Did Somebody Mention Globalization?

Biotechnology has been global for a very, very long time. The United States, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, and other leading countries in biotechnology research have long been privileged to receive some of the very best newly minted PhDs to work as post-doctoral fellows in the leading laboratories in those countries. The pharmaceutical industry, with its large multinational character, has always been a driving force in the development and application of biotechnology, whether through sponsored research in universities, joint ventures with biotechnology companies, or in their own labs. And the questions that have arisen about the development of biotechnology, whether in the context of biotechnology-derived foods, the propriety of germ therapy, or the development of stem cell technologies, have historically been addressed in different ways in different countries. So if it was possible for Silicon Valley largely to turn its gaze inward for many years, it has never been possible or desirable for the biotechnology industry in the US or anywhere else to do so.

In response to the traditionally global character of biotechnology, Biotechnology Law Report has, since its inception, sought to provide its international readership with an international focus, publishing articles on patent developments in Europe and Asia as well as the United States; developments in the global regulation of biotechnology in agriculture; the globalization of drug development; ethical issues in access to medicines in developing nations; and a range of other facets of biotechnology on the global stage. In that context, we are particularly pleased that in this issue, we can provide our readers with two articles that examine important international and comparative issues of biotechnologies regulation, from Europe and from Australia.

From Australia, Professor Charles Lawson has provided an elegant analysis of the question of how intellectual property rights and patents can be used affirmatively to serve the goals of conservation and biodiversity and overcome the “tragedy of the commons” market failure that has led to so much loss of biodiversity and natural resources. Professor Isabelle Huys and her coauthors have provided a firm empirical basis for the proposition that national variations in the regulatory regimes that govern stem cell access and experimentation are a strong driver of the relative scientific success of stem cell research in those countries, independently of the amount of funding for research. In the global world of biotechnology law and policy, Biotechnology Law Report is committed to continuing to bring our readers the very best analyses of important issues from around the globe.