Biotechnology and health systems in developing countries
Biotecnología y sistemas de salud en los países en vía de desarrollo
Article Sidebar
PDF (Español (España))
FLIP
How to Cite
Bemal Camargo, D. R., & Bemal Camargo, N. M. (2013). Biotechnology and health systems in developing countries. Journal of Medicine and Surgery Repertoire, 22(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.31260/RepertMedCir.v22.n1.2013.849
Section
Reflection Articles
License terms
Main Article Content
Abstract
We analyzed relationships and challenges arising between academic research and the biotechnology industry on pro moting access to health biotechnology in developing countries. First, a theoretical review on the relationships and new conflicts of interest emerging between biotechnology, industry and academic research was performed. Statements and reports on this situation were critically studied in order to evidence the challenges from a bioethics perspective. Some of these countries are beginning to conduct research processes on health biotechnology, but it is deplorable they do not yet achieve targeted coverage levels through innovative processes developed from within as a result of strategic partnerships between academic research, industry and state. Investment should be directed towards research and innovation in this type of technology in order to enable overcoming a curative type of medicine and introducing a predictive type of healthcare system -coetaneous to preventive medicine- as an effective process which translates in enjoying the highest standards of the right to health and progressing to a system which legislates public policies derived from concrete multidisciplinary research on health issues results.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Article Details
References
1. Tonelli M. Conflict of interest in clinica\ practice. Chest. 2007; Aug; 132 (2): 664-70.
2. Yelez LA. Ética médica: interrogantes acerca de la medicina, la vida y la muerte. 3a ed. Medellín: Corporación para Investigaciones Biológicas; 2003.
3. Simón P. El Consentimiento Informado. Madrid: Editorial Triacaste\a; 2000.
4. Camilleri M, Cortese DA. Managing conflict of interest in clinical practice. MayoC\in Proc. 2007May; 82(5):607-614.
5. Navarrete VE. Bioethicsand biotechnology.Rev. \atinoam. Bioet. 2003; 4: 18-35.
6. Bota Arqué A. El impacto de la biotecnología en América Latina: espacios de participación social. Acta Bioethi. 2003; 9(1): 21-38.
7. Greely HA. Conflicts in biotechnology. J Law Med Ethics.1995; 23:354-59
8. Ausín T. Conflict of values in pbarrnaceutical research: between public health and markets. Arbor. 2008; 184 (730): 333-34.
9. Feldman R. Whose body is it anyway? Human cel!s and the strange effects of property and intel!ectual property law.StanfordLaw Rev. 2011; 63(6): 1377- 1402.
10. Human experimentation consent and information consent : Case Compliments of Versuslaw, Fiduciary Duty of Researchers - the Spleen Case - Moore v. Regents of University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990) [monografía en Internet]. Redmon, WA :VersusLawinc; 1998 [citado 12 Feb 2013]. Disponible en: http:// biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/consent/Moore_v_Regents.htm
11. Brown AEL. Access to essential technologies: The role of the interface between intellectual property, competition and human rights. Int.Review Law, Comput Techn. 20!0;24(1):51-61.
12. Kevles DJ. From eugenics to patents:Genetics, Jaw, and human rights. Ann Hum Genet. 2011 May;75(3):326-33.
13. Greely HA. Conflicts in biotechnology. J Law Med Ethics. 1995; 23:356.
14. Jarrett SW. Challenges to the successful introduction of biotech.nologies in deve loping countries. Public Health Ethics; 2008;1(2):104-109.
15. Pisano GP. Can Science Be a Business? Lessons from Biotech.Harv Buss Rev. 2006; Oct: 1-14.
16. Toneguzzo F. Tensions in industry-academic col!aborations: perspective of the academic medica! center. Asia Pacific Biotech News.2004; 8(10):569-77.
17. World Bank. How we classify countries? Country and Lending groups [mono grafía en Internet]. Washington DC: World Bank; 2012 [citadolS Feb 2013]. Disponible en: http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/country and-lending-groups
18. Antonio! G. Sistemas de salud en América Latina: retos y funciones. Revista de antiguos alumnos del IEEM. 2004; 12: 84-88.
19. UN.General Assembly.Human rights guidelines for pharrnaceutical companies in relation to access to medicines.[monografía en Internet]. Ginebra, Suiza: OACDH; 2008. [citado 9 Ju! 2002]. Disponible en:http://www.ohchr.org/Docu ments/Issues/Health/GuidelinesForPharmaceuticalCompanies.doc.
20. Núñez L, Rojas L, Campo S, Castro JA. Retos y contradicciones de la industria biotecnológica actual. Biotecnol.Apl. 2007; 24: 276-82.
21. Olmedo R. Introducción a las teorías sobre el subdesarrollo. En AAV. Feudalis mo, capitalismo. Madrid, España: Akal Editor; 1977.
22. González CA, Villa Latorre JM, Bravo JE. El Potencial empresarial de la biotec nología. Rev.Biotecnol. Sector Agrop. Agroind.2007; 5 (2): 112-117.
23. Paul P, Mukhopadhyay K. Growth via intellectual property rights versus gen dered inequity in emerging economies: An ethical dilemma for international business. J Bus Ethics. 20 IO; 91(3):359-78.
24. Rangnekar D.The challenge of intellectual property rights and social justice.De velopment. 2011; 54(2): 212-14.
25. Thorsteinsdóttir H. The role of the health system in health biotechnology in de veloping countries.J Technol Analysis Strategic Management. 2007 Sept; 19 (5): 659 75.
26. DaarAbdallah S, Sahni Puja, Singer Peter A. Genomics, biotechnology and glo balhealth: the work of the University of Toronto Joint Centre for bioethics. Acta Bioeth.2004; 10(2):213-25.
27. OMS. Informe sobre la salud en el mundo: la financiación de los sistemas de salud, el camino hacia la cobertura universal [monografía en Internet]. Ginebra, Suiza: OMS; 2011. [citado 9 Ju! 2002]. Disponible en:http://whqlibdoc.who.int/ whr/2010/9789243564029 spa.pdf
28. Thorsteinsdóttir H, Melon C, Ray M, Chakkalackal S, Li M, Cooper J, Singer P. et al. South-South entrepreneurial collaboration in health biotech.Nat Biotech nol. 2010 May; Volume:28(5): Pages: 407-16.
29. Blumenthal D. Academic-industrial relationships in the life sciences.N Engl J Med. 2003 Dec 18;349(25):2452-9.
30. Pérez Pérez JA. La bioética y la biotecnología, una mirada hacia el medio am biente. Ágora. 2006 Ene-Jun; 9: 81-88.
31. Castiel LD, Sanz Valero J. Pruebas genéticas predictivas y percepción de ries gos. Apuntes para la comunicación pública de contenidos sobre biotecnología. Revista Salud Colect. 2006; Mayo-Ago; 2(2): 161-72.
32. OMS. Asamblea Mundial de la Salud.Resolución WHAS8.34 Cumbre ministe rial sobre investigación en salud (novena sesión plenaria, 25 de mayo de 2005, Comisión A, octavo informe).
33. OMS. Elementos preparatorios informe sobre la salud en el mundo 2012 [mono grafía en Internet]. Ginebra, Suiza: OMS; 2012. [citado l 2Feb 2013]. Disponible en:http://www.who.int/rpc/whr2012-stories/es/index.html
2. Yelez LA. Ética médica: interrogantes acerca de la medicina, la vida y la muerte. 3a ed. Medellín: Corporación para Investigaciones Biológicas; 2003.
3. Simón P. El Consentimiento Informado. Madrid: Editorial Triacaste\a; 2000.
4. Camilleri M, Cortese DA. Managing conflict of interest in clinical practice. MayoC\in Proc. 2007May; 82(5):607-614.
5. Navarrete VE. Bioethicsand biotechnology.Rev. \atinoam. Bioet. 2003; 4: 18-35.
6. Bota Arqué A. El impacto de la biotecnología en América Latina: espacios de participación social. Acta Bioethi. 2003; 9(1): 21-38.
7. Greely HA. Conflicts in biotechnology. J Law Med Ethics.1995; 23:354-59
8. Ausín T. Conflict of values in pbarrnaceutical research: between public health and markets. Arbor. 2008; 184 (730): 333-34.
9. Feldman R. Whose body is it anyway? Human cel!s and the strange effects of property and intel!ectual property law.StanfordLaw Rev. 2011; 63(6): 1377- 1402.
10. Human experimentation consent and information consent : Case Compliments of Versuslaw, Fiduciary Duty of Researchers - the Spleen Case - Moore v. Regents of University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990) [monografía en Internet]. Redmon, WA :VersusLawinc; 1998 [citado 12 Feb 2013]. Disponible en: http:// biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/consent/Moore_v_Regents.htm
11. Brown AEL. Access to essential technologies: The role of the interface between intellectual property, competition and human rights. Int.Review Law, Comput Techn. 20!0;24(1):51-61.
12. Kevles DJ. From eugenics to patents:Genetics, Jaw, and human rights. Ann Hum Genet. 2011 May;75(3):326-33.
13. Greely HA. Conflicts in biotechnology. J Law Med Ethics. 1995; 23:356.
14. Jarrett SW. Challenges to the successful introduction of biotech.nologies in deve loping countries. Public Health Ethics; 2008;1(2):104-109.
15. Pisano GP. Can Science Be a Business? Lessons from Biotech.Harv Buss Rev. 2006; Oct: 1-14.
16. Toneguzzo F. Tensions in industry-academic col!aborations: perspective of the academic medica! center. Asia Pacific Biotech News.2004; 8(10):569-77.
17. World Bank. How we classify countries? Country and Lending groups [mono grafía en Internet]. Washington DC: World Bank; 2012 [citadolS Feb 2013]. Disponible en: http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/country and-lending-groups
18. Antonio! G. Sistemas de salud en América Latina: retos y funciones. Revista de antiguos alumnos del IEEM. 2004; 12: 84-88.
19. UN.General Assembly.Human rights guidelines for pharrnaceutical companies in relation to access to medicines.[monografía en Internet]. Ginebra, Suiza: OACDH; 2008. [citado 9 Ju! 2002]. Disponible en:http://www.ohchr.org/Docu ments/Issues/Health/GuidelinesForPharmaceuticalCompanies.doc.
20. Núñez L, Rojas L, Campo S, Castro JA. Retos y contradicciones de la industria biotecnológica actual. Biotecnol.Apl. 2007; 24: 276-82.
21. Olmedo R. Introducción a las teorías sobre el subdesarrollo. En AAV. Feudalis mo, capitalismo. Madrid, España: Akal Editor; 1977.
22. González CA, Villa Latorre JM, Bravo JE. El Potencial empresarial de la biotec nología. Rev.Biotecnol. Sector Agrop. Agroind.2007; 5 (2): 112-117.
23. Paul P, Mukhopadhyay K. Growth via intellectual property rights versus gen dered inequity in emerging economies: An ethical dilemma for international business. J Bus Ethics. 20 IO; 91(3):359-78.
24. Rangnekar D.The challenge of intellectual property rights and social justice.De velopment. 2011; 54(2): 212-14.
25. Thorsteinsdóttir H. The role of the health system in health biotechnology in de veloping countries.J Technol Analysis Strategic Management. 2007 Sept; 19 (5): 659 75.
26. DaarAbdallah S, Sahni Puja, Singer Peter A. Genomics, biotechnology and glo balhealth: the work of the University of Toronto Joint Centre for bioethics. Acta Bioeth.2004; 10(2):213-25.
27. OMS. Informe sobre la salud en el mundo: la financiación de los sistemas de salud, el camino hacia la cobertura universal [monografía en Internet]. Ginebra, Suiza: OMS; 2011. [citado 9 Ju! 2002]. Disponible en:http://whqlibdoc.who.int/ whr/2010/9789243564029 spa.pdf
28. Thorsteinsdóttir H, Melon C, Ray M, Chakkalackal S, Li M, Cooper J, Singer P. et al. South-South entrepreneurial collaboration in health biotech.Nat Biotech nol. 2010 May; Volume:28(5): Pages: 407-16.
29. Blumenthal D. Academic-industrial relationships in the life sciences.N Engl J Med. 2003 Dec 18;349(25):2452-9.
30. Pérez Pérez JA. La bioética y la biotecnología, una mirada hacia el medio am biente. Ágora. 2006 Ene-Jun; 9: 81-88.
31. Castiel LD, Sanz Valero J. Pruebas genéticas predictivas y percepción de ries gos. Apuntes para la comunicación pública de contenidos sobre biotecnología. Revista Salud Colect. 2006; Mayo-Ago; 2(2): 161-72.
32. OMS. Asamblea Mundial de la Salud.Resolución WHAS8.34 Cumbre ministe rial sobre investigación en salud (novena sesión plenaria, 25 de mayo de 2005, Comisión A, octavo informe).
33. OMS. Elementos preparatorios informe sobre la salud en el mundo 2012 [mono grafía en Internet]. Ginebra, Suiza: OMS; 2012. [citado l 2Feb 2013]. Disponible en:http://www.who.int/rpc/whr2012-stories/es/index.html