributed more to the research? Or is the need itself purely what gives rise to the obligation, irrespective of any prior contribution? remuneration based patents separation of research funding from production; prize competitions various sorts of access, including: unrestricted, open source software, fees according to GNP
corporate responsibility is corporate responsibility really a useful mechanism and if so, how can it be achieved? can individual obligations be extended to govern corporations? Is there any way of regulating this? what role might there be for influencing corporate actions through shareholder approval? This initial document formed the basis of discussion at a 1-day meeting of 40 national and international colleagues to mark the launch of the Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation (isei) at The University of Manchester, on 5 July 2008. A further developed, finalised statement The Manchester Manifesto Towards a consensus on problems and solutions in IP and Innovation has been generated after a second meeting in January 2009 and will be available from our website shortly. For more information, contact: Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation The University of Manchester Williamson Building Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL UK tel : +44 (0)161 275 7074 email: isei@manchester.ac.uk website : www.manchester.ac.uk/isei