Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Professor Ben FarrandORCiD
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
While socio-cultural and historical differences in the EU Member States and China have resulted in two distinct regimes for human embryonic stem cell research, with the EU considered somewhat conservative and China significantly liberal in approach, the laws governing patenting of innovations derived from stem cell research in both legal regimes appear to be remarkably similar. How is it that two divergent systems have nevertheless converged on a restrictive approach to patenting in this field of research? This article will demonstrate the way in which different institutional pressures and objectives have resulted in similar practices: while deliberative decision-making within the context of representative liberal democracy resulted in the EU placing morality-based limitations on economically driven hESC patenting, China’s elite-driven processes within the context of "authoritarian deliberation" instead adopted morality-based limitations both as an indicator of meeting standards of best practice as a means of encouraging research and investment, and as the result of institutional learning. Therefore, despite different institutional designs and policy-making approaches, the EU and China have converged on remarkably similar hESC patent regimes.
Author(s): Farrand B
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Intellectual Property Quarterly
Year: 2016
Volume: 2016
Issue: 3
Pages: 260-277
Print publication date: 01/06/2016
Online publication date: 01/06/2016
Acceptance date: 01/03/2016
Date deposited: 06/04/2019
ISSN (print): 1364-906X
Publisher: Sweet & Maxwell Ltd
