Science and language

The Jakarta Post:Sat, 04/19/2008 12:24 PM|Opinion

Going through the fast development of biological science, Indonesian scientists realize that the development of sciences should go hand in hand with the development of language. As an example, the National Bioethics Commission (KBN) consulted the Language Center of the National Education Ministry (Pusat Bahasa Departemen Pendidikan Nasional) to find the Indonesian term (the translation) for the word "stem cell".
It has been decided that the term could be translated as "sel punca". This little and trivial effort concerning language is very important for Indonesian language in order to keep up with the rapid development of knowledge.

In my opinion, technical terms are very hard to translate. I support the idea about the harmonization of language and science. I hope that this will help our professional translators to cope with such technical problems and likely it will improve the quality of scientific text translated into Indonesian.

This will make Indonesia language more independent and dynamic in transferring knowledge without any misperceptions about special terms or words.

INTAN PERMATASARI
Surakarta, Central Java

Read more...

Persiapan mengikuti pertemuan internasional: contoh dari persiapan menuju Conference of the Parties (COP) dari Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio

Catatan Penyunting:
Untuk dapat mengetahui apa saja yang dibahas, dan bagaimana melakukan pembahasan di tingkat internasional, berikut ini cuplikan dari persiapan pertemuan yang berkenaan dengan ‘ethical code of conduct’ dalam lingkup ‘lingkungan hidup’. Ungkapan di antara tanda kurung ‘[‘ dan ‘]’ adalah pilihan yang diusulkan: AD HOC OPEN-ENDED INTER-SESSIONAL WORKING GROUP ON ARTICLE 8(j) AND RELATED PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
Sixth meeting Montreal, 2-5 November 2009

REVISED DRAFT OF THE ELEMENTS OF AN ETHICAL CODE OF CONDUCT TO ENSURE RESPECT FOR THE CULTURAL AND INTELECTUAL HERITAGE OF INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES
Note by the Executive Secretary

INTRODUCTION
In accordance with decision IX/13 G of the Conference of the Parties, the Executive Secretary is circulating herewith, for the consideration of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Inter-Sessional Working Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions, the draft of the elements of a code of ethical conduct to ensure respect for the cultural and intellectual heritage of indigenous and local communities relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. …
In paragraph 5 of decision IX/13 G, the Conference of the Parties requested the Working Group to further develop the draft elements of a code of ethical conduct and to submit them to the Conference of the Parties at its tenth meeting for its consideration and possible adoption. The Working Group may wish to consider the suggested recommendations contained below for submission to the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties. … …

Section 3 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
5. [The following ethical principles apply to activities/interactions with indigenous and local communities, relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, including development and/or research proposed or being conducted on sacred sites, culturally significant sites [and lands and waters traditionally occupied or used by indigenous and local communities.]]
Option A
6. The ethical principles below are intended to [facilitate] [acknowledge] the rights of indigenous and local communities to enjoy, protect and pass on to future generations, their cultural and intellectual heritage [relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity] and it is according to these principles that others should engage with indigenous and local communities. Option B
6. The ethical principles below are intended to [facilitate] [acknowledge] the overarching principle, that indigenous and local communities have the right to enjoy, protect and pass on to future generations, their cultural and intellectual heritage [relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity] and it is according to these principles that others should engage with indigenous and local communities.
Option C
6. The ethical principles below suggest the over-arching principle, that indigenous and local community members [are entitled to] to enjoy their culture 6/ and this implies the ability to, if they so desire, pass on their culture [relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity] to future generations, and it is on this basis that others are encouraged to engage with indigenous and local communities. … …


Ada lima (5) prinsip yang dirumuskan untuk dibahas, yaitu:





(1) Respect for existing settlements
7. This principle recognizes the [predominance and] importance of mutually agreed settlements or agreements at national level which exists in many countries and that respect must be applied to such arrangements at all times.
(2) Intellectual property
8. Community and individual concerns over, and claims to, intellectual property relevant to traditional knowledge, innovations and practices related to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity should be acknowledged and addressed in the negotiation with traditional knowledge holders and/or indigenous and local communities, as appropriate, prior to starting activities/interactions . [Knowledge holders should be allowed to retain existing rights, including the determination of intellectual property rights, over their traditional knowledge.]
(3) Non-discrimination
9. The ethics and guidelines for all activities/interactions should be non-discriminatory, taking into account affirmative action, particularly in relation to gender, disadvantaged groups and representation.
(4) [Transparency/full disclosure]
10. Indigenous and local communities should be [fully] informed [to the fullest extent possible] about the nature, scope and purpose of any proposed activities/interactions carried out by others [that may involve the use of their traditional knowledge, innovations and practices related to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity] [, occurring on or likely to impact on, sacred sites and on lands and waters traditionally occupied or used by indigenous and local communities]. [Subject to national law,] this information should be provided in a manner that takes into consideration and actively engages with the body of knowledge and cultural practices of indigenous and local communities.
(5) [Approval] [Free prior informed consent] of the knowledge holders

Cuplikan di atas ini disajikan untuk sekedar memberi gambaran perjalanan pembahasan internasional.

Persoalan kita ialah untuk mendalami proses ini, sehingga kepentingan Indonesia dapat dijaga dan diperjuangkan, sejak dini dan awal.

Kehadiran peserta Indonesia di forum seperti ini memerlukan dukungan analis yang tangguh dan , tentu saja, dana. [setkbn0609]

Read more...

Masters of International Research Bioethics, Monash, 2010

Commencement date: February 2010
3 semesters full-time + 6 semesters part-time
Study mode and course location On-campus (Alfred Hospital, Melbourne) Course description:
This course, offered by the Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, is an interdisciplinary program covering comparative moral theory, research bioethics in an international setting, quantitative and qualitative research methodology, critical appraisal techniques and relevant law. Particular emphasis is given to ethical issues associated with research in developing countries in the Asia-Pacific Region.
Students will gain a strong theoretical framework, and experience with local ethics committees. This course is currently funded by the Fogarty Institute of the US National Institutes of Health.

Course objectives:
The overall objectives for the course cover four main themes:
1. Basic moral theory, bioethics and the application of bioethical principles and law to research in both domestic and international collaborative contexts
2. Quantitative and qualitative methodology for international health programme planning and evaluation
3. Special issues in international health
4. Practical application of theory and knowledge

Fees: In recognition of the fact that people from both NGOs and from developing countries may wish to undertake this program, we have a special fee policy for this program. Fees are AUS $19,785 for Australian students and AUS $22,650 for international students.

In addition, five fee scholarships and stipends are available to students from developing countries in the Asia/Pacific region.

STUDENTS MUST HAVE AN IELTS OF 7, OR A DEGREE FROM AN ENGLISH SPEAKING COUNTRY TO BE CONSIDERED.
Please contact Dr Deborah Zion: deborah.zion@med.monash.edu.au

Read more...

Angota KBN 2009-2012

1. A. A. Loedin, Prof. Dr. dr.
2. Achmad Suryana, M.S., Prof. Dr. Ir.
3. Agus Firmansyah, SpA(K), Prof. Dr.
4. Agus Purwadianto, S.H., M.Si., SpF., Prof. Dr. dr.
5. Amin Soebandrio, PhD., SpMK., Prof. dr. 6. Amru Hydari Nazif, M.Sc., Dr.
7. Budi Sampurna, S.H., SpF., Prof. Dr.
8. Carolus B. Kusmaryanto, M.A., S.Pd., SCJ., Dr.
9. Dayar Arbain, Apt., Prof. Dr.
10. Dewi Fortuna Khaidir Anwar, M.A., Prof. Dr.
11. Dondin Sayuthi, Prof. Dr.
12. Eko Baroto Waluyo, Prof. Dr.
13. Endang Sukara, Prof. Dr.
14. Farid A. Moeloek, SpOG., Prof. Dr. dr.
15. I. G. P. Wirawan, M.Sc., Prof. Dr. Ir.
16. Irawan Yusuf, Prof. Dr. dr.
17. Kusumo Diwyanto, M.S., PhD., Prof. Ir.
18. M. Amin Abdullah, Prof. Dr.
19. M.K. Tadjoedin, SpAnd., Prof. dr.
20. Miftah Faridl, H. Prof. Dr.
21. Moh. Hisyam, APU., Dr.
22. Nasaruddin Umar, M.A., Prof. Dr.
23. Pratiwi Sudarmono, PhD., SpMK., Prof. Dr.
24. Quraish Shihab, Prof. Dr.
25. Sajid Darmadipura, SpBS (K), Prof. Dr. dr.
26. Siti Fatimah, M.Sc., SpGK., Prof. Dr.
27. Siti Nuramaliati Prijono, Dr.
28. Soegeng Hardyanto, Dr. rer. theol.
29. Soenarto Sastrowijoto. SpTHT., Prof. Dr. dr.
30. Sumardjo Gatot Irianto, Dr. Ir.
31. Sumarno, Prof. Dr.
32. Sutrisno, Dr. Ir.
33. Tien Muchtadi, Prof. Dr. Ir.
34. Umar Anggara Jenie, M.Sc., Apt., Prof. Dr.
35. Widjaja Lukito, PhD., SpGK., dr.

Read more...

Catatan dari Rapat Pleno I Komisi Bioetika Nasional di Jakarta, 2 Juni 2009

Rapat Pleno Pertama Komisi Bioetika Nasional (KBN) 2009-2012 dilaksanakan di Jakarta pada tanggal 2 Juni 2009 dan dipimpin oleh Ketua KBN (lama) Prof. Dr. Umar A. Jenie. Ketua KBN mengingatkan tugas KBN ialah: (1) memajukan telaah masalah yang terkait dengan prinsip-prinsip bioetika, (2) memberi pertimbangan kepada Pemerintah mengenai aspek bioetika dalam penelitian, pengembangan, dan penerapan ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi yang berbasis pada ilmu-ilmu hayati, dan (3) menyebarluaskan pemahaman umum mengenai bioetika.

Pemilihan Ketua dan Sekretaris KBN Periode 2009-2012 Pemilihan, yang dipimpin oleh Prof. Dr. Amin Soebandrio, dilakukan secara langsung dengan tiap anggota yang hadir menyampaikan usulan nama calon Ketua (baru). Dari proses ini telah terpilih, dengan suara terbanyak, sebagai Ketua KBN (2009-2012) Prof. Dr. Umar Anggara Jenie, Apt.

Juga diterima para Wakil Ketua, yaitu (1) Wakil Ketua Prof. Dr. Amin Soebandrio, SpMK. dari Kementerian Negara Riset dan Teknologi; (2) Wakil Ketua Prof. Dr. dr. Agus Purwadianto, SH, SpF, dari Departemen Kesehatan; dan (3) Wakil Ketua Prof. Dr. Ir. Sumardjo Gatot Irianto dari Departemen Pertanian. Dr. Amru Hydari Nazif menjabat sebagai Sekretaris KBN, sekali gus menjadi Kepala Sekretariat KBN.

Rapat mendengakan berbagai masukan seputar program KBN (sementara) dan bersepakat perlunya dibahas secara bersama pokok pikiran mengenai masalah kebioetikaan yang menjadi kepentingan Indonesia. Sesuai dengan ketentuan, Rapat Pleno berikutnya, secara tentatif, akan dilaksanakan pada tanggal 1 Desember 2009.•(setkbn0609)

Read more...

Pertemuan Sesi Ke-3 Badan Pengatur Traktat Internasional Sumberdaya Genetik Tanaman untuk Pangan dan Pertanian

Tunisia, 1 – 5 Juni 2009
Pertemuan Sesi Ke 3 Badan Pengatur Traktat Internasional Sumberdaya Genetik Tanaman untuk Pangan dan Pertanian (BP-TI-SDGTPP, The Third Session of the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGR)) telah dilaksanakan pada 1 – 5 Juni 2009 di Tunisia. Pertemuan ini dihadiri oleh 350 peserta yang berasal dari unsur anggota BP-TI-SDGTPP, wakil pemerintah bukan anggota BP-TI-SDGTPP, lembaga internasional, lembaga nonpemerintah, organisasi petani, dan industri.
Delegasi Republik Indonesia dipimpin oleh Dr. Haryono (Wakil Ketua Pengarah Komisi Nasional Plasma Nutfah/Sekretaris Badan Litbang Pertanian), disertai oleh empat anggota, yaitu:
(1)Dr. Sutrisno, Ketua Pelaksana Harian Komnas Plasma Nutfah/Kepala Balai Besar Litbang Bioteknologi dan Sumberdaya Genetik Pertanian,
(2)Dr. Sugiono Moeljopawiro, anggota Biro Badan Pengatur wakil Asia/anggota Komnasl Plasma Nutfah/Pemulia tanaman pada Balai Besar Litbang Bioteknologi dan Sumberdaya Genetik Pertanian;
(3)Dr. M. Yunus, Kepala Seksi Program Balai Besar Litbang Bioteknologi dan Sumberdaya Genetik Pertanian, dan
(4)Dr. Erizal Sodikun, Atase Pertanian di Kedutaan Besar RI di Roma, Italia.
Pertemuan membahas berbagai isu, yaitu: peraturan finansial Badan Pengatur; prosedur dan mekanisme mendorong kepatuhan dan mengatasi ketidakpatuhan; implementasi strategi pendanaan; rencana kerja Badan Pengatur; hubungan antara Badan Pengatur dengan Global Crops Biodiversity Trust; implementasi Sistem Multilateral Traktat dalam akses dan pembagian keuntungan; manfaat bagi pihak ketiga; implementasi artikel 6 (pemanfaatan berkelanjutan sumberdaya genetik tanaman) dan artikel 9 (hak-hak petani); hubungan antara Badan Pengatur dengan Komisi Sumberdaya Genetik untuk Pangan dan Pertanian, FAO; kerjasama dengan organisasi lain; hal-hal yang muncul dari evaluasi eksternal independen, FAO; rencana kerja dan anggaran 2010/2011.
Kesepakatan penting yang dihasilkan dari pertemuan itu, antara lain:
persetujuan terhadap target hasil yang ingin dicapai dari implementasi strategi finansial, termasuk target finansial 116 juta dolar Amerika yang akan dikumpulkan pada periode Juli 2009 – Desember 2014;
resolusi implementasi Sistem Multilateral, termasuk pembentukan komite penasehat; resolusi hak-hak petani; prosedur penerimaan manfaat oleh pihak ketiga; program kerja dan anggaran 2010/2011;
melanjutkan pencarian kesepatan tentang isu peraturan finasial pada sesi ke 4 Badan Pengatur; pembentukan kelompok kerja untuk memproses finalisasi prosedur kepatuhan sebelum pertemuan ke-4;
meninjau ulang Standar Persetujuan Pengalihan Material.
Sebagai bagian dari kerangka kerja Food and Agriculture Organisation, Traktat Internasional Sumberdaya Genetik Tanaman untuk Pangan dan Pertanian (SDGTPP) mentargetkan konservasi dan pemanfaatan berkelanjutan SDGTPP dan pembagian keuntungan yang setara, selaras dengan Konvensi Keanekaragaman Hayati, untuk pertanian dan ketahanan pangan berkelanjutan. Traktat berisi ketentuan umum, hak petani, komponen pendukung, ketentuan finasial dan kelembagaan. Traktat telah menetapkan Sistem Multilateral untuk memfasilitasi SDGTPP 35 genus tanaman dan 29 spesies pakan ternak, yang diseimbangkan dengan pembagian keuntungan dibidang pertukaran informasi, transfer teknologi, pembangunan kapasitas, dan pengembangan komersial. Traktat mulai berlaku sejak tahun 2004 dan sampai saat ini 120 negara telah menjadi anggota Badan Pengatur, termasuk Indonesia.
Hasil yang dicapai dari pembahasan implemetasi artikel 6 (pemanfaatan berkelanjutan sumberdaya genetik tanaman) ialah bahwa banyak daerah masih ketinggalan dalam implementasi artikel 6 sehingga memerlukan sumber dana, pembangunan kapasitas, dan transfer teknologi; para anggota Badan Pengatur perlu mengembangkan kebijakan dan peraturan yang memadai; meminta para anggota Badan Pengatur untuk melaporkan kemajuan implementasi artikel 6 melalui mekanisme pelaporan Rencana Aksi Global; meminta sekretariat untuk membuat alat bantu untuk beberapa negara yang merancang pemanfaatan berkelanjutan SDGTPP.
Dalam kaitannya dengan implementasi artikel 9 (hak-hak petani), Badan Pengatur prihatin karena sedikit usulan tentang implementasi artikel 9. Badan Pengatur menghargai kontribusi komunitas lokal dan asli serta petani yang melakukan konservasi dan pemanfaatan berkelanjutan SDGTPP. Dalam kaitannya dengan adopsi resolusi hak-hak petani, Badan Pengatur meminta agar semua pihak mengulas dan jika perlu merivisi tindakan-tindakan nasional yang mempengaruhi realisasi hak-hak petani; dan mendorong semua pihak dan organisasi untuk untuk menyampaikan pandangan dan pengalaman implementasi hak-hak petani. Badan Pengatur menghargai keterlibatan organisasi petani pada kegiatan di masa mendatang, dan meminta sekretariat untuk merencanakan lokakarya regional tentang hak-hak petani dengan tujuan untuk mendiskusikan pengalaman nasional dan mengumpulkan pandangan berbagai pihak dan melaporkannya pada pertemuan ke-4 pada tahun 2011 di Indonesia.[sutrisno, 0609]

Read more...

Pewarta KBN tahun ke-3, Mei-Juni 2009

Dari meja penyunting

Rupanya tidak selalu ‘mengetahui’ dan ‘menguasai’ itu menjadi dasar dan panduan ‘berbuat’. Guru Besar yang bertahun-tahun mengajar moralitas dan (teori) etika tidak selalu menjalankan kehidupan profesionalnya sebagai ilmuwan mengikuti secara ketat norma etika yang diajarkannya. Artinya, ia (si pendidik) tidaklah berbeda dengan orang lain, dalam penerapan hidup beretika. Artinya pula, dalam mendidik dan mengajar murid-muridnya, seorang guru seolah-olah berpesan ‘berbuatlah sesuai dengan apa yang saya katakan, tidak sesuai dengan apa yang saya lakukan’. Aneh tapi nyata.
Ini informasi yang sampai di meja Penyunting Pewarta KBN ini, atas kiriman Prof M.K. Tadjudin, terima kasih: “According to a paper written by two philosophy professors, Eric Schwitzgebel of the University of California at Riverside and Joshua Rust of Stetson University, a college professorship in ethics does not necessary translate into moral behavior. At least, that’s what the people who work with ethicists say.
“One might suppose,” Schwitzgebel writes in the paper, which has been accepted for publication by the journal Mind, “that ethicists would behave with particular moral scruple (=keraguan). After all, they devote their careers to studying and teaching about morality. Presumably, many of them care deeply about it. And if they care deeply about it, it is not unreasonable to expect them to act on it.”
Most of the 277 survey respondents reported no positive correlation between a professional focus on ethics and actual moral behavior. Respondents who were ethicists themselves shied away from saying that ethicists behave worse than those outside the discipline – generally reporting that ethicists behave either the same or better – but non-ethicists were mostly split between reporting that ethicists behave the same as or worse than others.
Even those ethicists who did rank their peers’ behavior as better than average said their moral behavior is just barely better than average – hardly a ringing endorsement.
“If actually thinking about ethics philosophically does not help you behave any better, if that is the right conclusion to draw, I do find that disappointing,” Schwitzgebel said. “I would have to hope that philosophical moral reflection is morally improving … that it pushes you toward the good.”
“There are certain ways of teaching ethics and thinking about ethics philosophically that can lead to moral improvement,” Schwitzgebel said. He wants to find them. (dari K. Maternowski)”.[amruhn, 0609]

Read more...

Tahukah Anda?

Dalam tahun 2010 akan dirayakan International Day for Biological Diversity (IBD), yaitu pada tanggal 22 Mei 2010 dengan tema “biodiversity for development”. Pesan yang akan disampaikan dan disebarluaskan antara lain ialah:
“the importance of biodiversity for human well-being and achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, in particular, the role of biodiversity for poverty alleviation”; dan
“the severity of the current rate of biodiversity loss and the consequences for ecosystems, species and human well-being if this continues”.
Tahun 2010 juga merupakan tahun batas untuk diterapkannya “an international regime on access to genetic resources and the equitable sharing of the benefits from their use”. [setkbn0409]

Read more...

Bioethics in Parliament 2008: debating the DNA database

On the 11th November 2008, the Council hosted the first ‘Bioethics in Parliament’ event on the terrace of the Houses of Parliament.
The event’s four sponsors, Dr Ian Gibson MP, Dr Evan Harris MP, Lord Harries of Pentregarth and Earl Howe (shadow health minister), represented each of the main political parties and both Houses.
Following on from the publication of the Council’s report on the forensic use of bioinformation in 2007, the question for discussion was:
is retaining the DNA of innocent people justified by the need to fight crime?
Given a pending judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on the case of Marper & S v UK, the debate was highly topical and attracted a large audience. Michael Marper and a teenager known as ‘S’ are arguing that being on the UK’s DNA database is an infringement of their human rights. The ruling, expected before the end of the year, may require the UK Government to reconsider its current policy.
Professor Albert Weale gave a short introduction to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which was followed by a summary of the Council’s report on the forensic use of bioinformation by Dr Carole McCartney. Guests then heard contributions from Gary Pugh, Director of Forensic Services at Metropolitan Police and Jenny Willott MP, who recently introduced The DNA Database (Removal of Samples) Bill, and a general discussion followed. The event was attended by a range of MPs, peers, civil servants and other individuals interested in the ethical issues raised the National DNA Database.

The Council plans to host a second Bioethics in Parliament event in November 2009.◊

Read more...

Obama overturns stem-cell ban

Ringkasan artikel oleh Erika Hayden yang dipublikasikan online 9 March 2009, Nature doi:10.1038/458130a:

Scientists and research advocates worldwide are celebrating the removal of rules limiting research on human embryonic stem cells in the United States, which they say have restricted the field's progress for seven and a half years. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, is now working out policies that will allow researchers to apply for grant money from the agency to study some of the hundreds of cell lines created since 9 August 2001, when President George W. Bush limited federal funding to research on lines in existence at that time. Some scientists are already proposing to use the new lines in applications for $200 million in NIH 'Challenge' grants, which will be funded by the economic stimulus package signed into law last month. Details of these grants were unveiled last week.

Estimates of the number of new lines range from 400 to 1,000. Unlike the 21 lines previously eligible for federal funding, many of the lines have been made from embryos that had genetic predispositions to specific diseases, or were derived using 'animal-free' preparations, and thus could be more relevant to laboratory research and preclinical studies.

President Barack Obama signed the executive order on 9 March at a White House ceremony attended by scientists, lawmakers, patients and patient advocates. "We will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research," Obama said. "And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield."

The new order asks the NIH to develop guidelines and regulations within 120 days to govern federally funded human embryonic stem-cell research. Work is already under way at the NIH to develop guidelines covering the eligibility of cell lines for federal funding. These will be based on issues such as the kind of informed consent given by couples who donated the leftover embryos from which the cells were collected. Such cells can develop into any type of tissue in the body, and are thus thought to hold enormous promise as tools for dissecting disease processes, screening possible treatments and developing new therapies.

Legislation to codify the change has already been introduced into both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It explicitly permits federal funding for research on stem-cell lines derived with parental permission from embryos left over at fertility clinics and other­wise slated for destruction. At least one observer has suggested that legislation expli­citly approving federal funding for stem-cell research is needed to address the Dickey–Wicker amendment, a law first enacted by Congress in 1996 and renewed every year since, that prohibits federal funding of research in which embryos are created or destroyed.
Those who oppose the research because it involves the destruction of embryos criticized Obama's decision. They say that the NIH should support research only on cells that are not derived from embryos, such as induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells), which are derived from adult cells but have many properties of embryonic stem cells.

But iPS cells, first created in 2006, are not a substitute for embryonic stem cells, Kriegstein says. "iPS technology and its ongoing improvement will likely eclipse embryonic stem-cell lines for diagnostic and therapeutic applications, but for now, embryonic stem cells are clearly needed. And it's still not clear how iPS cells will ultimately compare for therapeutic purposes."◊

Read more...

Berbagai forum ‘bioetika’

1.Ordinary Session of the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology and Satellites, 15-19 June, 2009, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

2.UNESCO Asia-Arab Inter-regional Philosophical Dialogues, 28-30 May 2009, Bangkok, Thailand

3.At the kind invitation of the Government of Mexico, the sixteenth (ordinary) session of the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (IBC) was planned to be held in Mexico City, from 4 to 6 May 2009. Last minute change: Sixteenth Session of the International Bioethics Committee (IBC) postponed

Due to the swine influenza epidemic in Mexico City, the Director-General of UNESCO has decided to postpone the sixteenth session of the International Bioethics Committee (IBC) and the European Commission-UNESCO Conference (JACOB) to a later date.

The decision was taken in consultation with the relevant authorities, including the United Nations Department of Safety and Security, the World Health Organization, and the Mexican authorities, and in agreement with local partners, in particular Adolfo Martínez Palomo, Chairperson of the IBC.

Information in this respect will be available online in due course – we hope that the two meetings will still take place in Mexico in two to three months.
Two main topics will be discussed: the principle of social responsibility and health as set forth in the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005) and the issue of human cloning and international governance. The IBC will finalize its work on these two topics and will hold a preliminary reflection on its future work programme. Probably taking place in Latin America, this session will also be the occasion to devote an entire day to bioethics in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The sessions are open to the public.

There is no registration fee. However, as is customary, the travel and living expenses of observers will be borne by them or by the Organization they represent.
Working Documents
Draft Report on Social Responsibility and Health
Draft report of the Working Group of IBC on Human Cloning and International Governance
Working document on the Principle of Respect for Human Vulnerability and Personal Integrity
Background documents
Report of the 15th session of IBC
Report of the joint session of IBC and IGBC

4.European Commission-UNESCO Conference: Joint Action for Capacity-building in Bioethics (JACOB), Mexico City, Mexico, 7-9 May 2009.

5.The Division of Ethics of Science and Technology; Sector for Social and Human Sciences; UNESCO.

6.European Commission-UNESCO Conference: Joint Action for Capacity-building in Bioethics, Mexico City, Mexico 7-9 May 2009.

As part of UNESCO’s work to strengthen the national bioethics infrastructure of its Member States, and in particular to assist in the establishment and capacity-building of independent, multidisciplinary and pluralist ethics committees, a European Commission–UNESCO Joint Action for Capacity-Building (JACOB) in Bioethics, will bring together experts and members of the newly established, currently forming and long-standing National Bioethics Committees (NBCs) from various parts of the world in Mexico City, Mexico from 7 to 9 May 2009.

The Conference will be structured around three major themes:
Emerging Bioethics Issues:
local perspectives from the newly established and experienced National Bioethics Committees (series of presentations and discussions on bioethics topics relevant in different regions of the globe, and the national institutional mechanisms for addressing them).
Building an international network:
devising a common vision for future cross-border collaboration and mutual capacity-building among National Bioethics Committees.
Engaging in ethical discourse:
thematic discussion on the Report on the Principle of Social Responsibility and Health, elaborated by the International Bioethics Committee (IBC) and finalized during its sixteenth ordinary session, with a special focus on the role of National Bioethics Committees in the promotion of this principle in their respective countries.

The conference is open to public.
For more information about the conference, please consult the following website http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php-URL_ID=12679&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html or contact: E-mail: ag.burbano-fuertes@unesco.org.

7.BRAIN Matters: New Directions in Neuroethics; September 24 - 26, 2009 di Lord Nelson Hotel; Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Charlene Croft [charlenecroft@dal.ca], seorang research assistant di Novel Tech Ethics meminta bantuan KBN untuk ikut menyebar informasi mengenai kegiatan IBEN network. Anda dapat berkunjung ke http://www.noveltechethics.ca/site_brainmatters.php
Acara khusus yang disiapkan ialah BRAIN Matters: New Directions in Neuroethics; September 24 - 26, 2009 di Lord Nelson Hotel; Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada:
“This conference will bring together new and established researchers from around the world with a complementary range of expertise in ethics, neuroscience, philosophy of mind, medicine, history, social studies, law and policy, to critically examine a wide range of issues in neuroethics.The Conference Abstract Committee invites proposals for oral presentations, panel presentations, and posters that reflect the diversity of philosophies, disciplines, and methodologies relating to new directions in the field of neuroethics.
Selected conference papers will be published in The American Journal of Bioethics, Neuroethics and the Journal of Ethics and Mental Health.”◊

Read more...

Peneliti Indonesia pasca-ABC9 maju terus di forum internasional

1. Dr Dedi Afandi bersama Metalita Roza Faulina (FK Un Riau) melanjutkan (dari ABC9) telaah bioetika ke forum ABC10 di Tehran, Iran, 24-27 April 2009. Kontribusinya ialah: “Association between Cognitive of Principles Based of Bioethics With Ability of Moral Judgments Among Medical Student at Faculty of Medicine University of Riau” “Principle based of bioethics is one of medical ethics teaching’s material with cognitive approach in medical faculty. It is a relevant method to develop student’s reasoning analysis of medical ethics. The purpose of this study was designed to investigate the association between Cognitive of Principles Based of Bioethics With Ability of Moral Judgments among Medical Student at Faculty of Medicine University of Riau. This cross sectional study was conducted into two groups of medical student at Faculty of Medicine University of Riau that had or hadn’t got yet the knowledge of principle based ethics, total respondents were 40 for each group, respectively. Score of cognitive of principles based of bioethics as a parameter was measure using Kaidah Dasar Bioetika (KDB) test and ability level was measure using Moral Judgment Test MJT. This study showed that cognitive of principles based of bioethics were significantly associated with ability level of Moral Judgments (p=0.001). There were significant association of had got principles based of bioethics material in formal education to cognitive of principles based of bioethics and ability level of Moral Judgments (p <0.001 and p <0.001, respectively). There wasn’t correlation between academic achievement level with knowledge level of principles based bioethics (p=1,170) and ability level of moral judgments (p=0,611). This study suggests principles based bioethics must be place in across the medical curriculum”.

2. Prof. Dr. Agus Purwadianto: “Ethico-legal policy of Avian Influenza’s Problems in Indonesia”

3. Dr Munawar Ahmad, juga berniat akan maju ke ABC10, setelah di ABC9 mengemukakan telaah “Maqashid syaria as basic reason to applying syaria on bioengineering” Sebagai kelanjutannya ybs akan menyampaikan analisis mengenai ““The Spiral of Ethics: when a doctor is a mujtahid”

4. Prof. Dr. Umar A. Jenie juga hadir di ABC10 membawakan makalah dengan tema etika lingkungan hidup: “Environmental Bioethics: Lessons from Pharaonic and Sabaic Societies as stated in the Holy Qur’an”

5. Dr. Ade Firmansyah Sugiharto:”Visitation to School for Disabled/Handicapped Persons as a Bioethics Teaching Method”

6. Nurul Kamilati, M.Pd., M.Ed. dari Balai Diklat Keagamaan Semarang mengikuti the 3rd Global Warming and Climate Change Conference & Industry Exposition (GWCCN 09), 8-12 Mei 2009 di The Hyde Park Hotel, London. Entitled "Bringing Sustainable Development Down to Earth", the GWCCN 09, the conference will highlight the role of individuals, groups and grassroots efforts in ''green-building" initiatives.

Read more...

Pewarta KBN Vol. 4 No. 2, Maret-April 2009

Dari meja Penyunting

Kita berhadapan dengan lingkungan hidup yang semakin memburuk. Di jajaran UNESCO Bangkok secara bertahap para ahli dan pendidik sampai juga pada upaya menjawab tuntutan dan memeriksa ‘duduk perkara’nya. Kelompok Kerja yang mengurusi soal ini menggarap berbagai pemikiran dengan mengajukan beberapa pertanyaan terlebih dahulu: How do our worldviews allocate value and meaning to people, plants, animals and the biosphere? How to balance economic growth, quality of life, and other future aspirations in a holistic vision?

Catatan kita sekarang ini ialah mengapa pertanyaan-pertanyaan seperti ini tidak lebih sering diajukan dan dicarikan jawabnya, di mana saja, oleh siapa saja.

Prof Endang Sukara, di Yogayakarta, November 2009, tampil di Asian Bioethics Conference yang ke-9 dengan mengatakan bahwa:

“Before 1980s, Indonesia had at least 121 million ha of natural forest. Today however, the total natural forest is only 19 million ha. The rate of forest destruction is reaching more than 2 million ha per year. This is a significant contribution to the environmental changes brought about by human activities. Commercial (industrial-type) agriculture and forestry have been based on developing simple, even monoculture, systems to replace the complex species richness of the natural vegetation. Species, ecosystems, and valuable genes have been lost in this process.”

Ia melanjutkan:

”We do not know how many species will be needed to keep the planet green and healthy. It is imperative for us to search and instrumentally apply mechanisms to guide mankind in developing decision-making process. Religious discourse, politicians, and interdisciplinary academic study – a new model of authentic dialogue is needed where exchanges are circular and reciprocal, not vertical and reductionist to ensure a better life now and the future.”

Tentu saja pernyataan ini bukan untuk pertama kali diajukannya; bahkan mungkin sudah sejak sepuluh tahun yang lalu hal ini sudah dikemukan dan dijadikan dasar pola pikir ilmuwan Indonesia dalam menyikapi masalah besar seputar lingkungan hidup.

Sumbangan yang tidak kurang pentingnya ialah bagi kita untuk membahasnya secara terus-menerus, menyebarkan pandangan-pandangan baru yang lebih mengena dan lebih menjajikan untuk bergulir terus. Jangan sampai akhirnya kita tergilas karena bertemu dengan titik-tak-dapat-kembali. Lambat laun, persoalan lingkungan hidup menjadi faktor paling menentukan dalam hidup bermasyarakat dan bernegara. Kendali ada pada siapakah? •ahn.april2008

Read more...

WIPO INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE ON INTELLECTAL PROPERTY AND GENETIC RESOURCES, TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE

Dalam tinjauannya mengenai perlindungan tehadap traditional knowledge (TK), WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) mencatat ada dua jenis perlindungan. Untuk dapat mengarungi berbagai konsep dan akirnya menyodorkan gagasan bermakna seputar ‘bioetika dan sumber daya genetika’, diperlukan penguasaan mengenai hal ini terlebih dahulu. Terhadap traditional knowledge (dalam arti luas, tanpa definisi yang spesifik) ada dua jenis perlindungan, yaitu:

(1)positive patent protection of TK
Bila dipenuhi syarat kebaruan dalam definisi umum invention dalam dunia traditional knowledge, maka perlindungan paten dapat diberikan pada inovasi yang khusus dikembangkan seperti yang berlaku dalam temuan ‘biasa’.
Ada kelenturan yang diberlakukan dalam melihat obyek yang didefinisikan sebagai invention dan bukan discovery. Juga ditimbang-timbang apakah temuan itu menuntut pencegahan eksploatasi komersial untuk menjaga ketertiban umum (ordre public), melindungi kehidupan atau kesehatan manusia, hewan atau tumbuhan, atau mencederai secara nyata dunia lingkungan hidup, dan sebagainya.

(2) defensive protection of TK
Defensive protection didasarkan pada tindakan yang kiranya diperlukan untuk menunda atau membalikkan permohonan paten yang telah dikabulkan. Dalam dunia traditional knowledge dikenal defensive protection berupa, antara lain:
‘minimum documentation to include a range of traditional knowledge publications, ... the effect of ensuring that significant amounts of already published traditional knowledge will systematically be taken into account at an early stage in the life of many patents, and will be included in published international search reports before a patent application even enters the national phase’.

Catatan ini disajikan di sini untuk meningkatkan kedadaran bahwa sangatlah banyak masalah konsep dan hal teknis yang perlu ditekuni, sebelum akhirnya kita bisa melihat cakupan ‘bioetika dan sumber daya genetika’ di Indonesia.[setkbn0209]

Read more...

The Expert Report "Patent issues related to influenza viruses and their genes"

“Are patents granted on genetic material?

Genetic materials per se are not the direct subject of patent protection. The Convention on Biological Diversity defines ‘genetic resources’ as ‘genetic material of actual or potential value’ , and in turn defines ‘genetic material,’ as ‘any material of plant, animal, microbial or other origin containing functional units of heredity.’ Genetic resources are therefore essentially material, and are not intangible subject matter – the subject matter of patent protection is an ‘invention’ rather than a physical thing. One cannot obtain or assert patent rights over genetic material as such. As an analogy, an author may hold copyright over the contents of book, but that does not give the author ownership over the book as such, which may be separately owned, bought and sold by others as a piece of physical property.

Accordingly, patents are granted over inventions as such, and they are not property rights over physical material that may embody an invention. Nonetheless, many patented inventions do include genetic material within their scope. An isolated gene may provide the mechanism for producing synthetic versions of therapeutic proteins.”[setkbn0209] [yang disusun oleh Life Sciences Program, WIPO, 2007, atas permintaan the World Health Organization kepada the World Intellectual Property Organization, sesuai dengan WHA Resolution 60.28.]

Read more...

GENETIC INVENTIONS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LICENSING PRACTICES: EVIDENCE AND POLICIES

Since 2002, OECD has been discussed on it:

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) yang berdiri sejak 30 September 1961 beranggotakan 30 negara industri di Eropa dan Amerika, termasuk Australia, New Zealand, Turki, Jepang, dan Korea. OECD melakukan kajian yang secara singkat dapat dikenali melalui kutipan, dari laporan setebal lebih dari 100 halaman, sebagai berikut: The most influential critics of the present system are not against intellectual property rights, technological change and scientific advances in principle, but they feel a certain reticence (=kegamangan) about genetic inventions.

For some, the issue is mostly ethical, a dislike of associating property rights with biological materials, especially if they are human. To others, genes are part of the “common heritage of humanity” and should only be public property. There are arguments that DNA does not meet the legal criteria for patentability.

If genes are “nature identical materials” and the identification of their utility lies more in the area of a discovery than an invention, for example, they should not be patentable. Others argue that DNA sequences are not simply chemical compounds but also strings of information and that the genome should be viewed as a huge database whose information should be available to all.

Still others feel that the peculiar character of the genome warrants special consideration. The finite nature of the genome – the relatively small number of human genes and the limited genetic variation between species – might call into question the assignation of property rights. It is feared that within a rather short period all of the 30 000–40 000 human genes could be patented and that their owners would be the beneficiaries of huge “reachthrough rights” on the many uses of these genes yet to be discovered.

Finally, gene patents are said to be special because the book of life is very hard to “invent around” making these patents stronger than in other fields.

Focusing on the practical implications of DNA patents, academic researchers, clinicians, patient groups and even pharmaceutical companies have warned about the possible side effects of a proliferation of gene patents. Their concerns have to do with the cost, pace and efficiency of research, as well as the downstream development and uptake of new genetic technologies by commercial users and health care providers.

Perhaps the best way to summarise these practical concerns is to call them “access issues”. Such groups worry that the removal of research resources (i.e. nucleotide sequences) from the public domain will impede the follow-on research efforts necessary to make genetic information useful. In the words of a recent USPTO paper:

“Many feel that by allowing genetic information to be patented, researchers will no longer have free access to the information and materials necessary to perform biological research. This issue of access to research tools relates to the ability of a patent holder to exclude others from using the material. Further, if a single patent holder has a proprietary position on a large number of nucleic acids, they may be in a
position to ‘hold hostage’ future research and development efforts.”

[Clarke, J., J. Piccolo, B. Stanton and K. Tyson (2001), “Patent Pools: A Solution to the Problem of Access in Biotechnology Patents?”, Unpublished USPTO paper; www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/patpoolcover.html].[setkbn0209]

Read more...

Bioetika di Indonesia: arahan kebijakan umum

Posisi Indonesia dalam masalah kebioetikaan sudah jelas dari dua kutipan di bawah ini. Sebagai patokan dasar bioetika dan pangan Indonesia, Menteri Kesehatan dalam arahannya dalam Asian Bioethics Conference yang ke-9 bulan November 2008 yang lalu antara lain menyatakan bahwa: “By simple definition, bioethics is the study of ethical problems raised by productions, uses, and biotecnological aspects of micro-organisms, plant and animals in agriculture, pharmaceutical industry or food production. Hence, the essentiallity of bioethics is the ethics of biotechnology or and the ethics of life sciences. Bioethics has two basic principles (1) reflecting the ability of positive aspects of professionalisn, and (2) avoiding negative behaviour.

By virtue of its definition, and in view of the current biological and health challenges, bioethics has apparent broad scope. There should be a new outlook to respond to the paradigm shift for the future good practice of bioethics. Bioethics should not be looked only within the framework of scientific undertakings of scientists. Policy makers are challenged to understand the implications of bioethical conducts on the overall scientidfic and health development. ...”.

Selain itu dalam tinjauan di bidang pertanian, dalam pertemuan yang sama, Menteri Pertanian antara lain menyatakan:

“… science has also provided us with new technologies to unlock the secret of the genomes of every organism important in agriculture, which open the possibility for the development of new plant varieties with improved yield and qualities. ...

But science alone cannot answer all of our problem. Science may inform us that clearing several hundred hectares of rainforest for rice plantation will give us several tonnes of rice grain at the cost of increasing global temperature and rising sea level by several magnitudes. But science does not tell us whether we should cut the trees or keep the forest. The decision to clearance of land for rice or keeping forest for environmental reason is an ethical decision.

That is one of the reason we cannot separate ethics from science. Without ethical considerations, application of science have the potential to cause harm to human, welfare and dignity. On the other hand, discussing ethics without considering available scientific fact is rarely productive. Ethics and science must go hand in hand, and this is especially important for a democratically elected government who is constantly required to make decisions and policies in the interest of the general public. ...”. [dari Kerangka Acuan ‘Bioetika dan Etika Keilmuan’, LIPI 2009].

Read more...

Pertanggungjawaban Ketua Komisi Bioetika Nasional (KBN) dalam Sidang Pleno KBN

Pembentukan KBN
KBN dibentuk pada tanggal 17 September 2004 berdasarkan Surat Keputusan Bersama 3 Menteri, yaitu Menteri Negara Riset dan Teknologi, Menteri Kesehatan, dan Menteri Pertanian. KBN merupakan lembaga yang menangani masalah-masalah bioetika pada tingkat nasional. Kepedulian terhadap permasalahan bioetika ini sudah sejak lama ada, misalnya bayi tabung, transplantasi organ, kloning, dan stem cell atau sel punca. Struktur KBN terdiri dari seorang Ketua, 3 orang Wakil Ketua, seorang Sekretaris, dan anggota aktif sebanyak 33 orang yang masing-masing bertindak untuk dan atas nama diri sendiri. Dalam Sidang Pleno I (13 Desember 2004), ditetapkan kepengurusan KBN dan Sekretariat KBN yang dikepalai oleh Dr. Amru Hydari Nazif selaku Sekretaris KBN. Sekretariat merupakan satuan kerja LIPI yang diperbantukan ke KBN, dan bertugas untuk mempersiapkan pertemuan dan rapat, menerapkan kesepakatan rapat pleno dan pokja dalam tindakan nyata. Sekretariat KBN menerbitkan Pewarta KBN setiap 2 bulan sekali sebagai bentuk komunikasi antara KBN dengan masyarakat luas.

Dalam Rapat Pleno II (30 Mei 2005) disepakati bahwa mekanisme kerja KBN diselenggarakan melalui Kelompok Kerja. Ada 4 pokja, yaitu:
1.Pokja Stem cells yang diketuai oleh Prof. M. K. Tadjudin
2.Pokja Sumber Daya Genetika yang diketuai oleh Dr. Sutrisno
3.Pokja Pendidikan Bioetika yang diketuai oleh Prof. Sunarto Sastrowiyoto
4.Pokja Kelembagaan yang diketuai oleh Dr. Amru Hydari Nazif

Bioetika di UNESCO
Di dalam UNESCO terdapat 3 badan, yaitu :
(1)IBC (International Bioethics Committee) yang dibentuk oleh Director-General UNESCO. Di sini pembahasan isu kebioetikaan secara netral, keputusan untuk penerapan diserahkan kembali kepada Negara yang bersangkutan.
(2)IGBC (Inter Governmental Bioethics Committee), sebagai saluran sumbangan pemikiran IBC ke Negara anggota UNESCO.
(3)COMEST (The World Commission on Bioethics of Science and Technology), yang merupakan suatu forum intelektual. Badan yang ketiga ini bersifat lebih umum karena tidak hanya mengurusi masalah bioteknologi saja, melainkan dalam bidang ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi secara keseluruhan.

Dalam UNESCO General Conference (dua tahunan) ke-34 tahun 2007, Indonesia ditetapkan menjadi anggota IGBC periode 2007-2011. KBN berperan aktif dalam sidang-sidang khusus IGBC tentang draft deklarasi norma-norma universal bioetika yang disahkan pada General Conference ke-33 pada Oktober 2005. Dalam pertemuan ini Ketua KBN terpilih sebagai Vice Chairman untuk regional Asia-Pasifik.

Selain itu ada Asian Bioethics Association (ABA): Indonesia menjadi host Asian Bioethics Conference (ABC) ke-9 di Yogyakarta pada 3-7 November 2008. Acara ini dibuka oleh Menristek. Menteri Kesehatan dan Menteri Pertanian juga memberi pidato arahan. Konferensi diikuti oleh 200 orang peserta, 80 orang berasal dari luar negeri. Acara ini membahas bioetika dan penelitian biomedika, perdagangan dan transplantasi organ manusia, pendidikan bioetika, kesejahteraan, bioetika lingkungan hidup, dan juga bioetika Islam.

Kegiatan dan capaian KBN
Cakupan kegiatan
(1)Di dalam negeri, KBN menjalin hubungan kerjasama dengan Pemerintah, terutama melalui Departemen Kesehatan, Departemen Pertanian, dan Komite Nasional Etika Penelitian Kesehatan. Hubungan yang telah terjalin baik diperkuat dengan kegatan bersama.
(2)Dalam tataran internasional, KBN menjalin hubungan yang baik dengan UNESCO, ABA, dan EGE (European Group on Ethics of Science and New Technologies).

Capaian
Di tingkat nasional:
(1)Sikap KBN tentang sel punca (stem cells), sumber daya genetika Indonesia, dan pendidikan bioetika dalam bentuk sebuah buku kecil.
(2)Terjemahan 3 deklarasi internasional UNESCO tentang masalah bioetika yang ditetapkan pada tahun 1997, 2003, dan 2005 ke dalam bahasa Indonesia dan didistribusikan ke berbagai perguruan tinggi dan masyarakat luas agar lebih mudah dipahami dan diaplikasikan.
(3)Kata “stem cells” telah mendapatkan padanan katanya dalam bahasa Indonesia, yaitu “sel punca”. Hal ini atas pertimbangan Pusat Bahasa, dan kini telah dipakai secara melua, antara lain diterima oleh “Indonesian Stem Cell Association” atau “Asosiasi Sel Punca Indonesia”.
(4)Sosialisasi KBN dengan mengadakan kunjungan ke berbagai perguruan tinggi seperti Universitas Udayana dan Pelita Harapan serta berbagai SMA. Sekretariat KBN juga menerbitkan berkala dua-bulanan Pewarta KBN yang didistribusikan ke berbagai pihak terkait di seluruh Indonesia.

Di tingkat internasional:
(1)LIPI dan kemudian KBN ikut membidani lahirnya 2 deklarasi internasional UNESCO pada tahun 2003 dan 2005. Bahkan, Indonesia turut menyumbang menguatkan masuknya beberpa pasal mengenai lingkungan hidup pada deklarasi tahun 2005.
(2)Prof. Sunarto Sastrowiyoto dari UGM diangkat menjadi anggota International Bioethics Committee (IBC) untuk periode 2008-2011.
(3)Indonesia menjadi anggota IGBC periode 2007-2011. Untuk ini KBN akan memberi dukungan kesekretariatan yang akan menyalurkan berbagai masukan ke Delegasi RI untuk forum ini.
(4)Anggota KBN menjadi pembicara di berbagai pertemuan bioetik internasional seperti di Beijing, Singapura dan Bangkok, Thailand.[setkbn0209]

Read more...

Pewarta KBN Vol. 4 No. 1, Januari-Februari 2009

Dari meja Penyunting

Bioetika dan bioteknologi memiliki hubungan erat yang tidak dapat dipisahkan satu sama lain. Dalam beberapa tahun terakhir ini, bioetika mengalami perkembangan yang cukup berarti. Hal ini terbukti dengan semakin seringnya isu mengenai bioetika mengemuka di berbagai forum diskusi dan seminar internasional. Dalam berbagai penelitian yang berhubungan dengan bioteknologi, dihasilkan beberapa jenis produk. Oleh penemunya produk tersebut dicarikan perlindungan patennya agar tidak “dicuri” oleh pihak lain; artinya si penemu mempunyai hak eksklusif untuk pemanfaatan ekonomi temuannya, melalui proses pelisensian misalnya. Ini yang kita katakan sebagai perlidungan dalam bentuk hak kekayaan intelektual. Di Amerika Serikat ada slogan: “Everything under the sun that is made by man is patentable”.

Paten merupakan pemberian hak dari Pemerintah kepada penemu untuk membuat, menggunakan, dan menjual temuannya selama waktu tertentu (berlaku selama 20 tahun) dengan imbalan berupa royalti. Tujuan paten adalah untuk mencegah agar temuan tersebut tidak diaku oleh orang lain sebagai temuannya (semacam personal property), mencegah terjadinya pembajakan, dan mendorong kreativitas serta perkembangan produk penelitian. Tiga syarat paten ialah (1) kebaruan (novelty); (2) ketidakgamblangan (non-obviousness); dan (3) keterterapan industri (industrial applicability).

Ada sedikit kesulitan. Dalam bahasa Indonesia, terhadap dua kata dan pengertian discovery dan invention (bahasa Inggris) tidak dikenal adanya pembedaan istilah di antara keduanya yang lazim diketahui masyarakat luas secara tegas dan khas. Ini menjadikan kita semua kehilangan kepekaan kita terhadap kedua pengertian penting ini. Tidak mustahil kata ‘temuan’ mewakili keduanya, sehingga kita luput menghayati invention sebagai yang dapat dipatenkan, sedangkan discovery tidak dapat dimintakan perlindungan paten. Mudah-mudah sulit persoalannya. Bahasa Indonesia perundangan kita menggunakan ‘invensi’ sebagai padanan invention (bahasa Inggris). Discovery adalah penyingkapan sesuatu yang sebelumnya sudah ada, tetapi tidak ‘tampak’, sedangkan invention ialah hasil proses memperoleh sesuatu yang sebelumnya belum ada (membuat dari yang semula tidak ada menjadi ada).

Invention dalam bahasa ‘paten’ ialah solusi baru dari suatu masalah teknis, seperti produk yang bersifat mahal menjadi lebih murah, pendek umur menjadi lebih awet, atau berbahaya menjadi jinak atau proses yang terkait dengan produk seperti ini.

Prof. M. K. Tadjudin, Fakultas Kedokteran UIN Syarif Hidayatullah, Jakarta, juga anggota Komisi Bioetika Nasional, dalam suatu seminar internasional bioetika tentang gen manusia di Fukui, Jepang (2001) mengatakan bahwa paten tidak melulu berkaitan dengan faktor profit saja. Kita pun harus mempertimbangkan segi etikanya: bagaimana dengan orang yang menjadi sumber gen yang dipatenkan itu. Ia tidak ditanyai dan mungkin ia tidak akan memperoleh manfaat ekonomi dari hasil temuan yang mungkin dilisensikan dengan royalti yang tidak sedikit. Ia tidak mendapatkan keuntungan apapun dari paten tersebut. Apakah ini artinya sang obyek penelitian menjadi “korban” suatu penelitian ilmiah yang telah dieksploatasi oleh si peneliti bagaikan pepatah “habis manis sepah dibuang”? Prof. Tadjudin berpendapat bahwa gen merupakan suatu anugerah yang berasal dari Tuhan (menjadikannya discovery?) sehingga tidak layak untuk dipatenkan. Paten diberikan kepada suatu produk ataupun proses yang dihasilkan dan dilakukan oleh manusia.•Widya Wulandari, Januari 2009, penyunting tamu.

Read more...