Band 3, Heft 2

Biotechnology and the WTO have increasingly intersected following the growth of biotech trade. The regulatory challenge of biotechnology is a current subject of debate in the WTO. Biotechnology highlights emerging tensions between the effectiveness of the WTO law on biotech issues and the public health and the non-trade issues of biotech trade. Based on legal analysis, this paper reviews the policy issues caused by biotechnology and its implications on the organization and also considers the kind of policy options needed to achieve an appropriate balance between biotech interests and WTO discipline.

Acts of gift giving or donation carry the possibility of being inclusive as well as exclusive in terms of effects and agency. In this paper, I will discuss the problem that arises when an agent stipulates certain conditions on organ donation, such as race. In such a case, the general act of donation may be commendable, but the conditions stipulated as to the nature of the recipient may be subject to criticism. This is a problematic issue in the difference between stipulating obligations to humanity as a whole, and identifying particular communities according to features such as race, culture nationality and religious belief. Questions such as whether or not a donor can place restrictions on the nature of the recipient or whether the hospital as an institution should accept a donation with conditions attached present challenges to current legislation in the UK on conditional donation. This is further complicated where there is a greater need for organs in particular ethnic groups, and that although race and ethnicity do not pose barriers to transplant success, tissue type matches are better suited to those of similar ethnic background. I will address whether such limits of a person or group's ability to be altruistic is morally acceptable and whether conditions put on gift giving can be legitimately rejected through law.

The ethical dilemma of hES-cell research Human embryonic stem cells (hES-cells) have two distinctive properties: they are able to replicate in an artificial medium more or less indefinitely, and they are capable of differentiating into each of the cell types which make up the human body. They do not have, however, the ability to develop into a complete and functioning human organism. hEScells are, therefore, not considered human embryos.

Nowadays there are increasing biological innovations standing in the filing queue to be passed by the authority so that the patentee can claim the trophy of exclusive right awarded by State. On the one hand, this may be seen as a sign that the heavily invested bio-industry is beginning to bear fruits, which according to some famous management school, serves as an important indication to demonstrate how competitive a State is as a whole. Whereas, on the other hand, because the controversy centering biotechnology has long time been the material per se , the access to such material and the potential applications, to apply the current practice in patent system to grant 20 years of exclusive right in exchange of disclosure of key techniques in biology may give rise to certain ethical issues of different fashion than those in other industrial sectors. DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid consists of four building blocks, termed nucleotides – Adenine (A), Guanine (G), Cytosine (C) and Thymine (T). Usually in the cell nucleus, genes are contained in long DNA molecules and can be represented as letters in a four- letter alphabet used to write out the biological messages. Each cell of the human body maintains information-containing hereditary units, the genes that control identifiable traits of an organism. There are approximately 26,000 to 31,000 protein-encoding genes in the human genome. In the knowledge-based era, patent provides an excellent vehicle to drive technology further into exploration of the unknown world. Despite any potential risk from upstream scientific R&D to downstream business strategy, government's policy often plays a pivotal role in the whole picture. As a result, political interpretation of a newly developed technology seems to always surpass the appealing benefits envisaged by different interested groups, being academia or industry. The reason why biotech craze can boom within the industry is likely to be attributed to the incentive a rather rigid patent system can provide. In addition to other pre-requisites, to determine whether a biological invention constitutes patentable subject matter, two notions have been raised to argue in practical evaluation. The first one is the substantial difference between discovery and invention and the second, the ethical judgment-whether or not an invention is contrary to ‘ order public ’ or ‘ morality ’. In review of the numerous appealing cases, it seems that no explicit criteria have satisfied groups of different interests so to serve as the general reasoning ground for objection parties to demur to a patent. ‘ order public ’ or ‘ morality ’ per se are concepts of uncertain nature. The grant of a patent is an act of state sovereignty – or, in the EPO's case, of sovereignty vested in an intergovernmental agency. The purpose of Art.53(a) EPC is to prevent the impression being given that an invention would be exploited to be contrary to legal fundamentals or to offend the sense of decency on any reasonable person bears the seal of state approval. In a lower level, differences of moral standards have already been foreseen under the setting of patent framework before EPC was implemented. What appears more fundamental than the utilitarianism's product-the patent, for example human dignity seems to be a question inappropriate to be subject to any utilitarian's premise for discussion. Despite any potential drawbacks imposed by ethical deliberation, what seems fast growing nowadays is the piled up applications for gene patent and a still ambiguous principle tangled by vigorous ethical debate.

This complexity is aggravated further by the fact that when the Bolam principles were endorsed as the determinants of the scope of disclosure, direct reference is made only to disclosure of the inherent risks of a proposed procedure. With Lord Bridge's speech commonly accepted as the heart of Sidaway , this is then qualified by the assertion that the court reserves the right to be the ultimate arbiter on the adequacy of disclosure where the procedure involved a substantial risk of grave adverse consequences. Granting that the decision has to be set within the factual circumstances of the Sidaway case itself, both rulings nevertheless illustrate the court's overriding concern with risks of bodily injury. This emphasis brings its own host of problems. Risks of psychotherapy are not readily ascertainable at the outset with any degree of accuracy. There is currently still a dearth of evidencebased information on these as the field is not generally amenable to observational research.