The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law

Although the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) has granted patents on genes for over 20 years, the prudence of gene patenting continues to stir controversy. Some have questioned the ethics of monopolizing a resource that is so fundamental and basic to all living organisms. It has also been argued that patents unfairly restrict the use of genes, impeding both basic and commercial research. For the biotechnology industry, however, gene patents are the currency it uses to protect its investment in research and development, and eventually, the products it brings to market. This paper examines the eligibility of genes for patenting, and considers whether the policy reasons that have led courts to decide that certain categories of subject matter are unpatentable, apply to the realm of genes. Even if this were the case, this does not mean that biotech companies have no way of protecting their inventions. Methods and processes of using the genes do not invoke the same policy considerations, and may provide a more appropriate way of rewarding industry for the narrow discovery of a gene’s specific use.

This paper examines normative and political aspects of the peer review, scientific consensus and public policy processes related to harmful algal blooms of Pfiesteria in estuarine waters of North Carolina and Maryland in the 1990s. After laying out a brief science and policy case history, the tension between the scientific consensus and public policy processes in this case is analyzed in terms of conflicts between scientific norms, public values and political expediency. The relationship between scientific consensus and public policy in general is then questioned in light of this case.

Objectives: To identify ethical attitudes about involuntary admission (known in Great Britain as formal admission) in mental health professionals and lay-people in England and Germany, especially looking at possible differences between Mental Health Professionals who are directly involved in the involuntary admission process and those who are not.Method: Three scenarios of potentially certifiable patients (known in Great Britain as sectionable patients) were presented to identify attitudes. A questionnaire asked about attitudes towards involuntary admission as well as treatment. A questionnaire analysis was then performed.Results: There were similar attitudes towards involuntary admission between laypeople and mental health professionals involved in the involuntary admission process with the exception of professionals not actively involved in the involuntary admission process. Neither personal or professional experience with mental illness nor the different legal frameworks between Germany and England influenced attitudes much. Support for involuntary admission broadly increased with age.Conclusions: Psychiatrists and other mental health workers are in tune with society with regards to attitudes to involuntary admission. People involved with mentally ill patients but not in the involuntary admission process have negative attitudes towards involuntary admission. This may influence Mental Health Tribunals suggested in the new draft Mental Health Bill (2002) for England and Wales, because these Tribunals will potentially lack any involvement of professionals involved in the involuntary admission process.