Who Owns Science? The Manchester Manifesto - needs discovery knowledge
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
needs curiosity discovery knowledge good application understanding harm culture Who Owns Science? The Manchester Manifesto
2 The Manchester Manifesto The Manchester Manifesto Science, along with the innovation it generates, is a vast enterprise: commercial and pro-bono, public and private, industrial and educational, amateur and professional. It permeates our lives and shapes the world. Some say it is a 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 Statement of the problem out below, it is increasingly important to Science is a rapidly growing industry. Beyond The initial meetings of the Manchester consider the question of “Who Owns basic research, the commercialisation of Manifesto Group in 2008-2009 established Science?”. The answer to this question technologies and development of new products that the current method of managing will have broad-ranging implications: for from bench top to marketplace is a complex innovation (and perhaps in particular IP in its scientific progress, for equity of access to process. In asking “Who Owns Science?”, we present form), whilst deeply embedded in scientific knowledge and its fruits and for are concerned with all aspects of this process: current practice and hence of practical the fair distribution of the benefits and scientific discovery, development, application importance, also has significant drawbacks in the burdens of science and innovation – in and distribution; and the interactions between terms of its effects on science and economic short, for global justice and human each aspect. The way in which this is managed, efficiency, and raises ethical issues because of progress. and in particular the way in which access to its (often adverse) effects on people and technologies is facilitated and controlled, is populations. having and will inevitably have an increasing Our approach impact on the course of science-based The Manchester Manifesto Group considered technological innovation. the core goals of science and identified various The Manchester Manifesto Group brings issues and problems with the current system of together international experts from relevant An important component of the innovation ownership and management of science and disciplines to address the question of “Who process has been the idea of “ownership” in innovation, highlighting elements that hinder Owns Science?” Led by two research institutes science and technology. This concept has or obstruct achievement of these goals. at The University of Manchester, the Institute arisen partly in the context of profiting from Reflecting on these problems, we were able to for Science, Ethics and Innovation and the research and development, but also has articulate some broad principles and policy Brooks World Poverty Institute, chaired by John implications for much broader issues such as considerations to guide any investigation or Sulston and Joseph Stiglitz, respectively, the control of and access to scientific information evaluation of alternative systems of innovation. Group represents a critical mass of research and products that result from research, in Finally, we outlined some questions that must expertise that are ideally equipped to meet the terms of both the private and socio-political be addressed if we are to move towards challenges and problems outlined above. The dimensions of ownership. solutions to the problems identified by the Group’s members are drawn from a broad group. We call for further research in these range of academic disciplines and relevant To manage the ownership of science and the areas as a matter of great importance, in order sectors, including economics, science, fruits of research, an intricate system of to answer the question not only of “Who innovation, law, philosophy, ethics and public intellectual property (IP) law has developed. Owns Science?”, but of who ought to own policy. Our goal has been not only to The justifications for IP law as it exists at science and how the goals of science can best investigate the question of “Who Owns present include the idea that it is required in be fulfilled. Science?” but to present and apply our order to facilitate scientific and economic findings to maximum effect in order to make a benefit from innovation, and that it provides a difference in the real world as to how science is fair and morally justifiable way of rewarding used, and hence to “build a better future for those who invest in the process of discovery humanity”. and regulating access to these benefits.
www.manchester.ac.uk/isei 3 Goals, Problems and Issues in Science and Innovation Goals Issues/Problems in the Current Management Science and the public good Reciprocal responsibilities of science and society of Innovation Science can serve the public good by generating knowledge to meet human needs The relationship between science and society is The interests and contributions of inventors and purposes. This includes knowledge with essentially one of reciprocity, mutual benefit, and authors deserve to be recognised fairly. direct application to current challenges and and needs to be seen to be so. Just as science However the current dominant model of pure/undirected endeavour (so called “blue has responsibilities to the public good, the innovation and commercialisation of science skies” research) that forms the essential basis public has responsibilities towards science as poses a number of problems. It has potential for future scientific discovery. the collective recipient of its benefits and as a to encourage innovation and stimulate major funder of its activities – a relationship research and development, but also to frustrate • The pursuit of pure (unapplied) scientific that is often mediated by policy: innovation and stifle research and research is clearly in the public interest, since development; and can hinder science from curiosity expands knowledge, which is in • Public confidence in and engagement with operating in a way consistent with the public itself a good thing. This justifies investment science is vital; openness to public scrutiny good. in such research. can help to maintain trust and support. Science should be open to the public, Access to benefits of research • Science-based technological innovation enabling understanding of its purposes and further serves the public good by playing a implications. Current models can restrict or prevent public key role in economic growth and access to the benefits of research – both the development. • Society needs to provide just and effective information generated by scientific endeavour conditions for the increase of scientific and the products of innovation based on that • There is a basic public interest in access to knowledge. Any management mechanisms science – and thereby hinder science from knowledge. should be justifiable, appropriate, and built serving the public good. on a sound understanding of both science Innovation and the public good and the systems in which it operates. • Certain licensing and commercial practices can restrict access to the products of science Management of innovation has significant • To achieve the goals of promoting scientific and innovation, particularly for those with implications for scientific progress and human progress and human welfare, the scientific limited market power. welfare. It affects the distribution of benefits, community has a responsibility to facilitate access to technology, dissemination of reflection of scientific understanding in • This is of particular concern in the case of knowledge, and the pace and direction of policy, and should seek participation in those products that address basic needs research. policy-making processes and debates at the (such as health care). national and international level. • Innovation should operate for the public • The current model rewards particular kinds good, amongst other goals. • Policy-makers need to ensure that there are of creative effort, namely those which result opportunities for voices from the scientific in commercial gain. It is therefore likely to • Given their efforts and investments, the hinder innovation of products that have community to be heard. Scientists and scientific community and the public can also limited market value, but which may have policy-makers have a joint responsibility to be viewed as ‘shareholders’ in innovation, huge social benefit. ensure this participation occurs in a and its benefits should remain open to them transparent manner to avoid public suspicion (in the form of welfare goods and • The obligation on corporate innovation to of undue influence. knowledge). maximise profit and return for shareholders • Policy-makers should also ensure that there can conflict with the creation of knowledge are opportunities for the voices of the public and achievement of welfare goals. to be heard.
4 The Manchester Manifesto Broader Issues Effect on innovation Scientific progress There are also broader issues resulting from the dominant model of innovation which should be Current models can hinder innovation because: • Restrictions on access to information at any given consideration. stage of the innovative process obstruct the • Certain licensing practices can have flow of scientific information and thereby • Improving systems of innovation may not be restrictive effects on innovation. These impede scientific progress. Such restrictions enough in itself to promote human welfare; include, for example, use of very narrow or are also contrary to the needs of scientific there is also the problem of insufficient exclusive licence terms. inquiry and are inimical to openness and capacity, particularly in many developing transparency. countries, to access scientific information, • The increasingly common incidence of requiring multiple licences for the use of a operate and navigate innovation systems, • Information sharing among the scientific single technology or research tool and achieve access to innovative products community can be reduced or suffer from complicates access, making it more costly e.g. because of weak health infrastructure. delays as a result of patent requirements and time-consuming. (e.g. that information must not be in the • The transition from basic science to product public domain at time of filing). in the clinic or marketplace is not always • Perceptions of accessibility problems can lead to enterprises deciding not to attempt linear and unidirectional. The relationship • The complexity of the system creates to apply for licences. between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ research, uncertainty, for example over researchers’ science, technology and innovation is a ability to obtain necessary licences, which • New business entry into innovative industries complex and multi-faceted one, with can discourage investment in research and is very difficult due to the high transaction interactions between actors at all stages development. costs involved in operating in an arena of influencing the process. The effects of multiple intellectual property rights, reducing • These access restrictions have particularly action/regulation in one area may have competition and allowing large companies severe effects on public, not-for-profit, small implications extending across other aspects, to dominate markets. and developing country enterprises, which and each area may have unique issues and cannot afford the expense of licences and/or problems associated with its management. • Navigation and implementation of the the expertise required to navigate the patent patent system, negotiation, bargaining and • Within this process, actors can have multiple system. This can obstruct, delay, or entirely litigation require costly expertise. roles, creating potential conflicts of interest. shut-down valuable lines of research and For example, a single individual may have • The operation of the current system often innovation. both scientific and commercial interests at prevents the holders of IP rights themselves stake; governments may face a conflict Overall, the current patent system is self- from realising the full benefits of these between stimulating economic development reinforcing, encouraging proliferation of rights, for example because of the costs through rewarding private investment in patents and multiplying these problems. involved in asserting them. research and optimising the public benefits of science. • In many cases, profit has become the primary reward for research and development – often to the point of other drivers of innovation dropping out of consideration. Greater consideration should be given to different drivers of science/ incentives for innovation beyond profit. • It is not only the intellectual property system that restricts participation in innovation; there is also all too often a lack of strategies to encourage openness of communication, participation in research, and sharing of information and products that result from science and innovation.
www.manchester.ac.uk/isei 5 Global Dynamics The global context in which science and innovation now operate and of which they are an integral part needs to be given consideration, because it also affects their operation and effectiveness. While states have the sovereign right to adopt Additional problems occur at the their own rules, laws and procedures, they international level: need to operate within the bounds of a variety of international rules and norms and with • Diverse national regulation of innovation awareness of international dynamics. For creates complexity in compliance. This can management of innovation, these include: increase costs to innovators, pushing publicly Alternative models funded, not-for-profit and developing need to be promoted “ • Permeable national boundaries creating high country enterprises out of international mobility of knowledge, materials, and markets. and existing personnel, and meaning that the impacts of flexibilities fully national policies may be widely felt in other • International regulation can have the effect states. of privileging the interests of wealthy states explored to ensure over general human needs due to power innovation can meet • In areas which lack harmonised international imbalances. regulation, innovative activities can migrate welfare goals. to territories in which regulatory regimes are • International regulation currently remains weak or non-existent. state focused and often reinforces state sovereign rights. It can therefore be of • Frequent prioritisation of national interest limited effect on transnational actors (e.g. and economic competitiveness by states in corporations) and often promotes national ” their international relations. interest above that of local communities. • Wide disparities between rich and poor • Bilateral agreements and ‘free trade areas’ within and between states, in terms of are being used to impose excessive and income, opportunities, health, education, inappropriate standards on less developed and access to science, technology and the countries. products of innovation. The effect of the current international rules, International regulation has advantages in its which set minimum standards for intellectual ability to harmonise national policies, providing property protection, is that a single model of clarity and reducing the costs of compliance. It intellectual property protection dominates, and must be recognised, however, that at the same time is operative in many national international regulation also has disadvantages. systems. This dominant model is intended to Powerful states have greater influence in rule- promote scientific and economic development, setting and less to fear in regard to the but can be radically flawed in this respect. consequences of non-compliance. Alternative models need to be promoted and Commitments to capacity-building for existing flexibilities fully explored to ensure developing states are inadequately fulfilled and innovation can meet welfare goals. enforcement is problematic.
6 The Manchester Manifesto Principles, Policy Considerations and Progress We recognise that innovation has an essential role in economic development, but its use for the pursuit of profit should not override, and ideally should not conflict with, achievement of welfare goals and scientific progress. Scientific information, freely and openly communicated, adds to the body of knowledge and understanding upon which the progress of humanity depends. Information must remain available to science and this depends on open communication and dissemination of information, including that used in innovation. Management of innovation is one of the Policy Considerations routes through which public benefits of science can be realised. This requires a Alternative systems • Affordability in use of the system and of the range of appropriate policies and end products The current dominant model of intellectual regulatory mechanisms developed in property rights for innovation is not the only • Maintenance of free flow of scientific cooperation with scientists, innovators and option available. There are existing alternatives information the public, combined with awareness of and new models can be designed with the implications of pursuing particular differing cost distributions. Different systems • Promotion of open communication models of innovation management. may be appropriate in different areas; consideration must be given to the factors that • The provision of adequate incentives to Advantages and disadvantages of these stimulate scientific discovery and innovation affect this, including the nature of the models need to be carefully assessed in knowledge, the method of discovery and the • Ease and effectiveness of operation regard to their cumulative impacts on the environment in which knowledge generation innovative process, achievement of welfare takes place. • Inclusion of operational rules appropriate to goals and scientific progress. Current achieving desired objectives systems for managing innovation may For example, the current system can be require adaptation and incorporation of modified through increased use of mechanisms • Awareness of global dynamics greater flexibilities. In addition, such as patent pools, voluntary or compulsory consideration of alternative systems is licensing, and differential pricing. A range of Principles and Progress in the Global needed. alternative models is also possible: from those context which are related to the current rights system such as remuneration-based patents, through The objectives for innovation management Principles prize funds, to completely open-access models. listed earlier also need to be achieved within The regulation of frameworks of innovation the global context. Design and choice of should promote the following objectives: innovation model may also, therefore, need to Assessing models of innovation take into account the issues raised in the • Provision of public benefit Any model of innovation is likely to have discussion of Global Dynamics (page 6). advantages and disadvantages. Consideration • Just recognition of interests should be given to which is the most appropriate for particular circumstances, • Facilitating progress of science and bearing in mind the principles above and the innovation goals of science and innovation. • Increasing access to fruits of research – In evaluating the various possible models, the information and products following factors should be taken into • Addressing welfare and resource inequities consideration: both locally and globally • The extent to which it advances welfare and • Increasing trust in the relationships between promotes human flourishing scientists, innovators, corporations and • Fair and equitable distribution of benefits public, and between nations and burdens, with particular attention to At times these objectives may conflict and resource providers (including the scientific attention must be given to the most community, the public, specific contributors appropriate way of balancing them in each of knowledge/biomaterials, and other situation. contributors) • Facilitation of safe and sustainable access to the end product
www.manchester.ac.uk/isei 7 We have considered the question of “Who We call for further research towards achieving “public” and “private” science, in both the Owns Science” in the context of what we more equitable innovation and enabling greater practical and the normative sense. believe to be the purposes of science and fulfilment of the goals of science as we see them. Members of the Manchester Manifesto innovation and evaluated the way in which Modified and alternative models of innovation Group have been actively pursuing ownership of science currently operates have the potential to address problems inherent research initiatives in these important with respect to these purposes. It is clear in the current system. An investigation and areas; and the Group remains the base for that the dominant existing model of evaluation of these models is required in order practical discussion and ongoing innovation, while serving some necessary to determine whether they are likely to be more investigations. We hope that the purposes for the current operation of successful in facilitating the goals of science and Manchester Manifesto will serve as a innovation, also impedes achievement of innovation identified above, and if so how they starting point for discussion, reflection and core scientific goals in a number of ways. may be deployed. Greater cooperation further research on these issues amongst In many cases it restricts access to scientific between all actors is required; alongside all those concerned and involved with knowledge and products, thereby limiting development of theory, there is a clear need for science and innovation. the public benefits of science; it can restrict practical engagement with actors at all stages the flow of information, thereby inhibiting of the innovation process. the progress of science; and it may hinder innovation through the costly and The scope of this document is largely concerned complicated nature of the system. Limited with science that is in the public interest. More improvements may be achieved through thought must be given to how we characterise modification of the current IP system, but what sort of science is in the public interest, consideration of alternative models is and how we draw the boundaries between urgently required. Signatories Assessment (IATS) - CNPq/Brazil Tony Addison, Professor of Sarah Cunningham-Burley, Professor John Harris, Professor of Bioethics Development Studies, Brooks World of Medical and Family Sociology, and Director of the Institute for Muireann Quigley, Lecturer in Poverty Institute and Chronic Poverty Community Health Sciences and Co- Science, Ethics and Innovation, The Bioethics, The University of Research Centre, The University of Director for the Centre for Research on University of Manchester Manchester Manchester Families and Relationships, University Tim Hubbard, Head of Informatics Catherine Rhodes, Research Fellow in of Edinburgh Amel Alghrani, Research Associate, and Human Genome Analysis, Ethics of Science, The University of The University of Manchester Jonathan Currie, Universities Allied Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Manchester for Essential Medicines UK Cambridge Richard Ashcroft, Professor of Doris Schroeder, Professor of Moral Bioethics, Queen Mary University David Dickson, Director of SciDev.Net David Hulme, Professor of Philosophy and Director of CEP, of London (the Science and Development Development Studies and Director of University of Central Lancashire and Network) the Chronic Poverty Research Centre, Professorial Fellow CAPPE, University Hazel Biggs, Professor of Medical Law Dian Donnai, Medical Genetics The University of Manchester of Melbourne and Ethics, University of Southampton Research Group and Department of Annabelle Lever, Research Fellow, Giovanni Boniolo, Professor of Catherine Spanswick, Institute Genetic Medicine, University of The University of Manchester Philosophy and Medical Humanities, The Administrator and MA student, Manchester and Central Manchester University of Milano; Prime Investigator S. Matthew Liao, Deputy Director Institute for Science, Ethics and University Hospitals NHS Foundation in Philosophy of the Life Sciences and and Senior Research Fellow, Faculty of Innovation, The University of Trust Bioethics, IFOM Firc Institute of Philosophy, University of Oxford Manchester Molecular Oncology (Milano) Indranil Dutta, Brooks World Poverty Mori Mansouri, National Coordinator Joseph Stiglitz, Chair, Brooks World Institute and School of Social Sciences, David Booton, Lecturer in Law, The for Universities Allied for Essential Poverty Institute, The University of University of Manchester University of Manchester Medicines UK Manchester and Co-President, Marleen Eijkholt, Associate Lecturer Initiative for Policy Dialogue, Columbia Iain Brassington, Lecturer in in the School of Law, The University of John McCarthy, Director of University Bioethics, The University of Manchester Manchester Interdisciplinary Biocentre, Manchester The University of Manchester John Sulston, Chair, Institute for Max Elstein, Emeritus Professor at the Science, Ethics and Innovation, Margot Brazier, Professor of Law, Institute of Medicine, Law and Sheelagh McGuinness, Lecturer, The University of Manchester The University of Manchester Bioethics, The University of Centre for Professional Ethics, Keele Manchester University Giuseppe Testa, Research Associate, Hugh Cameron, Senior Lecturer at Institute of Molecular Oncology– the Manchester Business School, The Adrian Ely, Research Fellow, Anne Mills, Professor of Health European Institute of Oncology, University of Manchester University of Sussex Economics and Policy, London School Milan, Italy of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Marco Cappato, Director, Charles Erin, Senior Lecturer, The Alistair Ulph, Vice-President and University of London Associazione Luca Coscioni University of Manchester Dean of the Faculty of Humanities, The Alan North, Vice-President and Dean Sarah Chan, Research Fellow, The Anne-Maree Farrell , Lecturer in Law, University of Manchester of the Faculty of Medical and Human University of Manchester The University of Manchester Hugh Whittall, Director of the Sciences, The University of Manchester John Coggon, British Academy Simona Giordano, Senior Lecturer in Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London Aurora Plomer, Professor of Law and Postdoctoral Fellow, The University of Bioethics, The University of Manchester Ruth Wilkinson, Lecturer, University Bioethics and Director of SIBLE, Manchester of Sussex Jonathan Green, Professor of Child University of Sheffield Gilberto Corbellini, Coordinator, and Adolescent Psychiatry, University Paulo Picon, Professor of Medicine, Michael Woolcock, Professor of World Congress for Freedom of of Manchester and the Manchester Federal University of Rio Grande do Social Science and Development Policy, Scientific Research Biomedical Research Centre Sul, RS, Brazil. Member of The and Associate Director of the Brooks Derek Crowther, Emeritus Professor, Søren Holm, Professor of Bioethics, National Institute of Science and World Poverty Institute, The University of Manchester The University of Manchester Technology for Health Technology The University of Manchester
For more information, contact Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation The University of Manchester Williamson Building (2.11) Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL UK tel : +44 (0)161 275 7074 email@example.com www.manchester.ac.uk/isei Royal Charter Number RC000797 J2645 02.10
You can also read