Search

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a risk factor for dysglycemia, insulin resistance, and type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). Inefficient energy oxidation, metabolic inflexibility, is a marker of blunted metabolism. We conducted a systematic review on metabolic inflexibility in women with PCOS. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane central (inception-October 2018) for studies evaluating metabolic inflexibility and reporting on changes in Respiratory Quotient (DELTARQ). We extracted data and assessed quality using The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We included five prospective cohort studies (461 women). Three compared PCOS women to unaffected subjects, one to women with obesity or T2DM, and one to adolescent girls; all had medium quality. Three studies showed higher metabolic inflexibility in women with PCOS (DELTARQ range 0.05-0.098) compared to unaffected subjects. Women with PCOS had similar metabolic inflexibility compared to those with T2DM (DELTARQ 0.05 +/- 0.03 vs 0.06 +/- 0.04, p =.98) and obesity (p =.06). Inflexibility was higher in hyperandrogenemic women with PCOS (DELTARQ 0.091 +/- 0.060 vs 0.120 +/- 0.010, p =.014). DELTARQ was lower in PCOS women with insulin resistance vs those with normal insulin sensitivity (0.04 +/- 0.02 vs. 0.07 +/- 0.04, p =.007). In conclusion, women with polycystic ovary syndrome appear to have higher metabolic inflexibility associated with hyperandrogenemia and insulin resistance.Copyright © 2019, © 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

On 23 November 2017, the European Parliament, published a Working Document titled Three-Dimensional Printing, a Challenge in the fields of Intellectual Property Rights and Civil Liability. The publication went on to state that the European Commission ‘has made 3D printing one of the priority areas of technology’. The technology was also referred to in the European Commission’s recent reflection paper on ‘harnessing globalisation’ stating that 3D printing, amongst other emerging technologies, ‘will revolutionise how we produce, work, move and consume’ (emphasis added). In April 2018, the European Commission demonstrated its commitment to exploring the intellectual property implications of industrial three-dimensional printing by commissioning research in to this area, in a move to shape policy. In a further publication titled, The Next Production Revolution: Implications for Governments and Businesses, it was emphasised that ‘long-term thinking is essential’ for technologies such as 3D printing. The report went on to say that ‘in addition to addressing short-term challenges, leaders in business, education, unions and government must be ready to frame policies’ and reflect on ‘how policy priorities may need to evolve, in fields as diverse as the intellectual property system, competition and trade policies, and the distributional implications of future production’. As such, 3D printing, presents various challenges for the legal, ethical , medical and health and safety sectors. Amongst these various concerns, the report makes reference to the impact of 3D printing on intellectual property rights (IPRs). The imminent change and the need for responsive policy, particularly in the area of IPRs has been acknowledged and echoed in a number of countries, including the United Kingdom (UK), the United States of America (USA) and Australia – the jurisdictions which are the focus of this book. This introductory chapter is set out as follows. It commences with a brief introduction

In a 2006 short story, ‘Printcrime’, Cory Doctorow imagined a dystopian future of contraband 3D printers. In the work, police try to shut down a bootleg operation, which engaged in the 3D printing of intellectual property. In his 2009 novel Makers, Cory Doctorow explored the rise of the maker community, and its do-it-yourself ethic. In an interview about the novel, the author reflected: "There has never been a better time to be a maker because finding the people who know how to fix the thing that's broken has never been easier. Finding someone else who has done 80% of what you want to do, and sharing the things you have done with other people, has never been easier. A maker is someone who is of and in the 21st century." Rather prophetically, he discussed the prospect of intellectual property conflicts around 3D printing (particularly around copyright infringement and trademark infringement), and future controversies over 3D printing guns. In his 2015 short story, ‘The Man Who Sold the Moon’, Cory Doctorow imagined 3D printing in space. This body of creative work has been an important inspiration for the Maker Movement – but it has also shown a critical engagement with the law, ethics, and public policy associated with 3D printing and additive manufacturing. Inspired by such science fiction, there have since been a number of optimistic, utopian manifestos published on the topic of 3D printing and the rise of the Maker Movement. There has been high hopes that the emerging, disruptive technology will be part of a new industrial revolution. The founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, situates 3D printing within the framework of a fourth industrial revolution. He predicted: ‘As current size, cost and speed constraints are progressively overcome, 3D printing will become more pervasive to include integrated electronic components such as circuit boards and even human cells and organs.’ Schwab anticipated that there would be a ‘new g

In Australia, there has been an interest in integrating 3D printing into government policies in respect of education, innovation, and manufacturing. There has been an increasing concern about the need to boost Australia’s national and science technology policy and performance. Of particular concern has been the decline in Australia’s manufacturing industries. Much like the United States, there has been a hope in Australia that 3D printing will revive Australia’s advanced manufacturing capacities. As Guy Rundle observed, there has been much interest in the manufacturing hubs of 3D printing in the United States. The ‘America Makes’ program has involved the creation of advanced manufacturing hubs to stimulate innovation – particularly in regions of the United States, which have suffered from economic depression. There has been an interest in emulating this innovation model in Australia. There has also been a deep problem in terms of the commercialisation of technology in Australia – with many inventions languishing in the so-called ‘Valley of Death’. The Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has promoted an innovation agenda as leader of the Conservative coalition of the Liberal Party and the National Party. He has highlighted the role of 3D printing. For instance, Turnbull promoted the work of Stephen Brinks from 3D Brink at Western Sydney University. The education, innovation, and manufacturing initiatives in the United States have certainly attracted interest and attention in Australia. ... This Chapter considers a number of developments in respect of Australian copyright law, 3D Printing, and the Maker Movement. Part 1 focuses upon copyright subsistence about 3D printing. 3D printing raises questions about the nature and scope of the intellectual property commons. There have been issues associated with the protection of art, craft, and designs associated with intellectual property. Part 2 examines concerns about copyright infringement, and 3D printing. It focu

This chapter provides an initial exploration and analysis of agricultural research and development paradigms under the Paris Agreement for climate-smart agriculture. Drawing on diverse bodies of literature, this chapter provides an examination of agricultural socio-technical regimes with a focus on how problems, means and solutions are constructed by three broad archetypes: the intensive agricultural paradigm, the Life-Sciences Integrated paradigm, and the Ecological-Integrated paradigm. Re-conceptualisation of climate-smart agriculture in line with the Ecological-Integrated Paradigm is positioned as a critical step towards climate justice. Through an examination of the Paris Agreement and related documents, this chapter argues that the Paris Agreement creates an enabling environment for the development of an agricultural socio-technical regime more consistent with the existing intensive agricultural model than with genuine climate-smart agriculture.

This chapter examines benefit-sharing under the REDD+ mechanism, focusing upon implications for women. In particular it will focus upon the competing motivations and constrains that are at play amongst the different networks and stakeholders involved (environmental, developmental, government, community and international institutions) and how these may manifest themselves in decisions about benefit sharing claims. It also examines the complex intertwining of property and participation rights women and the importance of ensuring gender equality in REDD+ instruments.

In December 2015, nations of the world joined together in Paris to negotiate a new legal instrument to address climate change. The debates which took place in the lead up to the adoption of the Paris Agreement reflected broader, ongoing tensions between developed and developing states within the international climate regime. They also demonstrated the divergence of opinion between states as to the relationship between climate change and human rights. While the human impacts of climate change are now well-understood, there is still debate as to what a human rights-based approach to climate change should look like. This chapter argues that these geopolitical dynamics and differing priorities will continue to shape the implementation of the Paris Agreement, as well as the specific debates over intellectual property, finance, technology transfer and innovation. The chapter therefore provides an important contextual backdrop for further analysis of these issues.

The Paris Agreement charts a new course for measuring, reporting, verification (MRV) of State obligations with the intensification of the emphasis on the criterion of transparency. This is, in part, responsive to modern debates in regards to environmental law generally and climate law in particular. Transparency is crucial to the success or failure of climate mitigation and adaption regimes because climate governance is intimately connected to the ideals of deliberative democracy, public participation, and the rule of law. The Paris Agreement thus presents a ground-breaking and important point in time for both developed and developing States. Aligned with this requirement is the desire to increase the amount and flow of ‘climate finance’ from developed to developing states. The associated need for transparency in funding flows has been raised in part through the accusations of misused or inadequate funds, ‘tied’ funding and double counting. Though there are new informational requirements placed on states in the Paris Agreement, they also present considerable practical challenges. The purpose of this chapter is to analyse the principle of transparency in climate finance and to chart the direction of the associated informational requirements in light of the measures agreed at Paris.

As well as outlining the structure and organisation of the collection, this introduction seeks to contextualise the debate over intellectual property and climate change. As a foundation to the collection, it provides an overview of the negotiation, agreement, and implementation of the Paris Agreement 2015. It offers a literature review in respect of international climate law, human rights, and technology transfer. The introduction highlights key research and scholarship on intellectual property and environmentally sound technologies. It outlines the relevance of various disciplines of intellectual property to the debate over climate change. In particular, it looks at the role and function of patent law, trademark law, consumer law, design law, copyright law, trade secrets, open licensing, as well as plant breeders’ rights, access to genetic resources, and Indigenous knowledge. It examines climate litigation in the field of intellectual property. The introduction considers the scope for law reform to ensure that intellectual property laws are better adapted to promote substantial and meaningful action in respect of climate change. It also explores how innovation law and policy may best promote climate justice and human rights.

This chapter considers the role of patent law in respect of geoengineering. Intellectual Ventures has developed a large portfolio of patents in this area. A number of other private and public entities have also filed patents in the field of geoengineering. In light of the recent precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States in respect of Bilski, Prometheus, Myriad, and Alice, it is worth exploring the question, Should patents on geoengineering be allowed? Defenders of geoengineering would maintain that such technology is legitimate, much like traditional forms of engineering. Critics, such as the ETC Group, have called for a ban on patents in respect of geoengineering. There have been fierce debates over the ethics of geoengineering. Philosophers and policy-makers such as Stephen Gardiner, Clive Hamilton, Bill McKibben, Al Gore, and Naomi Klein have argued over the merits over such technologies. It is useful to situate such a discussion in the context of previous debates over intellectual property and emerging technologies - such as biotechnology, nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and clean technologies. Moreover, this chapter explores the potential for patent thickets in respect of geoengineering. What will be the impact of such patents on research, clean technologies, the environment, the climate? There has also been much concern about the possibility of overzealous enforcement of patents in respect of geoengineering. As such, it is worthwhile considering what policy options for patent abuse will be useful or effective in this field. There is a larger international debate over the governance and regulation of geoengineering – particularly in light of the Paris Agreement 2015.

This chapter considers the atmospheric trust litigation in the case of Nelson Kanuk v. State of Alaska over the climate inaction of the State of the Alaska. The dispute is a compelling case study in respect of constitutional law, the public trust doctrine, climate change, intergenerational justice, Indigenous rights, and Indigenous intellectual property. The new litigation between Esau Sinnok and the State of Alaska promises to further refine and clarify issues in respect of climate change, human rights, and Indigenous interests. Such climate litigation highlights larger international legal issues in respect of Indigenous peoples and climate change. There has been debate over Indigenous rights and climate change during the discussions in respect of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007, the Anchorage Declaration 2009, the Paris Agreement 2015, and the Bonn climate talks in 2017. In the future, no doubt Indigenous communities will seek to engage in climate litigation against governments and corporations in order to seek redress for climate injustice, as well as loss and damage.

This book on Intellectual Property, Clean Energy, the Paris Agreement and Climate Justice was conceived of on the streets of New York, as I joined the People’s Climate March in 2014. The People’s Climate March on the 21st September 2014 was organised and designed to galvanise popular support for the United Nations Climate Summit being held in New York on the 23rd September 2014. The event was massive, with hundreds of groups, and hundreds of thousands of people, participating in the event. 400,000 people joined the parade in New York. The People’s Climate March was supported by hundreds of other companion events around the world, calling for climate action. I joined the Science Stands contingent at the People’s Climate March. The group marshalled outside the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History. There was a platoon of scientists, wearing white lab coats and carrying placards. The scientists wheeled along a blackboard, depicting the state of climate science. The board declared, ‘The “Debate” is Over. The Facts are In. The Evidence is Clear. Science Stands for Climate Action.’ The group carried a large banner as well entitled, ‘The Debate is Over.’ There were also a bevy of charts — ‘CO2 is rising!’, ‘The Oceans are acidifying!’, ‘Glaciers are melting!’ Citing Bill Murray’s character in Ghostbusters, the scientists also carried a banner, ‘Back off Man, I am a Scientist.’ The event also featured a number of other sections. Frontline groups included those people who were most impacted by climate change – such as Indigenous communities and environmental organizations. Generational groups included labor organisations, families, parents and their children, and elders. Environmental groups covered renewable energy, food activists, and water defenders. There was a section for protest groups. There was an interfaith group. There was also miscellaneous groups – covering various geographical entities from throughout the Uni9ted State

In the lead up to the Paris Agreement 2015, the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has commented: ‘Intellectual property, technology transfer, and financing are among a wide range of topics that must be addressed in the context of climate change and sustainable development’. The Paris Climate Talks considered a number of issues related to intellectual property, technology transfer, and finance. Draft Article 56.3 laid down a number of options. The first option suggested a number of possibilities to facilitate technology transfer. Item A suggested that developed countries ‘provide financial resources to address barriers caused by intellectual property rights (IPRs) and facilitate access to and the deployment of technology, including inter alia, by utilizing the Financial Mechanism and/or the establishment of a funding window under the Green Climate Fund / the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism.’ Item B called for ‘an international mechanism on IPRs to be established to facilitate access to and the deployment of technology to [developing country Parties].’ Item C asked for other arrangements to be established to address intellectual property rights – such as ‘collaborative research and development, shareware, commitments related to humanitarian or preferential licensing, fully paid-up or joint licensing schemes, preferential rates and patent pools.’ Item D suggested that ‘funds from the Green Climate Fund will be utilized to meet the full costs of intellectual property rights (IPRs) of environmentally sound technologies and know-how and such technologies will be provided to developing country Parties free of cost in order to enhance their actions to address climate change and its adverse impacts.’ The second option was that ‘Parties recognize that IPRs create an enabling environment for the promotion of technology innovation in environmentally sound technologies.’ The third option favoured by developed countries is that ‘IPRs are not to be address

This chapter considers Elon Musk and his company Tesla, and evaluates their statements in respect of intellectual property, open innovation, and climate change. It is worth situating the story in the context of the growing literature on intellectual property and clean technologies. This paper considers Tesla Motors’ shifting strategies in respect of patent law, policy, and practice. The work explores Tesla Motors’ embrace of an open source philosophy, and the motivations behind this business strategy. The chapter analyses the larger issues about business development relating to electric vehicles and clean technologies. It examines how Tesla’s rivals have responded – particularly looking at Toyota Motors. This paper concludes by considering Tesla Motors in light of larger initiatives in respect of clean technologies, renewable energy and climate change. Of particular note is sustainable transportation; the development of a Gigafactory; Elon Musk’s complementary work at SolarCity in promoting solar technologies; and the big battery project in South Australia. The chapter concludes with a consideration of Elon Musk’s advocacy for the adoption and implementation of the Paris Agreement 2015.

© 2016 Elsevier Inc. The departure of a factor in excess supply in a non-traded rural sector leads to a Rural-led Exchange Rate Real Appreciation (RERA), in a dual economy setup. The RERA highlights for the first time a potential link between intra-national factor movements and real exchange rates. In China, where there is excess labor employed in the production of (largely) non-traded rural goods, we attribute around one third of the recent appreciation of the real exchange rate - defined as the relative price of nontradables - to a RERA effect.

© 2016 Economic Society of Australia The costs of removing red tape include a lower chance of detecting recession-generating flaws in the financial system. What we call independent dimensions of regulation (IDRs) operate more or less independently from other groupings. If an IDR's optimality is unknown, it may be risky to remove. Uncertainty thus implies that (some) red tape – a small amount of overregulation – is justified, in contrast to the Brainard principle that uncertainty dictates less policy activism. The long-run Gross Domestic Product (GDP) benefit of a 1 per cent improvement in financial services productivity is 0.06 per cent in our computable general equilibrium model. These relatively modest gains reinforce our conclusion.

This Handbook considers the international struggle to provide for proper and just protection of Indigenous intellectual property. Leading scholars consider legal and policy controversies over Indigenous knowledge in the fields of international law, copyright law, trademark law, patent law, trade secrets law, and cultural heritage. This collection examines national developments in Indigenous intellectual property from around the world. As well as examining the historical origins of conflicts over Indigenous knowledge, the volume examines new challenges to Indigenous intellectual property from emerging developments in information technology, biotechnology, and climate change.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007 provides a broad, holistic definition of Indigenous intellectual property. The preamble took the view that 'respect for indigenous knowledge, cultures and traditional practices contributes to sustainable and equitable development and proper management of the environment.' Article 31 (1) provides a broad recognition of Indigenous intellectual property: 'Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.' Article 31 (2) stipulates: 'In conjunction with indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights.'

The historical case of David Unaipon is a good starting point for a wider discussion of Indigenous intellectual property law, practice and reform. His story is a microcosm of larger battles over the cultural appropriation of Indigenous culture, iconography and science. David Unaipon could be seen as a beneficiary of intellectual property law. He is a creator of copyright works; an inventor of patented inventions; and an iconic figure, worthy of personality rights. His creative and scientific work has been an inspiration for others. David Unaipon could also be seen as being disenfranchised by intellectual property law. He lost ownership of his economic rights in respect of literary works; and his moral rights have not been respected under copyright law. His case also highlights the deficiencies of copyright law in respect of its failure to provide comprehensive recognition of communal authorship and ownership of copyright works. While he was a patent applicant, David Unaipon never seemed to have benefitted from the patent system. His experience raises questions about access to justice. The government and commercial use of the persona of David Unaipon raises complex questions about trade mark law, passing off and personality rights. The story of David Unaipon highlights the need for the systematic and holistic reformation of intellectual property law, so that it better serves Indigenous communities and peoples.

After an impassioned debate, a resale royalty right scheme was introduced into Australia in 2009. This chapter provides a critical examination of the Australian resale royalty scheme – looking at the design of the scheme; its implementation; and its future reform. Section 1 considers the history of the right of resale, and the context of the Australian scheme. It examines the political debate over the Australian resale royalty for visual artists. Section 2 provides an overview of the regime of the Resale Royalty for Visual Artists Act 2009 (Cth). Section 3 focuses on the operation of the Australian resale royalty for visual artists – with a particular examination of the position of Indigenous communities. The conclusion provides recommendations for law reform. It is argued that the right of resale should not be abandoned or diminished in Australia. Indeed, the regime should be enhanced and supported by a number of reforms – including in respect of the temporal operation of the regime; the enforcement measures; and complementary legislative reforms in respect of Indigenous intellectual property. There is also a need for greater international harmonisation in respect of the resale royalty right.

The United Nations Rio 20 summit has raised a number of difficult questions about law, culture and technology: what is the relationship between intellectual property, the environment and climate change? What role does intellectual property play in sustainable development? Who will own and control the Green Economy? What is the best way to encourage the transfer of environmentally sound technologies? What are the respective roles of the public sector and the private sector in green innovation? How should biodiversity, traditional knowledge and Indigenous intellectual property be protected? Should there be due acknowledgment of the position of small island states, particularly those situated in the Pacific?

Indigenous communities have been hard hit by the impacts of environmental degradation, biodiversity and climate change. Carold Betzold and Anaid Flesken have observed: 'About 300 million people belong to one of the roughly 5,000 Indigenous peoples worldwide. While their ecological footprint is very small, Indigenous peoples tend to be disproportionately affected by environmental problems, for they tend to live in sensitive ecosystems, are closely related to, and directly depend on the natural environment and its resources. Environmental degradation hence compounds the already difficult situation of Indigenous peoples, who typically suffer from problems such as poverty, marginalisation, discrimination, and exclusion from policy-making processes.' There has a particular concern about the impact of climate change and global warming upon Indigenous communities and their lands, territories, natural resources and associated traditional knowledge. There have been fierce debates over intellectual property, the environment, and climate change in a range of international fora. The question of the protection of Indigenous intellectual property and traditional knowledge has emerged during these international discussions. There has been a significant fragmentation of the global governance of intellectual property, climate change, and Indigenous knowledge.

The broodstock of two grouper species, tiger grouper Epinephelus fuscoguttatus and squaretail coralgrouper Plectropomus areolatus, were maintained in sea cages near Rutland Island, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India, and their spawning performance was monitored from June 2007 to December 2010. E. fuscoguttatus generally spawned monthly in association with the new moon phase, for 8–9 months each year. Each year, they underwent a 3- to 4-month refractory period between February and June then recommenced spawning in May–July. P. areolatus showed a different spawning pattern to E. fuscoguttatus, spawning for less than 6 months each year, also in association with the new moon, and demonstrating much longer refractory periods (up to 15 months) than E. fuscoguttatus. Analysis of temperature data from the sea cage site showed that water temperature was significantly lower during spawning events than during comparable non-spawning periods. We postulate that one factor inhibiting spawning is higher water temperatures exceeding the upper thermal inhibitory limit for both grouper species during the hotter months of the year. Selected broodstock fish of both species were also maintained in onshore tanks fitted with recirculating filtration systems, but the spawning performance of both grouper species in the onshore tanks was inferior to broodstock held in the sea cages. E. fuscoguttatus maintained in onshore tanks spawned during only 5 months of the 42-month study period, whereas E. fuscoguttatus held in the sea cages spawned during 29 months over the same time frame. P. areolatus held in onshore tanks over the same period did not spawn, whereas P. areolatus held in sea cages spawned during 16 months out of the 42-month study period.

In The Climate Change Review, Ross Garnaut emphasised that ‘Climate change and climate change mitigation will bring about major structural change in the agriculture, forestry and other land use sectors’. He provides this overview of the effects of climate change on food demand and supply: ‘Domestic food production in many developing countries will be at immediate risk of reductions in agricultural productivity due to crop failure, livestock loss, severe weather events and new patterns of pests and diseases.’ He observes that ‘Changes to local climate and water availability will be key determinants of where agricultural production occurs and what is produced.’ Gert Würtenberger has commented that modern plant breeding is particularly concerned with addressing larger issues about nutrition, food security and climate change: ‘Modern plant breeding has an increasing importance with regard to the continuously growing demand for plants for nutritional and feeding purposes as well as with regard to renewal energy sources and the challenges caused by climate changes.’ Moreover, he notes that there is a wide array of scientific and technological means of breeding new plant varieties: ‘Apart from classical breeding, technologies have an important role in the development of plants that satisfy the various requirements that industrial and agricultural challenges expect to be fulfilled.’ He comments: ‘Plant variety rights, as well as patents which protect such results, are of increasingly high importance to the breeders and enterprises involved in plant development programmes.’ There has been larger interest in the intersections between sustainable agriculture, environmental protection and food security. The debate over agricultural intellectual property is a polarised one, particularly between plant breeders, agricultural biotechnology companies and a range of environmentalist groups. Susan Sell comments that there are complex intellectual property battles surrounding agricultu

"It could easily provide the back-drop for a James Bond movie. Deep inside a mountain near the North Pole, down a fortified tunnel, and behind airlocked doors in a vault frozen to -18 degrees Celsius, scientists are squirreling away millions of seed samples. The samples constitute the very foundation of agriculture, the biological diversity needed so the world's major food crops can adapt to the next pest or disease, or to climate change. It's little wonder that the Svalbard Global Seed Vault has captured the public's imagination more than almost any agricultural topic in recent years. Popular press reports about the ‘Doomsday Vault,’ however, typically mask the complexity of the endeavor and, if anything, underestimate its practical utility." Cary Fowler This chapter considers the use of seed banks to address concerns about intellectual property, climate change and food security. It has a number of themes. First of all, it is interested in the use of ‘Big Science’ projects to address pressing global scientific concerns and Millennium Development Goals. Second, it highlights the increasing use of banks as a means of managing both property and intellectual property across a wide range of fields of agriculture and biotechnology. Third, it considers the linkage of intellectual property, access to genetic resources and benefit sharing. There are a variety of positions in this debate. Some see requirements in respect of access to genetic resources and benefit sharing as an inconvenient burden for science and commerce. Others defend access to genetic resources and benefit sharing as meaningful and productive. Those inclined to somewhat more conspiratorial views suggest that access to genetic resources and benefit sharing are a ruse to facilitate biopiracy. This chapter has a number of components. Section I focuses upon the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) network – often raised as a model for Climate Innovation Centres. Section II consider

Patent law has a significant instrumental and symbolic role in regulating nanotechnology. A 2011 report of the United States Federal Trade Commission noted that ‘the patent system plays a critical role in promoting innovation across industries from biotechnology to nanotechnology, and by entities from large corporations to independent inventors’. This chapter considers the much contested legal, ethical and social issues involved with regulating the patenting of nanotechnology. Section I considers the efforts of patent offices to classify nanotechnology and the empirical evidence about patent filing rates. Section II examines whether there is a ‘tragedy of the anticommons’ emerging in respect of nanotechnology. It contemplates access mechanisms – such as the defence of experimental use, patent pools, open innovation models and technology transfer. Section III explores ethical and social concerns associated with nanotechnology – in particular, issues about the impact upon human health and the environment.

In 2009, the National Research Council of the National Academies released a report on A New Biology for the 21st Century. The council preferred the term ‘New Biology’ to capture the convergence and integration of the various disciplines of biology. The National Research Council stressed: ‘The essence of the New Biology, as defined by the committee, is integration—re-integration of the many sub-disciplines of biology, and the integration into biology of physicists, chemists, computer scientists, engineers, and mathematicians to create a research community with the capacity to tackle a broad range of scientific and societal problems.’ They define the ‘New Biology’ as ‘integrating life science research with physical science, engineering, computational science, and mathematics’. The National Research Council reflected: 'Biology is at a point of inflection. Years of research have generated detailed information about the components of the complex systems that characterize life––genes, cells, organisms, ecosystems––and this knowledge has begun to fuse into greater understanding of how all those components work together as systems. Powerful tools are allowing biologists to probe complex systems in ever greater detail, from molecular events in individual cells to global biogeochemical cycles. Integration within biology and increasingly fruitful collaboration with physical, earth, and computational scientists, mathematicians, and engineers are making it possible to predict and control the activities of biological systems in ever greater detail.' The National Research Council contended that the New Biology could address a number of pressing challenges. First, it stressed that the New Biology could ‘generate food plants to adapt and grow sustainably in changing environments’. Second, the New Biology could ‘understand and sustain ecosystem function and biodiversity in the face of rapid change’. Third, the New Biology could ‘expand sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels’. Moreo

The USAGE model for the United States is used to quantify economic costs due to stock mispricing, made operational by shocking Tobin's q. The simulations quantify a potentially large impact even in the most favorable environment, where export demand holds up, and, the dollar is pro-cyclical. A two-year investment boom in two sectors increases consumption by a Net Present Value (NPV) amount of nearly one per cent, due to a positive investment externality onto the US terms of trade. If the investment is wasted, however, the consumption loss is nearly one-half of a per cent. A 5-year 'capital strike' across the whole economy subsequent to the boom - mimicking financial distress from a burst bubble - shaves around 10 per cent off consumption. Given these significant costs associated with " boom" and " bust" equity markets, we consider some, policy options that might result in greater stability in these markets. © 2010 Society for Policy Modeling.

Historically, there have been intense conflicts over the ownership and exploitation of pharmaceutical drugs and diagnostic tests dealing with infectious diseases. Throughout the 1980’s, there was much scientific, legal, and ethical debate about which scientific group should be credited with the discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus, and the invention of the blood test devised to detect antibodies to the virus. In May 1983, Luc Montagnier, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, and other French scientists from the Pasteur Institute in Paris, published a paper in Science, detailing the discovery of a virus called lymphadenopathy (LAV). A scientific rival, Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, identified the AIDS virus and published his findings in the May 1984 issue of Science. In May 1985, the United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded the American patent for the AIDS blood test to Gallo and the Department of Health and Human Services. In December 1985, the Institut Pasteur sued the Department of Health and Human Services, contending that the French were the first to identify the AIDS virus and to invent the antibody test, and that the American test was dependent upon the French research. In March 1987, an agreement was brokered by President Ronald Reagan and French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, which resulted in the Department of Health and Human Services and the Institut Pasteur sharing the patent rights to the blood test for AIDS. In 1992, the Federal Office of Research Integrity found that Gallo had committed scientific misconduct, by falsely reporting facts in his 1984 scientific paper. A subsequent investigation by the National Institutes of Health, the United States Congress, and the US attorney-general cleared Gallo of any wrongdoing. In 1994, the United States government and French government renegotiated their agreement regarding the AIDS blood test patent, in order to make the distribution of royalties more equitable... The dispute between Luc