Intellectual Property and the Politics of Emerging Technology: Inventors, Citizens, and Powers to Shape the Future

This article argues that there is a mismatch between traditional intellectual property doctrine and the politics of intellectual property today. To examine the nature of the mismatch, I contrast two frameworks that both appear in contemporary debate about intellectual property: the traditional discourse, which focuses on innovation policy, and a newer, less clearly codified discourse that views intellectual property issues from the perspective of the politics of technology. This latter discourse focuses on the challenge of democratic governance in a world where emerging technologies have assumed a central role in constituting the future, raising far-reaching questions about how they should be fitted into social orders. The innovation discourse remains dominant in policy debate, but recognizing the specific features of the politics-of-technology perspective—and presenting its distinctive vision of what is at stake in intellectual property—clarifies the struggles now in play. The politics-of-technology perspective rejects the traditional definition of the boundaries of intellectual property policy; first, because this perspective questions the empirical validity of a bright line distinction between creating technologies and making social choices about them; second, because it sees the traditional cartography as tending to constitute members of the public as consumers of prepackaged technologies rather than citizens engaged in shaping them; and third, because it has a normative commitment to enabling citizens to exercise voice and choice about emerging technology before irreversible commitments in specific directions are made. In contrast to traditional innovation discourse, the politics-of-technology perspective considers patent policy from a point of view that focuses on questions of democratic governance and political legitimacy

Effects of Plasma HIV RNA, CD4+ T Lymphocytes, and the Chemokine Receptors CCR5 and CCR2b on HIV Disease Progression in Hemophiliacs

We have investigated the effects of plasma HIV RNA, CD4+ T lymphocytes and chemokine receptors CCR5 and CCR2b on HIV disease progression in hemophiliacs. We prospectively observed during follow-up 207 HIV-infected hemophiliacs in the Hemophilia Growth and Development Study. Plasma HIV RNA was measured on cryopreserved plasma from enrollment using the Chiron Corporation bDNA (version 2.0) assay. Genotype variants CCR2b-641 and CCR5-Δ32 were detected using standard molecular techniques. Those with the mutant allele for CCR2b, and to a lesser extent CCR5, had lower plasma HIV RNA, and higher CD4+ T lymphocytes than did those without these genetic variants. After controlling for the effects of plasma HIV RNA and CD4+ T lymphocytes, those with the CCR2b mutant allele compared with those wild-type, had a trend toward a lower risk of progression to AIDS, adjusted relative hazard of 1.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-4.18; p = .092), and AIDS-related death, relative hazard 1.97 (95% CI, 0.98-4.00; p = .059). We conclude that plasma HIV RNA, CD4+ T lymphocytes, and CCR genotypes are correlated, and the protective affect of CCR2b against HIV disease progression is not completely explained by plasma HIV RNA or CD4+ T-lymphocyte number

Bermuda 2.0: Reflections from Santa Cruz

In February 1996, the genome community met in Bermuda to formulate principles for circulating genomic data. Although it is now 20 years since the Bermuda Principles were formulated, they continue to play a central role in shaping genomic and data-sharing practices. However, since 1996, “openness” has become an increasingly complex issue. This commentary seeks to articulate three core challenges data-sharing faces today

Bermuda 2.0: reflections from Santa Cruz.

In February 1996, the genome community met in Bermuda to formulate principles for circulating genomic data. Although it is now 20 years since the Bermuda Principles were formulated, they continue to play a central role in shaping genomic and data-sharing practices. However, since 1996, "openness" has become an increasingly complex issue. This commentary seeks to articulate three core challenges data-sharing faces today

Genetic Variants in Nuclear-Encoded Mitochondrial Genes Influence AIDS Progression

Background: The human mitochondrial genome includes only 13 coding genes while nuclear-encoded genes account for 99% of proteins responsible for mitochondrial morphology, redox regulation, and energetics. Mitochondrial pathogenesis occurs in HIV patients and genetically, mitochondrial DNA haplogroups with presumed functional differences have been associated with differential AIDS progression. Methodology/Principal Findings: Here we explore whether single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within 904 of the estimated 1,500 genes that specify nuclear-encoded mitochondrial proteins (NEMPs) influence AIDS progression among HIV-1 infected patients. We examined NEMPs for association with the rate of AIDS progression using genotypes generated by an Affymetrix 6.0 genotyping array of 1,455 European American patients from five US AIDS cohorts. Successfully genotyped SNPs gave 50% or better haplotype coverage for 679 of known NEMP genes. With a Bonferroni adjustment for the number of genes and tests examined, multiple SNPs within two NEMP genes showed significant association with AIDS progression: acyl-CoA synthetase medium-chain family member 4 (ACSM4) on chromosome 12 and peroxisomal D3,D2-enoyl- CoA isomerase (PECI) on chromosome 6. Conclusions: Our previous studies on mitochondrial DNA showed that European haplogroups with presumed functional differences were associated with AIDS progression and HAART mediated adverse events. The modest influences of nuclearencoded mitochondrial genes found in the current study add support to the idea that mitochondrial function plays a role in AIDS pathogenesis

Hidden in the Middle : Culture, Value and Reward in Bioinformatics

Bioinformatics - the so-called shotgun marriage between biology and computer science - is an interdiscipline. Despite interdisciplinarity being seen as a virtue, for having the capacity to solve complex problems and foster innovation, it has the potential to place projects and people in anomalous categories. For example, valorised 'outputs' in academia are often defined and rewarded by discipline. Bioinformatics, as an interdisciplinary bricolage, incorporates experts from various disciplinary cultures with their own distinct ways of working. Perceived problems of interdisciplinarity include difficulties of making explicit knowledge that is practical, theoretical, or cognitive. But successful interdisciplinary research also depends on an understanding of disciplinary cultures and value systems, often only tacitly understood by members of the communities in question. In bioinformatics, the 'parent' disciplines have different value systems; for example, what is considered worthwhile research by computer scientists can be thought of as trivial by biologists, and vice versa. This paper concentrates on the problems of reward and recognition described by scientists working in academic bioinformatics in the United Kingdom. We highlight problems that are a consequence of its cross-cultural make-up, recognising that the mismatches in knowledge in this borderland take place not just at the level of the practical, theoretical, or epistemological, but also at the cultural level too. The trend in big, interdisciplinary science is towards multiple authors on a single paper; in bioinformatics this has created hybrid or fractional scientists who find they are being positioned not just in-between established disciplines but also in-between as middle authors or, worse still, left off papers altogether