Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Benefit sharing: it’s time for a definition
Free
  1. D Schroeder
  1. Correspondence to:
 D Schroeder
 Centre for Professional Ethics, University of Central Lancashire, Harrington Building, Preston PR1 2HE, UK; dschroeder{at}uclan.ac.uk

Abstract

Benefit sharing has been a recurrent theme in international debates for the past two decades. However, despite its prominence in law, medical ethics and political philosophy, the concept has never been satisfactorily defined. In this conceptual paper, a definition that combines current legal guidelines with input from ethics debates is developed. Philosophers like boxes; protective casings into which they can put concisely-defined concepts. Autonomy is the human capacity for self-determination; beneficence denotes the virtue of good deeds, coercion is the intentional threat of harm and so on. What about benefit sharing? Does the concept have a box and are the contents clearly defined? The answer to this question has to be no. The concept of benefit sharing is almost unique in that various disciplines use it regularly without precise definitions. In this article, a definition for benefit sharing is provided, to eliminate unnecessary ambiguity.

  • CBD, Convention on Biological Diversity
  • OAU, Organisation of African Unity
  • OED, Oxford English dictionary
  • Unesco, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation
  • WTO, World Trade Organisation

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • i Ruth Macklin and Udo Schuklenk pointed this out to me.

  • Competing interests: None.