Wisdom in the earth: an examination of the history of intellectual property rights in plants and seeds

Economic influences played a dominant role in design and implementation of intellectual property laws and agriculture policy in America. These influences have helped shape the values and goals of people who created, administered and interpreted patent laws throughout the twentieth century, as well as those who promoted agriculture in America and later in the developing world. The historical motivations driving these two institutions help explain how and why plants entered the realm of intellectual property and why international aid organizations defined and measured progress in economic terms. Events that serve to illustrate these dynamics include the Plant Patent Act of 1930, the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970, the Rockefeller Foundation\u27s agricultural outreach program in Mexico and the Foundation\u27s formation - in cooperation with the Word Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the Ford Foundation - of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Resources (CGIAR). Review of documents particular to these events reveals a consistent philosophy of progress through profit that informed debate over use of intellectual property rights in plants. As aid organizations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and CGIAR embraced modern agriculture as a tool to help the developing world, they inherited and sometimes perpetuated this economic philosophy. The biotechnology revolution of the 1980\u27s enhanced the already valuable seed collections held by these institutions and forced them to reevaluate their traditional policy of free sharing and address if and how seeds should be protected and used to generate income and how profit from such activities should be allocated. The solutions to these difficult issues and the historical influences that shaped them help drive the contemporary debate on topics such as GMO food, environmental safety and cultural preservation

The right to obtain patent protection on living material: the causes and consequences of the United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty

In 1980, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty that living material was in the category of patentable subject matter, provided that the living material was a product of human invention as opposed to a product of nature. The fact that the material was living or inanimate was held to be irrelevant to the issue of eligibility for a patent. This ruling was the centerpiece in a series of events that combined to secure the status of animate material as private property. These events fundamentally changed the nature of scientific research in the academic community and the relationship between the university and the private market. These events also had a chilling effect on the pubic debate over the safety, ethics, and morality of commercializing biological material. As a result, the citizens of the United States have never fully dealt with this complex ethical issue except from a purely economic perspective

Desprezando a democracia na política educacional: Sistemas de responsabilização do cartão de relatório da escola A-F

Sixteen states have adopted school report card accountability systems that assign A-F letter grades to schools. Other states are now engaged in deliberation about whether they, too, should adopt such systems. This paper examines A-F accountability systems with respect to three kinds of validity. First, it examines whether or not these accountability systems are valid as a measure, that is, do these systems validly measure school quality? Second, it examines whether or not they are valid as a policy instrument. or, how far do A-F accountability systems fulfill the stated aims of their proponents—empowering parents, providing “simple” and “common sense” measures of educational quality, and so on? Finally, it examines whether or not A-F systems are valid as a democratic framework:, how well do these systems align with the broader goals of educating students for democratic citizenship and of incorporating parents and community members in democratic deliberation about policies for their public schools? The paper concludes that A-F accountability systems are invalid along each of these lines, and provides recommendations for democratically developing and implementing criteria for school assessment.Dieciséis estados han adoptado sistemas de rendición de cuentas de tarjetas de calificaciones escolares que asignan calificaciones de letra A-F a las escuelas. Otros estados ahora están involucrados en la deliberación sobre si ellos también deberían adoptar tales sistemas. Este documento examina los sistemas de rendición de cuentas de A-F con respecto a tres tipos de validez. Primero, examina si estos sistemas de rendición de cuentas son válidos como medida, es decir, ¿estos sistemas valen válidamente la calidad de la escuela? En segundo lugar, examina si son o no válidos como un instrumento de política. o, ¿hasta qué punto los sistemas de rendición de cuentas de A-F cumplen los objetivos declarados de sus defensores -apoderando a los padres, proporcionando medidas "simples" y de "sentido común" de calidad educativa, etc.? Finalmente, examina si los sistemas A-F son válidos como marco democrático: ¿qué tan bien se alinean estos sistemas con los objetivos más amplios de educar a los estudiantes para una ciudadanía democrática y de incorporar a padres y miembros de la comunidad en una deliberación democrática sobre las políticas para sus escuelas públicas? El documento concluye que los sistemas de rendición de cuentas A-F no son válidos a lo largo de cada una de estas líneas y ofrece recomendaciones para desarrollar y aplicar criterios democráticamente para la evaluación escolar.Dezesseis estados adotaram sistemas de responsabilidade de cartões de nível escolar que atribuem notas de grau A-F às escolas. Outros estados estão agora envolvidos na deliberação sobre se eles também devem adotar tais sistemas. Este artigo examina os sistemas de responsabilização da A-F em relação a três tipos de validade. Em primeiro lugar, examina se esses sistemas de prestação de contas são válidos como medida, ou seja, esses sistemas são válidos para a qualidade da escola? Em segundo lugar, ele examina se eles são ou não válidos como uma ferramenta de política. ou, em que medida os sistemas de responsabilização da A-F atendem aos objetivos declarados de seus defensores - capacitando os pais fornecendo medidas "simples" e de "senso comum" de qualidade educacional, etc.? Finalmente, examina se os sistemas AF são válidos como um quadro democrático: quão bem esses sistemas se alinham com os objetivos mais amplos de educar estudantes para a cidadania democrática e incorporar os pais e membros da comunidade em uma deliberação democrática sobre as políticas para as escolas públicas? O documento conclui que os sistemas de responsabilização da A-F não são válidos ao longo de cada uma dessas linhas e fornece recomendações para desenvolver e aplicar critérios de forma democrática para avaliação escolar

Why School Report Cards Merit a Failing Grade

Sixteen states have adopted school report card accountability systems that assign A-F letter grades to schools. Other states are now engaged in deliberation about whether they, too, should adopt such systems. This brief examines A-F accountability systems with respect to three kinds of validity. First, it examines whether or not they are valid as a measure. That is, do these systems validly measure school quality? Second, it examines whether or not they are valid as a policy instrument. That is, how far do A-F accountability systems fulfill the stated aims of their proponents—empowering parents, providing “simple” and “common sense” measures of educational quality, and so on? Finally, it examines whether or not A-F systems are valid as a democratic framework. That is, how well do these systems align with the broader goals of educating students for democratic citizenship and of incorporating parents and community members in democratic deliberation about policies for their public schools? The brief concludes that A-F accountability systems are invalid along each of these lines, and provides recommendations for democratically developing and implementing criteria for school assessment