Difference between revisions of "Team:Bordeaux/Practices"
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
<h5 align="center" >How is the intellectual property defined in synthetic biology?</h5> | <h5 align="center" >How is the intellectual property defined in synthetic biology?</h5> | ||
− | + | <p align="justify" style="text-indent: 3vw;"> In sciences, the <b>question of intellectual property</b> is recurrent. Concerning synthetic biology, all of the objects used <b>can be patented</b>. Among these are genes, plasmids, biobricks, genetic circuit broads, software modeling of mechanisms etc. Thinking about <b>patentability of live being</b> is very important in synthethic biology since we are technically, manipulating live beings. </p> | |
− | + | <p align="justify" style="text-indent: 3vw;"> We can define a <b>discovery</b> as a revelation of <b>what was previously unknown</b>, but <b>already being</b>. 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 <b>common knowledge</b>, ownerless. However, the <b>creation</b> is a process or a product which brings a solution for a particular problem. So it is a <b>new element</b>, previously a lacking element. An invention is supported by a patent. In our case, in synthetic biology, it can be <b>a whole organism</b>, <b>a gene</b> or <b>a DNA sequence</b>. The National Consultative Ethics Committee (CCNE) tries to delimitate these processes by making it impossible to take ownership of organisms which already exist making sure that <b>a discovery doesn’t become an invention</b>. 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. </p> | |
<br>Here, it is a <b>polemical subject</b> because in synthetic biology, we are <b>making “organic inventions”</b>. 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?</i></p> <br> | <br>Here, it is a <b>polemical subject</b> because in synthetic biology, we are <b>making “organic inventions”</b>. 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?</i></p> <br> |
Revision as of 19:01, 26 August 2015