Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:04:35.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Varieties of Secrets and Secret Varieties: The Case of Biotechnology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Susan Wright  and
David A. Wallace
Susan Wright
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, USA
David A. Wallace
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, USA
Get access

Abstract

This article examines several trends that have combined to veil the new field of biotechnology in secrecy: the transformation of biotechnology from an essentially academic field characterized by strong norms of openness to a field with extensive corporate connections that have reached even to research in leading universities; the establishment of intellectual property rights for life-forms initiated by the landmark Supreme Court decision, Diamond vs. Chakrabarty; and the limiting of public access to information about the genetically altered organisms whose use in agriculture, industry, and medicine falls under government controls. The article also examines the effects of the U.S. biotechnology industry's demand for secrecy on the negotiations for a protocol to the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, particularly the turn from requirements for transparency to protection of opacity with respect to biotechnology and other biological processes, equipment, and production.

Type
Secrecy in Biotechnology
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 45 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., (1991). 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991).Google Scholar
Atkins, J. (1976). “Expression of a Eucaryotic Gene in Escherichia coli.” Nature 262:256–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, R. (1992). “Knotty Biotech Issues Receive Attention.” Chemical and Engineering News (April 27):30–31.Google Scholar
Berg, P. (1979). Quoted in Sharon Begley's “The DNA Industry.” Newsweek (August 20):53.Google Scholar
Biogen, N.V. (1982). Prospectus (October 14): 14.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, D. et al. (1986a). “Industrial Support of University Research in Biotechnology.” Science 231 (January 17):242–46.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, D. et al. (1986b). “University-Industry Research Relationships in Biotechnology: Implications for the University.” Science 232 (June 13):1361–66.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, D. et al. (1996a). “Participation of Life Science Faculty in Research Relationships with Industry.” New England Journal of Medicine 335:1734–39.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, D. et al. (1996b). “Relationship between Academic Institutions and Industry in the Life Sciences: An Industry Survey.” New England Journal of Medicine 334:368–73.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, D. et al. (1997). “Withholding Research Results in Academic Life Science: Evidence from a National Survey of Faculty.” JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 277:1224–28.Google Scholar
Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1971). “Draft Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) Weapons and Toxins and on Their Destruction.” March 30 (CCD/325).Google Scholar
Bureau of National Affairs (1989). Biotechnology Law for the 1990s: Analysis and Perspective. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs (December).Google Scholar
Cetus Corporation (c. 1975). “Special Report.” Unpublished.Google Scholar
Cooper, I.P. (1999). Biotechnology and the Law, 1999 Revision. St. Paul, MN: WestGoogle Scholar
“Corporations Swap Gifts for Influence over Scholars” (1998). New York Times (April 1).Google Scholar
Dhar, B.(forthcoming). “The Patent Regime and Implementing Article X of the Biological Weapons Convention: Some Reflections.” In Wright, S. (ed.), Meeting the Challenges of Biological Warfare and Disarmament in the 21st Century.Google Scholar
Diamond v. Chakrabarty ([undated]a). Brief on Behalf of the American Society for Microbiology, Amicus Curiae.Google Scholar
Diamond v. Chakrabarty ([undated]b). Brief on Behalf of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, Amicus Curiae.Google Scholar
Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980a). 447 U.S. Dissent, pp. 1–2, 4.Google Scholar
Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980b). 447 U.S. Slip Opinion, pp. I–II.Google Scholar
Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980c). Brief on Behalf of Genentech, Inc., Amicus Curiae, January 23.Google Scholar
Dickson, D. and Noble, D. (1981). “By Force of Reason.” In Ferguson, T. and Rogers, J. (eds.), The Hidden Election: Politics and Economics in the 1980 Presidential Election Campaign. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Etzkowitz, H. (1989). “Entrepreneurial Science in the Academy: A Case of the Transformation of Norms.” Social Problems 36:14–29.Google Scholar
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., and Healey, P., eds. (1998). Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Fogleman, V. (1987). “Regulating Science: An Evaluation of the Regulation of Biotechnology Research.” Environmental Law 17:229–64.Google Scholar
Forum for European Bioindustry Coordination (1998). Position on a Compliance Protocol to the BTWC, Draft, June 30. Cited inMuth, W., “The Role of the Pharmaceutical and Biotech Industries in Strengthening the Biological Disarmament Regime.” Politics and the Life Sciences 18 (1999):92–97.Google Scholar
Gee, J. (1996). “A Strengthened BWC: Lessons to Be Learned from the Chemical Weapons Convention.” UNIDIR Newsletter No. 33/96:75–80.Google Scholar
Greco, E. (1998). “Protection of Confidential Information and the Chemical Weapons Convention.” In Bothe, M. et al. (eds.), The New Chemical Weapons Convention: Implementation and Prospects. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Hettinger, N. (1995). “Patenting Life: Biotechnology, Intellectual Property, and Environmental Ethics.” Environmental Affairs 22:277–78.Google Scholar
Itakura, K. (1977). “Expression in Escherichia coli of a Chemically Synthesized Gene for the Hormone Somatostatin.” Science 198:1056–63.Google Scholar
Kennedy, D. (1980). “Health Research: Can Utility and Quality Co-Exist?” Speech given at the University of Pennsylvania, December.Google Scholar
Kevles, D.J. (1994). “Ananda Chakrabarty Wins a Patent: Biotechnology, Law, and Society, 1972–1980.” HSPS: Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 25:111–36.Google Scholar
Krimsky, S. (1991). Biotechnics and Society: The Rise of Industrial Genetics. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Krimsky, S. et al. (1991). “Academic-Corporate Ties in Biotechnology: A Quantitative Study.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 16:275–86.Google Scholar
Lemin, A.J. (1989). “Patenting Microorganisms: Threats to Openness.” In Weill, V. and Snapper, J. (eds.), Owning Scientific and Technical Information: Values and Ethical Issues. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Louis, K.S. and Anderson, M.S. (1998). “The Changing Context of Science and University-Industry Relations.” In Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., and Healey, P. (eds.), Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Mannig, D. (1993). “At the Conclusion of the Chemical Weapons Convention: Some Recent Issues Concerning the Chemical Industry.” In Morel, B. and Olsen, K. (eds.), Shadows and Substance: The Chemical Weapons Convention. Boulder, CO.: Westview.Google Scholar
Mescher, R.M. (1992). “Patent Law: Best Mode Disclosure: Genetic Engineers Get Their Trade Secret and Their Patent Too?” University of Dayton Law Review 18:214–15.Google Scholar
Meselson, M. (1991). “Implementing the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972.” UNIDIR Newsletter 4 (June): 10–13.Google Scholar
Meselson, M., Kaplan, M., and Mokulsky, M. (1991). “Verification of Biological and Toxin Weapons Disarmament.” Science and Global Security 2:235–52.Google Scholar
Muth, W. (1999). “The Role of the Pharmaceutical and Biotech Industries in Strengthening the Biological Disarmament Regime.” Politics and the Life Sciences 18:92–97.Google Scholar
Myrdal, A. (1976). The Game of Disarmament. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Nurton, J. (1997). “Biotechnology Patents: Biotechnology's Winning Formulas.” Managing Intellectual Property, June. Available March 27, 1998, at <www.lawmoney.com/public/contents/publications/MIP/mip9706/mip9706.7.html.Google Scholar
Parker v. Bergy and Parker v. Chakrabarty (1979). Brief on Behalf of the Peoples Business Commission, Amicus Curiae, December 13.Google Scholar
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (1996). “Reducing the Threat of Biological Weapons—a PhRMA Perspective.” November 25. Circulated at the Fourth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention, November 25–December 6.Google Scholar
Rimmington, A.(forthcoming). “Invisible Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Soviet Union's Biological Weapons Programme, 1918 to 1991.” In Wright, S. (ed.), Meeting the Challenges of Biological Warfare and Disarmament in the 21st Century.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, B. and Burck, G. (1990). “Verification of Compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention.” In Wright, S. (ed.), Preventing a Biological Arms Race. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thranert, O.(forthcoming). “Issues in the Ad Hoc Group to the BWC: How Did the Three Depositary States—the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom—Approach the Compliance Problem?” In Wright, S. (ed.), Meeting the Challenges of Biological Warfare and Disarmament in the 21st Century.Google Scholar
Tucker, J.B. (1998). “Strengthening the BWC: Moving Toward a Compliance Protocol.” Arms Control Today (January/February):20–27.Google Scholar
United Kingdom (1995). “The Role and Objectives of Information Visits.” July 13 (BWC/AD HOC GROUP/21).Google Scholar
U.K. Foreign Office, Arms Control and Disarmament Research Unit (1966). “Arms Control Implications of Chemical and Biological Warfare: Analysis and Proposals.” ACDRU(66)2 (2nd draft, July 4):57, F0371/187448, Public Record Office, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
United States (1998a). Statement of John Holum to the Biological Weapons Convention Ad Hoc Group Session XII, October 6.Google Scholar
United States (1998b). Working Paper: Proposed Elements of Clarification Visits, July 9 (BWC/AD HOC GROUP/WP.294).Google Scholar
U.S. Congress, (1977a). House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology. Hearings: Science Policy Implications of DNA Recombinant Molecule Research. 95th Cong., 1st sess. Testimony of John G. Adams (Vice President for Scientific and Professional Relations, Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association) and C. Joseph Stetler (President, Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association).Google Scholar
U. S. Congress (1977b). Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space. Hearings: Regulation of Recombinant DNA Research. 95th Cong., 1st sess. Testimony of Philip Handler, President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1989). New Developments in Biotechnology: Patenting Life—Special Report.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1979). Minutes of Meeting of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association with HEW General Counsel, Peter Libassi.Google Scholar
U.S. Office of the Press Secretary, the White House (1998). “Fact Sheet: The Biological Weapons Convention.” January 27.Google Scholar
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (1990). “Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes: Final Rule.” 37 Code of Federal Regulations, Part I, Section 1801, January 1.Google Scholar
“U.S. Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Industries White Paper on Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention” (n.d.). Sent by A. Goldhammer, BIO, to U.S. State Department, June 23, 1995.Google Scholar
Wade, N. (1976). “Guidelines Extended but EPA Balks.” Science 194:304.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1986). “Recombinant DNA Technology and Its Social Transformation.” Osiris 2:303–60.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1994). Molecular Politics: Developing American and British Regulatory Policy for Genetic Engineering, 1972–1982. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1996). Interview with James Leonard, August.Google Scholar