Two more case studies, an article, and a message
Hey guys, hopefully this goes up sometime during the chat…
First off, an article from a delegate!
Colombia believes that this article clearly exemplifies the pros and cons of research and especially gene patents. Though it can prove an effective method for encouraging alternative methods and in turn, could produce revolutionary advances in the field of biomedical research, this can be greatly outweighed by the fact that many organizations simply apply for these patents in order to obtain profits and gain an advantage over other companies. Colombia believes that the laws surrounding research patents, and gene patents in particular should be modified to allow more flexibility while still respecting the intellectual property rights of the original developer to encourage cooperation between researchers internationally.
CASE STUDIES
The Catharanthus roseus, or the Rosy Periwinkle, has been used for hundreds of years by Madagascans to treat diabeties. This property obviously attracted the attention of Western scientists, who were able to extract two compounds (vinblastine and vincristine) that have cancer treating properties. The profits were obviously high, and the companies that the scientists worked for got very rich for these life-saving drugs.
Only one problem. The Madagascans didn’t receive a cent for their indigenous knowledge that played a vital role in the development of the drugs. Had they not had this knowledge, for instance, no one would have given the Rosy Periwinkle a second thought.
So extend this case to our first topic, where instead of the Rosy Periwinkle, its the genome of the Madagascans that is being used to develop drugs, and the profits derived from the patents and the sale of that drug aren’t coming back to them. Is this a problem that should be solved, and if so, how?
Unapproved drug trials in Peru
Alright, I’m lazy. I’ll post their synopsis of the issue, which is so much better-written than I could ever hope to do.
Two children suffered serious allergic reactions after being used as guinea pigs by the California-based company Ventria Bioscience in Lima, Peru [1]. The children were part of a clinical trial of a genetically modified (GM) rice serum containing two synthetic human proteins lactoferrin and lysozyme (normally found in human milk and other bodily fluids), not yet approved for testing in the US or anywhere else in the world.
Ventria had experienced stiff opposition for growing the GM rice in its home country. It was driven out of California and southeast Missouri in 2005, but managed to grow the GM rice in North Carolina [2] (Molecular Pharming - the New Battlefront over GM Crops , SiS27).
The company was hoping to sell the GM rice as a “nutraceutical” presumably on grounds that it provided extra nutrition. Nevertheless, it was unlikely to gain approval for a clinical trial in the US; so, like other companies, it decided to target Third World countries where regulations are lax…
MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR
There are only three days left before the conference officially starts, but based on what I’ve seen in chat rooms and in emails and blog comments, many of you guys have already gotten into the mood. I’m excited to see what the committee itself is like if that is the case.
One note about my committees. I’m sure many of you are frustrated with the superficiality of many MUN topics in previous committees (overpopulation, globalization, landmines, etc…). And frankly, BMUN is not innocent in picking engaging topics all the time. That is why I picked these difficult topics, but also why I’ve tried to give you guys as many case studies as possible. I truly believe that the most rewarding committees are the ones where you walk out knowing more than when you walked in. I hope so for that is the case with UNESCO.
That is why I also want you guys to change the typical MUN focus that many other conferences have. I don’t want you do focus simply on the “what” questions. Everyone knows that the greenhouse effect or exploitation of labor is bad. I want you to quickly move from the “what” questions and refocus on the “how”. How do we fix these issues? Enforcement and implementation, those are going to be your buzz words for this weekend. Where does funding come from? How do we make sure nonconformers with your policies are set straight? Only when you answer the “how” questions do you really come out with a true understanding of the issues at hand.
Alright, time to post, so I will see you guys tomorrow with another post. Hopefully the curve of the research papers eligible for research awards is out by then. 
- Bryan
March 11th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Of course, the United States of America wants people to go for quality of quantity or in this case, money, however, we do see potential in the money aspect. Researchers will be encouraged to create better products that they can patent so they can make more money, but, their carelessness or disregard for safety may also result.
We see potential in having this sort of competition, assuming we can monitor it from a distance and make sure that nothing dangerous is coming out of their research. Researchers will be motivated by the money aspect to one-up each other and try to make better products, which would result in better medicine among other things. We just need to make sure that their are no negative side effects and that researchers are not getting careless.
This problem can solve itself with a little bit of help, as long as we keep a distance but are not to far away.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
United Kingdom agrees that money is a big motive for both improvements and wrongdoings such as unfair commendation to then indigenous people of a race or nation.
The first article stresses this very important point and it should be important that the indigenous people of a race receive credit for their genetic contribution to a study or finding. There are many places throughout the world that provide information on the genetics or a certain race or culture and companies are given access to these sources of information and use them to their own advantage.
In order to allow the indigenous people of a race to receive compensation for their contributions to medicine and science, companies should have restricted acess to their genetic information in the first place.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
The Rosy Periwinkle case treads into the realm of indigenous knowledge preservation, which really does pertain to the first topic. It is not only their genetic data that is of concern, but also their knowledge of local resources that would be a valuable commodity to the rest of the world. The importance of such resources undermines the fact that the indigenous peoples are usually excluded from most intellectual property rights law.
It is difficult to conduct benefit-sharing effectively due to communication barriers and lack of understanding of intellectual property rights by some indigenous peoples because some communities feel that the knowledge is meant for the community and cannot be owned.
March 13th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Sweden would like agree with the U.S. and U.K. that money is, indeed, a prime motivator for many private and state-sponsored enterprises. However, this does not ensure ethical behavior. On the contrary, money often results in egregous digressions from moral standards. So, yes, the products will undoubtedly be beneficial (as proved in the Rosy Periwinkle case study), but will will the means justify the ends (once again, referring to the treatment of the indigenous people in the case study)? That is an important facet of the committee that seems to be overlooked here.
March 13th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
The USA agrees with Sweden. Money is obviously a big motivator but we can turn it to our advantage. Why not reap the benefits of all parties, by which we mean, let those who do the research conduct it and maybe offer incentives to motivate them even further. We can turn this into an unstoppable entity, but a safe one at that.
We are the ones that have the possibility to make this possible. We need cooperation but let those who are already doing the work continue, just make sure that it is in a practical,, ethical, efficient, productive manner.