The Protection of Geographical Indications After Doha: Quo Vadis?

During the last twenty years the international protection ofgeographical indications (GIs) has experienced a worldwide resurgencespurred by both the greater need and the additional opportunitiesoffered by the global marketplace for the diversification ofagricultural products and foodstuffs. The Doha Ministerial Declarationlends support to developing countries that are seeking formsof knowledge less than high technology that they have the capacityto exploit. June 2005 saw the European Communities submit aradical proposal, designed to also meet the needs of developingcountries that would amend the Trade-Related Aspects of IntellectualProperty (TRIPS) Agreement in favour of a mandatory multilateralsystem of registration for all products. Yet, World Trade Organization(WTO) Members are as divided over their capacity to take advantageof GI protection no less than they are as to the means of regulation.To date, no ready solution to the further global harmonizationof GIs has been found. This paper examines the two major regulatorymodels advanced by the European Union and the United Statesof America for the protection of GIs. In the light of the DohaDevelopment Agenda, the authors argue in favour of an incrementalapproach that would allow developing countries the flexibilityto adjust additional protection in accordance with their levelof economic development.     

Religious belief, perceptions of human suffering, and support for reproductive genetic technology

Reproductive genetic technologies are becoming more controversial as they become more ubiquitous. The opponents of these technologies are largely religious groups, a fact that leads to the question of why religious groups would be more opposed to these technologies than others. Since all of these technologies are justified by their ability to relieve suffering of some kind, it is hypothesized that the actively religious have a notion of suffering different from that of advocates for these technologies, and this different notion of suffering leads to opposition to the technologies. In this article I report on a qualitative interview study of the religiously active in the United States. I find that the religiously active do have views of suffering that are distinct from the medical consensus, and these views are related to people's conclusions about the advisability of reproductive genetic technologies.