The last few years have seen an earnest push by the Singapore government to develop the biotechnology sector in this island city-state. Indeed, biotechnology was to be the fourth pillar of the country's economy. The Straits Times recently reported that the government is spending US$1.7 billion over a period of five years to attract foreign biotech and pharmaceutical companies to Singapore.
However, there remains a bane for all countries fervently pushing to develop a biotech utopia - the moral and ethical bar exception to biotechnology patents. Legal issues stemming from it are usually highly controversial and emotional. Patent law primarily serves to protect technological innovations and seldom addresses moral or ethical considerations thoroughly.
One issue pertinent to Singapore is ethical considerations over the patenting of genetically-engineered organisms. On the face of it, denying patentability to such organisms mainly on moral or ethical grounds could be detrimental to the establishment of a viable biotech industry in Singapore.
Section 13 of Singapore's Patents Act provides:
3) An invention the publication or exploitation of which would be generally expected to encourage offensive, immoral or anti-social behaviour is not a patentable invention.
4) For the purposes of subsection (3), behaviour shall not be regarded as offensive, immoral or anti-social only because it is prohibited by any law in force in Singapore.
However, the key statutory terms are undefined. Therefore, it is left to the courts and patent agents to determine the parameters of what constitutes a non-patentable invention with regards to genetically-engineered organisms.
How then would the controversial Chakrabarty and Harvard oncomouse cases be resolved in Singapore?
Guidance can be obtained from the fact that Singapore has an explicit policy for the promotion and development of biotechnology. Furthermore, there is no specific prohibition in Singapore's Patents Act against patents for animal or plant varieties or biological processes for the production of animals or plants. In fact, the Bioethics Advisory Committee established by Singapore in December 2000 to address the ethical and social issues associated with biomedical sciences has recommended that Parliament avoid barring plants and animals patents. Indeed, this position is in harmony with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), which has no bar on animal or plant patents.
One other aspect of pertinent ethical consideration in Singapore is with regards to research on embryonic stem cells. Singapore has six of the estimated 60 embryonic stem cell lines known in the world. Stem cell research is considered as one of the most controversial areas in biotechnology. In 2001, President Bush ordered a ban on federal funding in the US for research on cells derived from aborted or abandoned embryos. That decision has sparked myriad controversies in the US. In Singapore, the National Medical Ethics Committee recommended a total ban on human cloning but research on human stem cells was to be allowed. The Committee also recommended that a statutory board should be put in place to oversee stem cell research. Indeed, this even-handed approach will only bode well for Singapore. In contrast, there are growing voices in academic circles who are arguing that two years after the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, the US is falling behind other countries in the search for cures to life-threatening diseases.
In the final analysis, it is imperative that Singapore encourages innovation and investment in the local nascent biotech industry by providing incentives and enticements to the major players. One such way is to provide for a biotechnology patent policy that substantially steers clear of moral judgements that deviate from the pro-biotechnology patent policy of the US and Europe. It is the only way for Singapore to remain competitive in this field.
|
| Gladys Mirandah |
