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 productwww.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 ManchesterFor 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 isei@manchester.ac.uk www.manchester.ac.uk/isei Royal Charter Number RC000797 J2645 02.10
You can also read
