Responsible intellectual property rights? Untangling open-source biotech adherence to intellectual property rights through DIYbio

Esquivel-Sada, Daphne

doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102005

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dual use is mentioned by several papers ( Getz and Dellaire, 2018 ; Torres, 2018 ; DiEuliis et al, 2019 ; Alexander Hamilton et al, 2021 ; Hagendorff, 2021 ; Grinbaum and Adomaitis, 2023 ; Vaseashta, 2023 ). However, it can have broader meaning, for example, positively referring to open source ( Esquivel-Sada, 2022 ) as opposed to negatively referring to non-conformant use. The idea of broadening the dual use research of concern (DURC) regime, which gained steam during COVID-19 ( Sandbrink et al, 2023 ) is mentioned in the preprint literature ( Grinbaum and Adomaitis, 2023 ), and alarms about dual-use involving AI are sounded in several papers ( Urbina et al, 2022 ; D’Alessandro et al, 2023 ) and in Sandbrink’s Ph.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Industrial challenges include: biosafety ( Pei et al, 2022 ), the availability of capital ( Baker, 2017 ; Helmy et al, 2020 ; Hodgson et al, 2022 ; Sargent et al, 2022 ), the lack of a scalable manufacturing workflow ( Hillson et al, 2019 ; Ataii et al, 2023 ), regulatory uncertainty ( Huzair, 2021 ), innovation challenges ( Banda and Huzair, 2021 ; Tait and Wield, 2021 ), intellectual property rights ( Esquivel-Sada, 2022 ), investment risks ( Hodgson et al, 2022 ), or worker safety ( Murashov et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The whack-a-mole governance challenge for AI-enabled synthetic biology: literature review and emerging frameworks

Undheim

2024

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AI-enabled synthetic biology has tremendous potential but also significantly increases biorisks and brings about a new set of dual use concerns. The picture is complicated given the vast innovations envisioned to emerge by combining emerging technologies, as AI-enabled synthetic biology potentially scales up bioengineering into industrial biomanufacturing. However, the literature review indicates that goals such as maintaining a reasonable scope for innovation, or more ambitiously to foster a huge bioeconomy do not necessarily contrast with biosafety, but need to go hand in hand. This paper presents a literature review of the issues and describes emerging frameworks for policy and practice that transverse the options of command-and-control, stewardship, bottom-up, and laissez-faire governance. How to achieve early warning systems that enable prevention and mitigation of future AI-enabled biohazards from the lab, from deliberate misuse, or from the public realm, will constantly need to evolve, and adaptive, interactive approaches should emerge. Although biorisk is subject to an established governance regime, and scientists generally adhere to biosafety protocols, even experimental, but legitimate use by scientists could lead to unexpected developments. Recent advances in chatbots enabled by generative AI have revived fears that advanced biological insight can more easily get into the hands of malignant individuals or organizations. Given these sets of issues, society needs to rethink how AI-enabled synthetic biology should be governed. The suggested way to visualize the challenge at hand is whack-a-mole governance, although the emerging solutions are perhaps not so different either.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The whack-a-mole governance challenge for AI-enabled synthetic biology: literature review and emerging frameworks

Undheim

2024

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Intellectual Property Rights Related to Medicinal Plants

Sharma,

Kumar,

Sharma

2024

Ethnopharmacology and OMICS Advances in Medicinal Plants Volume 2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Les matériaux vivants entre les mains hackers

Esquivel-Sada

2024

socio-anthropologie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

À l’heure où les communautés bio-hackers des quatre coins de la planète s’approprient le monde des biotechnologies, cet article propose de réfléchir à leur rapport aux matériaux vivants. Il s’agit de saisir certaines particularités de ces derniers à partir de leur existence technique en tant que vivant biotechnologique (VB). À la croisée des études sur les sciences et de la théorie critique, l’article propose une analyse de discours d’entretiens conduits auprès de bio-hackers, majoritairement canadiens. L’analyse fait ressortir le mode d’existence du VB selon trois figures principales : l’imaginaire bio-hacker du VB conçu comme la bio-infrastructure commune au bio-hacking, à la biologie synthétique et à la bioéconomie ; le défi que les finalités normatives biologiques constituent pour la matérialisation du VB ; et la fabrique d’une distinction inégalitaire, souvent circonstancielle, entre des organismes, qui participe à la légitimation sociale du mode d’existence du VB.

show abstract

Responsible intellectual property rights? Untangling open-source biotech adherence to intellectual property rights through DIYbio

Cited by 3 publications

References 36 publications

The whack-a-mole governance challenge for AI-enabled synthetic biology: literature review and emerging frameworks

The whack-a-mole governance challenge for AI-enabled synthetic biology: literature review and emerging frameworks

Intellectual Property Rights Related to Medicinal Plants

Les matériaux vivants entre les mains hackers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About