Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
has been increasingly criticized in the context of the potential exploitation of
research participants in developing countries (Schroeder and Lasén Diáz 2006 ;
see also Sheremeta 2003 ). Wider issues of benefit sharing with the Majengo par-
ticipants have been raised (Andanda 2004 ) in the general context of CBD-style
benefit sharing in cases of non-human genetics, and in particular following pub-
licity regarding an alleged dispute between researchers from the Universities of
Oxford and Nairobi over a patent application related to the HIV vaccine. 26
According to some media reports, the Majengo women themselves have also
raised issues related to benefit sharing (Okwemba 2000 ). The main issues in this
context are:
• How to decide on appropriate beneits
• Representation issues in beneit sharing negotiations/agreements
• The fear of undue inducement or problems with informed consent
• Export of samples. Appropriate Benefits and Representation Issues
Benefit sharing in the context of the CBD is often assumed to mean monetary
royalties from marketed products. Benefit sharing in the case of post-study obli-
gations in medical research is normally assumed to mean access to marketed
products. Yet, in both areas, alternative benefits are feasible. Under the CBD,
benefits are usually negotiated case by case. Hence there are no legal require-
ments for any particular kind of benefit: outcomes depend on the particular
negotiations. Likewise, the Declaration of Helsinki and similar guidelines rec-
ognize that in some cases alternative benefits might be more appropriate than
access to successfully tested health interventions; otherwise research partici-
pants involved in studies, such as those in Majengo, which do not lead directly
to a particular product or intervention would simply not benefit at all (see also
Chap. 8 ) .
The following list (which is not exhaustive) gives examples of benefits which
satisfy current standard benefit-sharing requirements in addition to royalties (CBD
context) and straightforward post-study access to products:
26 Details came to public attention through the media, where an alleged patent dispute between
the Universities of Nairobi and Oxford was first discussed in 2000 (Turner 2000 ). It was reported
that disagreements arose when University of Nairobi scientists protested that their partners at
Oxford had patented the HIV vaccine development process without acknowledging them (Daily
Nation 2001 ). This dispute was resolved after 'intense' negotiations (Turner 2000 ) which resulted
in a new memorandum of understanding between the parties. The 30-page memorandum was in
force from 1 October 2001 to 30 September 2004. Although it provides that the collaborators will
be joint applicants for, and owners of, rights, titles and interests in inventions and/or patents aris-
ing from the research, and that research benefits will be shared equally between them, it does not
mention how the researchers would compensate the Majengo women who provided so many of
the resources leading to the vaccine development (AAVP 2002 ).
Search WWH ::

Custom Search