Abstract
This paper focuses on the ethical justifiability of patents on Genetically Modified (GM) crops. I argue that there are three distinguishing features of GM crops that make it unethical to grant patents on GM crops, even if we assume that the patent system is in general justified. The first half of the paper critiques David Resnik’s recent arguments in favor of patents on GM crops. Resnik argues that we should take a consequentialist approach to the issue, and that the best way to do so is to apply the Precautionary Principle, and that the Precautionary Principle, in this case, supports patents on GM crops. I argue that his argument in favor of a consequentialist treatment is invalid; his Precautionary Principle in any case appears to be incompatible with consequentialism; and his conception of reasonable precautions is too ill-defined to have any argumentative purchase. In the second half of the paper, I argue against GM crop patents, on three grounds. First, there is insufficient evidence to say whether allowing patents on GM crops will make research go faster than not having patents, whilst there is a good reason to think that, other things being equal, a society that allows patents on GM crops will be less just than one that does not. Second, even assuming that patents on GM crops will increase the pace of GM crop research, there is no social need to do so. Third, patents on GM crops will frequently have ethically unacceptable side effects.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Benkler Y., The Wealth of Networks New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006 .
Carpenter, J. and L. Gianessi, Agricultural Biotechnology: Updated Benefit Estimates (National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, 2001). Available from http://www.ncfap.org/reports/biotech/updatedbenefits.pdf. Last accessed 14 Sept 2006
Fisher, W., “The Growth of Intellectual Property: A History of the Ownership of Ideas in the United States.” Manuscript (1999). Available from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/iphistory.pdf. Last accessed 17 Feb 2006
Food Ethics Council, Engineering Nutrition: GM crops for global justice? (Food Ethics Council, UK, 2003).
Food Ethics Council, Novel Foods: Beyond Nuffield (Food Ethics Council, UK, 1999).
Gaus, G., “What is Deontology? Part One: Orthodox Views,” Journal of Value Inquiry 35(2) (2001a), 27–42.
Gaus, G., “What is Deontology? Part Two: Reasons to Act,” Journal of Value Inquiry 35(2) (2001b), 179–193.
Harris, J. and S. Holm, “Precautionary Principle Stifles Discovery,” Nature 400(6743) (1999), 398
Harris J., S. Holm, Extending Human Lifespan and the Precautionary Paradox Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 27(3) (2002), 355–368
Heller M., The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets,” Harvard Law Review 111(3) (1998) pp. 622–688
Hettinger E., Justifying Intellectual Property Philosophy and Public Affairs 18(1) (1989) pp. 31–52
Hughes, J., “How not to Criticise the Precautionary Principle,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy (Forthcoming)
Lessig L., The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World Vintage, New York, 2002
Manson, N., “Formulating the Precautionary Principle,” Environmental Ethics (24) (2002), 263–274
McGowan D., Copyright Nonconsequentialism, Missouri Law Review 69(1) (2004) 1–72
Mill, J., Autobiography J. Robson (ed.) (London: Penguin, 1989),1873.
Nozick R., Anarchy, State and Utopia Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1974
Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Genetically Modified Crops: The Ethical and Social Issues (1999)
O’Neil O., Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002
Piper T., “The Un-Patentability of Medical (Diagnostic) Methods: A Promise and its Perils,” OIPRC Electronic Journal of Intellectual Property Rights WP 11/03 (2003)
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), The Great GM Food Debate: A Survey of the Media Coverage of the First Half of 1999, Report 138 (2000). Available from www.parliament.uk/post/home.htm
Pogge, T., “Montréal Statement on the Human Right to Essential Medicines,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 15 (2) (2006), 97–108
Potrykus I., Golden Rice and Beyond Plant Physiology 125 (2001), 1157–1161
Railton P.,Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality Philosophy and Public Affairs 13 (1984) pp. 134–71
Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice (Oxford University Press, Oxford, revised ed. 1999; original edition 1971)
Resnik D., Owning the Genome: A Moral Analysis of DNA Patenting State University of New York Press, Albany, 2004
Ross W., The Right and the Good Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1930
Sagoff M., Are Genes Inventions? An Ethical Analysis of Gene Patentsin: J. Burley, J. Harris (eds.), A Companion to Genethics Blackwell, Oxford, 2002, pp. 420–437
Sandin P., Better Safe than Sorry: Applying Philosophical Methods to the Debate on Risk and the Precautionary Principle. Theses in Philosophy from the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2004
Scotchmer S., Innovation and Incentives. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass, 2004
Stich S., The Recombinant DNA Debate Philosophy and Public Affairs 7 (1978), pp. 187–205
Streiffer R., Academic Freedom and Academic-Industry Relationships in Biotechnology Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 16 (2) (2006), pp. 129–149
Svatos M., Biotechnology and the Utilitarian Argument for Patents in: E. Paul, F. Miller, J. Paul (eds.), Scientific Innovation, Philosophy, and Public Policy Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996
Tansey G., Trade, Intellectual Property Food and Biodiversity: Key issues and options for the 1999 review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement London: Quaker Peace & Service, 1999
Thomson J., The Realm of Rights Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1990
UNESCO, The Precautionary Principle (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Paris, 2005). Online at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001395/139578e.pdf
UK Patent Office, Manual of Patent Practice, online at http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/reference/mpp/patsact.htm, last updated June 2006
Williams B., A Critique of Utilitarianism in B. Williams, J. Smart (eds.), Utilitarianism: For and Against Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973
Wilson, J., “Microsoft on Copyright: an Ethical Analysis,” Ethicomp Journal (forthcoming)
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Angus Dawson, Jonathan Hughes, Raj Sehgal, and two anonymous referees for very helpful comments on a previous draft.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wilson, J. GM Crops: Patently Wrong?. J Agric Environ Ethics 20, 261–283 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-007-9032-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-007-9032-2