Two more case studies, an article, and a message
Tuesday, March 11th, 2008Hey 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