Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1990s, genetically modified (GM) crops have rapidly gained favor with farmers and increased in market share. GM crops are different from natural ones in that they are manufactured, not plants naturally grown. This aspect is very significant when we discuss the patentability of GM crops. The multinationals developing GM seeds have claimed patent protection for their “inventions" and the governments in the USA and Canada have concluded that GM crops are not the “discovery" of genes resulting from a law of nature. In other words, GM crops can be patentable as long as they can be approved as inventions with novelty and usefulness. In the meantime, the multinationals require the farmers who purchase the patented GM seeds to sign the Technology Use Agreement (TUA) under which the farmers are not allowed to save, replant, transfer and sell them. However, the “farmers' privilege" provided in the UPOV conventions has traditionally granted the farmers the right to save, replant, transfer and sell the seeds obtained from their own property. The main focus of this paper is on the conflict over the patentability of GMOs in terms of the protection of farmers' privilege. This paper considers the fact that the multinationals' TUA restrict farmers' privilege by referring to the first lawsuit in which Monsanto Co. sued Mr. Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer, against the patent rights for GM canola. In this lawsuit, Monsanto claimed that Mr. Schmeiser illegally saved and sold the GM canola seeds without signing the TUA with Monsanto, although Mr. Schmeiser claimed that the GM canola he used were grown naturally on his holdings because of wind or pollination. The conclusion is that the multinationals will restrict framers' privilege and strengthen their control over the property rights for genetic resources by making use of patent protection and its resulting TUA. Thus, this paper stresses that the soundness of life patent should be discussed based not only on ethical aspects, but on the structure of resource
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.009 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".