Examining a Regulatory Pathway for 3D Bioprinting: An Investigation into its Relationship with Intellectual Property and Human Rights

  • Georgia McCormack-Goeth Auckland University of Technology
Keywords: 3D bioprinting, intellectual property, human rights, regulation

Abstract

3D bioprinting comprises printing of organic material like bones, organs, and skin using one’s own cells as bioink. These synthetic replicas have the potential to cure disease or illness, provide an alternative to live donor transplantation, and increase the accuracy of research on the human body (Vermeulen et al., 2017; Murphy & Atala, 2014). Although a recent and still emerging technology as a derivative of 3D printing, research into the potential benefits and disadvantages of 3D bioprinting is growing. As a new and beneficial innovation, 3D bioprinting is arguably subject to intellectual property protection. Research in the field of biotechnology highlights the need to strike a balance between encouraging scientific research and development, while protecting the rights of the public (Andrews & Nelkin, 1998). However, studies that have examined the patentability of 3D bioprinting rarely address specific human rights concerns. Furthermore, investigation around the interaction of 3D bioprinting with other forms of intellectual property is lacking. This presentation will provide a brief introduction to the science of 3D bioprinting and how it affects numerous human rights. This will be followed by an examination of whether the current intellectual property system is suitable for regulation of this invention. Doctrinal methodology is the primary research method employed to examine applicable law and legal regimes relating to 3D bioprinting, intellectual property and human rights. This research expands on existing literature and contributes to addressing the gap in the knowledge base. By analysing the interface of 3D bioprinting, intellectual property and human rights, this study aims to shed light on potential implications of intellectual property protection for 3D bioprinting technology and to offer potential pathways for ensuring that any regulatory measures prioritise and support human rights.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Andrews, L., & Nelkin, D. (1998). Whose body is it anyway? Disputes over body tissue in a biotechnology age. The Lancet, 351(9095), 53-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)78066-1

Murphy, S.V., & Atala, A. (2014). 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nature Biotechnology 32(8), 773-785.

Vermeulen, N., Haddow, G., Seymour, T., Faulkner-Jones, A., & Shu, W. (2017). 3D bioprint me: A socioethical view of bioprinting human organs and tissues. J Med Ethics 43(9), 618-624. http://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-103347

Published
2022-04-12
How to Cite
McCormack-Goeth, G. (2022). Examining a Regulatory Pathway for 3D Bioprinting: An Investigation into its Relationship with Intellectual Property and Human Rights. Rangahau Aranga: AUT Graduate Review, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.24135/rangahau-aranga.v1i1.77
Section
Abstracts