Knowledge and Responsibility

Intellectual property laws have inadvertently created monopolies which control the dissemination of much new knowledge, thus effectively eliminating direct access to it for those without resources, and limiting further dissemination by those with access. This prevents scientists from sharing information for its own sake as well as for the spin-off outcomes leading to potential future scientific breakthroughs. The 2002 Nobel Prize winner for Physiology and Medicine, John Sulston, asserted that knowledge ought to be shared and acquired freely, a principle strictly adhered to by the Human Genome Project, an endeavour illustrative of knowledge gathered within the public domain. While the lack of individual proprietary rights and the complete freedom of information generated by this project has created a situation whereby open access to scientific innovation enables private companies to profit, the speaker argued that it is necessary to tolerate profiteers for the benefit of scientific development; however, with knowledge acquisition comes the responsibility to freely share new discoveries and reject a proprietary model of knowledge. Theoretically, a discovery should bring about deeper understanding and a broader application of knowledge, providing public interest and ethical concerns are met. Sulston is forthright in his claims that in the current dynamic of knowledge generation and dissemination there is a generalised dysfunctional relationship, a 'short circuit', between discovery and application. This can distort public perception of a discovery's benefits and disadvantages, lead to a decrease in public revenue and an increase in private revenue.

The global pharmaceutical industry currently follows the discovery-application-private revenue circuit to the detriment of public health around the world. Due to their small potential for generating "healthy" profit margins for shareholders, tropical disease treatments are virtually ignored by the pharmaceutical industry, allowing largely preventable diseases to occur in much of the developing world. Pharmaceutical companies instead focus on development, marketing and production of expensive medications that may individually bring at best minor therapeutic benefits to patients. Such companies might be reasonably accused of indulging in "disease-mongering" in attempt to create higher profit margins. The rapid expansion of prescription of Ritalin for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and of anti-depressants for mild mood disorders, were cited as two specific examples for which there is strong circumstantial evidence.  There is a lack of thorough understanding of many of these new medicines as well as few public interest bodies overseeing the application or use of new drugs. It is not hard to concur with the conclusion that these are examples of the pursuit of economic interests taking undue priority over the use of knowledge for the public good.

The current paradigm must surely be challenged when there is a clear conflict between medical interests and the public good on the one hand and corporate gain on the other.  Democratic governments, undeniably influenced by lobbying from transnational industries, have failed to prevent an imbalance between complex, often conflicting and sometimes overlapping vested interests, while the pharmaceutical industry also denies responsibility. Scientists cannot and should not be solely responsible for correcting this imbalance, but need to collaborate with economists, policy-makers and private citizens to come up with more equitable compromises between society's different stakeholders.  Non-governmental organizations, which Sir John Sulston called 'the only effectively-functioning, transnational body that we have' can also play a role in promoting constructive modifications to the current situation. In the age of the Internet, the media also now provides a forum for active, balanced dialogue among all of the above. The effort to achieve a better balance between the diverse interests represented in Sulston's paradigm requires political willpower, coordinated input from the scientific community and multilateral agreements. Success though difficult to achieve, ought to show emergent properties of encouraging further sharing of knowledge and information and promotion of equitable trade.

Ultimately, exploration and discovery constantly challenge and reshape our worldview. Knowledge generation that freely shares information is an expression of the globalization of justice. This justice is a necessary precondition for maintaining a stable environment in which we, and our descendants, can continue to collaborate and propagate.