Beyond an uninformed public? A comparative analysis of survey data concerning patenting and commodification.

• Author: Outerbridge, Tim
• Position: Canada; United Kingdom; Australia; United States

1. Introduction

   While there has been plenty of scholarship dealing with the ethical concerns associated with the role patenting plays in the development and dissemination of knowledge, (1) less has been written on the public's view of such a role. Likely, the reason for such a lack of public consultation is that patenting is seen as a complex subject, with economic and ethical policy concerns that are viewed as beyond an uninformed public's grasp. Recent studies, however, have concluded that Canadians are becoming increasingly more informed about various applications of biotechnology. (2) As a result, Canadians maybe developing the necessary levels of critical understanding to provide useful feedback on the ethics and issues surrounding patenting.

   Although patenting is seen by many as something which facilitates research and development, it is often seen by members of the public as something which restricts access to data which should be in the public domain. Even though a recent report to the World Health Organization states that "the public policy aim of patenting is only partially to reward inventors, [while] its more significant purpose is to stimulate research," (3) international mistrust of the genetic industry remains.

   In Australia, a particular study found that 70% of the public feels strongly that the regulation of biotechnology should not be left to market forces. (4) In the U.K., one study found that only a meagre 5% of individuals thought that biotechnology companies should be able to patent and charge for the use of their inventions,5 while here in Canada, opinion is split and a surprisingly high 37% of Canadians think that we should "encourage the development of biotechnology even though there might be some unknown risks." (6) This data suggests that Canadians have a more pragmatic view when it comes to encouraging biotechnology and may tolerate a higher threshold of apparent risk?

   This paper will compare and contrast different international surveys on the theme of patenting and ownership and look at the international public's perceptions of regulation, patenting and control mechanisms for biotechnology. While such surveys cannot be relied on to generate a mirror image of public beliefs, they do provide useful, generalized feedback on overall public sentiment.

2. The United Kingdom

   While 59% of Europeans are willing to agree that biotechnology companies "do good work for society," (7) only 33% think that science and technology can be properly controlled by the govemment. In a recent survey of 2,000 individuals, only 19%, agreed that drug companies should be allowed to carry out whatever research into genetics and human cloning which they think is appropriate. (8) While leaving collected samples as public property was thought to be very significant, (9) 49% of individuals generally agreed with the statement that biotechnology companies which invest in science deserve to make a profit on that investment. (10) But should that profit also entail exclusive use? One survey showed that 72% of individuals still thought that even if commercial organizations have invested large amounts of time and money to develop a new way to use human genetic information, such information should still be publicly owned and available to all for use at no charge. (11)

   For many individuals, the term "publicly owned" meant that biotechnology companies would have the same access to samples as the general public. Anything more than that created significant concerns about profiteering. (12) As one individual commented, "it's the [biotech company's] money and they are trying to find a cure, but they have got to give a little back to the health service. "13 Indeed, renumeration became a very significant topic in focus group research carried out by the Wellcome Trust in 2000, with several individuals questioning why royalties to the individual donor, as a percentage of biotech profits, were not paid. (14) One study found that the overall perception of 61% of the population is that "science is driven by business--at the end of the day it's all about money," rather than a more altruistic point of view. (15)

   On subjects seen to be more personal, such as the question of profits on human cloning, the numbers dip even lower, with only 16% of respondents agreeing that it is acceptable for companies to make profits out of research into human cloning. (16) Following genetic essentialist lines, the public appears to subscribe to the notion that "treating that which we regard as constitutive of our individuality is to treat it merely as a means rather than an end" (17) and that we have good reason to resist practices which commodify and commercialize human genes.

   Yet, little U.K. research has been conducted explicitly into the public's appreciation of the necessity of balancing the profit motive with regulation in...