Difference between revisions of "Team:Bordeaux/Practices"
Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
The organisms which come from these approaches can be used in both industrial applications (for example to produce drugs, biofuels, biomass or biopesticides) and in basic research as tools like biosensors (exemple) or against pollution (exemple). </p> | The organisms which come from these approaches can be used in both industrial applications (for example to produce drugs, biofuels, biomass or biopesticides) and in basic research as tools like biosensors (exemple) or against pollution (exemple). </p> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
− | <p align=" | + | <p align="center"><i>With birth of synthetic biology, many possible fields conducting to different experiments in science permit the intellectual and technical expansion. <b>Bioethics</b> is necessary to prevent researcher about its <b>ethical limits</b>.</i></p> |
<br> | <br> | ||
<h5 align="center" >The responsibilities of the researcher for synthetic biology</h5> | <h5 align="center" >The responsibilities of the researcher for synthetic biology</h5> | ||
Line 156: | Line 156: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
+ | <div class="col-lg-6"> | ||
+ | <h5 align="center" >How is the intellectual property defined in synthetic biology?</h5> | ||
+ | <p align="justify>In sciences, the question of intellectual property is recurrent. Concerning synthetic biology, all of the objects used can be patented. Among these are genes, plasmids, biobricks, genetic circuit broads, software modeling of mechanisms etc. Thinking about patentability of live being is very important in synthesis biology because we use living organisms. Apposing a patent allows appropriating a technical invention, as a produce or a process. This statute permits to protect the invention, it’s also called the “invention patent”. To elude an amalgam between creation and scientific discovery, we’ll try to define the difference between these two values. | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | We can define a discovery as a revelation of what was previously unknown, but already being. Indeed, the scientific discovery is supported by study publications which are in free access for who wants it. So, we can consider it is a part of the common knowledge, ownerless. However, the creation is a process or a product which brings a solution for a particular problem. So it is a new element, previously a lacking element. An invention is supported by a patent. In our case, in synthetic biology, it can be a whole organism, a gene or a DNA sequence. The National Consultative Ethics Committee (CCNE) try to delimitate those processes, it makes impossible to take ownership of organisms already being, with informations which are just revealed and makes sure that a discovery won’t become an invention. Also, the patentability of an element won’t be possible when it was extracted of its natural environment to live in a synthetic environment, or an element which was reproduced in a synthetic environment, but already naturally being. | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | Here, it is a polemical subject because in synthetic biology, we are making “organic inventions”. So, there is a question: “Is it acceptable to be a living being’s owner?” “What about an interior component of it?” In this last case, whose belong the interest element? At the individue? Or at that one who modified it? | ||
+ | |||
+ | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> |
Revision as of 22:05, 31 July 2015