Opponent: Harvard Westlake AD | Judge: Jared Burke
1AC - Cap Aff NC - Work K WSDE CP case answers 1AR - all positions NR - Work K case answers 2AR - all
2021 USC Invitational
3
Opponent: Harvard Westlake AW | Judge: David Dosch
1AC - Cap aff NC - Econ DA WSDE CP Violence PIC case answers 1AR - all positions NR - Econ DA WSDE CP case answers 2AR - all positions
Damus Hollywood Invitational
2
Opponent: Immaculate Heart RR | Judge: Sam Larson
AC - Democracy Workforce Util NC - Postwork K Violence PIC case 1AR - perm on the K condo case NR - kicked PIC went for K case 2AR - K case
Damus Hollywood Invitational
3
Opponent: Brentwood MH | Judge: Christian Schock
1AC - Autonomy worker's choice employer's choice NC - Police Union's PIC UBI CP Econ DA case 1AR - case NR - UBI CP Econ DA case 2AR - case
Damus Hollywood Invitational
5
Opponent: Harvard Westlake NL | Judge: Lindsey Williams
1AC - Econ Inequality NC - Postwork K UBI CP Econ DA 1AR - perm on K perm on CP case NR - kicked CP and DA went for K case 2AR - K case
Golden Desert
4
Opponent: Mission San Jose MA | Judge: Nakhil Navare
1AC - megaconstellations NC - T-appropriation T-outer space SSP PIC 1AR - T-appropriation PICs bad case NR - T-outer space case PICs good 2AR - T-appropriation PICs bad case
Harvard Westlake Debates
2
Opponent: Perry JA | Judge: Indu Pandey
1AC - Astro Modernity Aff NC - T v K aff Therapeutic Capture K case 1AR - everything NR - T case 2AR - everything
AC - Cap Aff NC - Debris DA Legal Trust CP case answers 1AR - everything NR - Debris DA case 2AR - everything
Harvard Westlake Debates
5
Opponent: Tays KM | Judge: Tej Gedela
1AC - Space Debris advantage Ozone advantage NC - T Appropriation Starlink Democracy DA Legal Trust CP case answers 1AR - everything NR - Starlink DA case answers 2AR - everything
Heart of Texas Invitational
2
Opponent: Little Rock Central XJ | Judge: Clement Agho-Otoghile
AC - non-topical aff about anti-blackness NC - T v K's 1AR - T case NR - T case answers 2AR - T case
Heart of Texas Invitational
4
Opponent: Westlake AH | Judge: Devin Hernandez
1AC - inherency India advantage South Africa advantage NC - compulsory licensing CP innovation DA with bioterror impact 1AR - case innovation DA NR - kicked innovation went for CP and case answers 2AR - case
Heart of Texas Invitational
5
Opponent: Peninsula EL | Judge: Faizaan Dossani
1AC - Vaccine imperialism NC - Innovation DA (future pandemics) Vaccine equity CP case 1AR - perm DA case NR - everything 2AR - everything
Peninsula Invitational
1
Opponent: Orange Lutheran AZ | Judge: Madeleine Conrad-Mogin
1AC - Space Debris adv and Corporate Colonialism adv NC - Asteroid mining DA Legal Trust CP 1AR - everything condo NR - Asteroid mining DA condo good case 2AR - everything
Peninsula Invitational
5
Opponent: Catonsville AT | Judge: Saketh Kotapati
1AC - Starlink AC NC - T Outer Space T Appropriation Russia Starlink DA case answers 1AR - everything NR - T outer space case answers 2AR - everything
The Meadows Invitational
2
Opponent: Presentation AB | Judge: Symphony Wang
AC - Vaccines Pandemics Plan Structural Violence Framework NC - Innovation DA w Bioterror Impact HIF CP 1AR - Perm everything NR - Kicked CP went for DA case 2AR - framework case
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
JF- Asteroid Mining
Tournament: Peninsula Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: Orange Lutheran AZ | Judge: Madeleine Conrad-Mogin The private sector is essential for asteroid mining – competition is key and government development is not effective, efficient, or cheap enough. Thiessen 21: Marc Thiessen, 6-1, 21, Washington Post, Opinion: SpaceX’s success is one small step for man, one giant leap for capitalism, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/01/spacexs-success-is-one-small-step-man-one-giant-leap-capitalism/ It was one...here on Earth?
Space regulation scares investors away and spills over to other space activities. Freeland 05 Steven Freeland (BCom, LLB, LLM, University of New South Wales; Senior Lecturer in International Law, University of Western Sydney, Australia; and a member of the Paris-based International Institute of Space Law). “Up, Up and … Back: The Emergence of Space Tourism and Its Impact on the International Law of Outer Space.” Chicago Journal of International Law: Vol. 6: No. 1, Article 4. 2005. JDN. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1269andcontext=cjil V. THE NEED FOR...onboard the ISS.46
Asteroid mining can happen with private sector innovation and is key to solve a laundry list of impacts--climate change, economic decline and asteroid collisions. Taylor 19 Chris Taylor journalist, 19 - ("How asteroid mining will save the Earth — and mint trillionaires," Mashable, 2019, accessed 12-13-2021, https://mashable.com/feature/asteroid-mining-space-economy)//ML How much, exactly...probably kill you.) Warming causes extinction. Bill McKibben 19, Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College; fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences; holds honorary degrees from 18 colleges and universities; Foreign Policy named him to their inaugural list of the world’s 100 most important global thinkers. "This Is How Human Extinction Could Play Out." Rolling Stone. 4-9-2019. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/bill-mckibben-falter-climate-change-817310/ Oh, it could...the warmest periods.” An asteroid collision would ensure extinction – would fundamentally alter the biosphere, don’t underestimate its risk. Hudson 19 Wesley Hudson ’19, news reporter for Express, “Asteroid alert: NASA warning as kilometre long space rock set to skim Earth at 25,000mph”, 8/28/19, Express, https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1170826/asteroid-news-NASA-latest-space-rock-asteroid-1998-HL1-earth-danger-apocalypse AN ASTEROID almost...have no defence.”
Don’t write our impacts off as low probability – asteroid collision is complex and the existence of space keyholes exponentially increases the risk of collision. Vereš ’19 Peter Vereš ’19, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “Chapter 6 Vision of Perfect Observation Capabilities”, 2019, Planetary Defense, Space and Society, https://dl1.cuni.cz/pluginfile.php/634091/mod_resource/content/1/Planetary20Defence.pdf Often, uncertain orbits...and agencies (ESA, MPC).
1/22/22
JF- Debris DA
Tournament: Harvard Westlake Debates | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake NL | Judge: Rodrigo Paramo It’s now or never to clean up debris, but only private companies are capable of making a dent. Nitin Sreedhar, 21 - ("The race to clean up outer space," Mintlounge, 16-01-2021, 10-10-2021https:lifestyle.livemint.com/news/big-story/the-race-to-clean-up-outer-space-111610719274127.html)AW Space debris poses...a sustained one. Under I-Law, it is appropriation for private entities to remove space junk, means the aff severely limits private junk capture ability. Ramin Skibba, 21 - ("The US Space Force Wants to Clean Up Junk in Orbit," Wired11-17-2021, 1-2-2022https:www.wired.com/story/the-us-space-force-wants-to-clean-up-junk-in-orbit/)AW The answer lies...on its own. Space debris will inevitably set off a chain of collisions. Chelsea MuñOz-Patchen, 19 - ("Regulating the Space Commons: Treating Space Debris as Abandoned Property in Violation of the Outer Space Treaty," University of Chicago, 2019, 12-6-2021, https://cjil.uchicago.edu/publication/regulating-space-commons-treating-space-debris-abandoned-property-violation-outer-space)//AW Debris poses a...develop a solution.52 Laundry list of impacts. George Dvorsky, 15 - ("What Would Happen If All Our Satellites Were Suddenly Destroyed?," 6-4-2015, 12-10-2021https:gizmodo.com/what-would-happen-if-all-our-satellites-were-suddenly-d-1709006681)AW Lastly, there’s the...use these spaces.
We stopped appeasing Russia – they’ll pocket concessions from coop and increase aggression – tensions aren’t the result of understandings but hardened differences Haddad and Polakova 18 Benjamin Haddad Director, Future Europe Initiative - Atlantic Council. Alina Polyakova Director, Project on Global Democracy and Emerging Technology Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe. Don’t rehabilitate Obama on Russia. March 5, 2018. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/03/05/dont-rehabilitate-obama-on-russia/ Obama’s much-ballyhooed “Reset”...has abjectly failed. Appeasing Russia shreds the NPT and causes nuke prolif – extinction Umland 17 Andreas Umland is a German political scientist, historian and Russian interpreter, specializing in contemporary Russian and Ukrainian history. He is a Member of the Institute for Central and East European Studies at the Catholic University, and a senior research fellow at the Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation in Kyiv. The Price of Appeasing Russian Adventurism. January 16, 2017. https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/67692 A major foreign...regard to Ukraine.
1/23/22
JF- Starlink Democracy DA
Tournament: Harvard Westlake Debates | Round: 5 | Opponent: Tays KM | Judge: Tej Gedela NC Shell – Starlink Democracy DA Starlink is key to global internet access. John Koetsier {journalist, analyst, author, and speaker}, 20 - ("Elon Musk’s 42,000 StarLink Satellites Could Just Save The World," Forbes, 1-9-2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/01/09/elon-musks-42000-starlink-satellites-could-just-save-the-world/?sh=85866264c2cd)//marlborough-wr/ Elon Musk’s other...rest of 2020. Free internet is crucial to the promotion of democracy. Pirannejad 17: Ali Pirannejad {Department of Public Administration, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran; Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands, }, 17 - ("Can the internet promote democracy? A cross-country study based on dynamic panel data models," Taylor andamp; Francis, 4-1-2017, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02681102.2017.1289889?journalCode=titd20)//marlborough-wr/ In the age...research are presented. Democracy Promotion is key to prevent great power war – we’re on the brink. Gat 11 (Azar- the Ezer Weizman Professor of National Security at Tel Aviv University, 2011, “The Changing Character of War,” in The Changing Character of War, ed. Hew Strachan and Sibylle Scheipers, p. 30-32) Since 1945, the...short while ago.
1/16/22
JF- T Appropriation
Tournament: Harvard Westlake Debates | Round: 5 | Opponent: Tays KM | Judge: Tej Gedela NC Shell – Space Debris – T Appropriation Interpretation: Appropriation is permanently taking property for exclusive use. Gorove 69: Stephen Gorove, Interpreting Article II of the Outer Space Treaty, 37 Fordham L. Rev. 349 (1969). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol37/iss3/2 With respect to...amount to appropriation. Violation: space debris is not appropriation. Williams 95: Christopher D. Williams, Space: The Cluttered Frontier, 60 J. Air L. and Com. 1139 (1995) https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=andhttpsredir=1andarticle=1384andcontext=jalc Article II of...of the treaty.
Vote neg – two impacts:
Limits. Expanding the topic to anything that involves merely launching something into the atmosphere expands the topic into numerous new tech areas which undermines core neg prep. 2. Topic literature. Our definition has intent to define and exclude in the context of the OST, which is the core of all topic research and the only predictable source.
Drop the debater to preserve fairness and education – use competing interps – reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation. No RVIs – they don’t get to win for following the rules.
1/16/22
JF- T Outer Space
Tournament: Peninsula Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Catonsville AT | Judge: Saketh Kotapati Interpretation: LEO ends before outer space begins according to science and the Karman line is not an objective way to measure the beginning of outer space. Sabine Stanley, 20 - ("Low Earth Orbit: Troposphere and Stratosphere," Great Courses Daily, 7-9-2020, 1-16-2022https:www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/low-earth-orbit-troposphere-and-stratosphere/)AW Even though low...dominate the environment. Violation: (only for debris) space debris only happens in the LEO. Kelly Whitt, 21 - ("Kessler syndrome in real life? ISS astronauts shelter from debris," EarthSky, 11-15-2021, 1-16-2022https:earthsky.org/human-world/kessler-syndrome-colliding-satellites/)AW Kessler syndrome: A...of further collisions. Vote neg – two impacts:
They massively expand topic limits by allowing an aff that takes place anywhere in Earth’s atmosphere. That means that affs about weather balloons, missiles, school rocket projects, or airspace owned by governments could all be potential affs. Don’t let them say that they only expand it by a few thousand kilometers- our atmosphere is where most testing and air activities happen. There are more launches within our atmosphere than outside of it, so they more than double the topic prep burden. 2. Topic literature- our evidence is from a scientific source meant to clarify specifically whether or not the LEO is space from a scientific basis. Prefer it to semantic. It’s better for education because it forces the debaters to look at the substance behind the topic . Drop the debater to preserve fairness and education – use competing interps – reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation. No RVIs – they don’t get to win for following the rules.
1/23/22
JF- T v K affs
Tournament: Harvard Westlake Debates | Round: 2 | Opponent: Perry JA | Judge: Indu Pandey Interpretation: the affirmative must defend the hypothetical implementation of the resolution or a subset thereof – Appropriation includes making space unusable. Stephen Gorove, 69 - ("Interpreting Article II of the Outer Space Treaty" 1969, 12-10-2021 https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1966andcontext=flr)//AW With respect to...amount to appropriation Outer space begins at one hundred kilometers above sea level. Pershing 19 Abigail Pershing (J.D. Candidate @ Yale, B.A. UChicago). “Interpreting the Outer Space Treaty’s Non-Appropriation Principle: Customary International Law from 1967 to Today.” Yale Journal of International Law 44, no. 1. 2019. JDN. https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1697andcontext=yjil A. An Introduction to...most widely recognized.12
Unjust is the opposite of right or in violation of somebody else’s rights. Black Laws No Date "What is Unjust?" https://thelawdictionary.org/unjust/Elmer Contrary to right...by the laws.
Vote negative – there is a distinction between debate as an institution and debate as a game, and while the affs intervention may or may not be effective on an institutional level, the ballot only signifies a win or loss within debate as a game We are both in this round primarily to get a win - its why we all adhere to other rules of the game like speech times and prep time, even if breaking those norms might make the debate “better” – its why you would vote neg if they read a 10 hour long AC about why speech time constraints are bad Not reading a topical aff creates incredible structural advantages for the aff – they get first and last speech and perms which means without a stable advocacy they get to morph their aff into whatever minimizes direct clash, and allows for a retreat to moral high ground You don’t have to disagree with the aff to vote neg. But, the ballot is fundamentally tied to the structure of the game of debate, not the institution, which means that your ballot can only ascribe who did a better job playing the game that we agreed upon before the start of the tournament.
There’s two Impacts –
Clash – Non-T affs avoid meaningful objections by preventing effective prep. That link turns all their research and subjectivity arguments. We can’t deploy new research strategies or cultivate new dispositions to power structures if we can’t effectively evaluate the arguments. Clash is a pre-requisite to debate, because we use competitive argumentation to understand and internalize attitudes and knowledge. That’s what distinguishes debate from other forms of learning. 2. Iterative argumentative testing – for example, think about how the India aff transformed over the course of the Compulsory Voting topic. The first tournament was generic democracy and turnout arguments, but by the end of October debates centered around third level analysis of vote-banking and whether Modi’s nationalism was self-driven or a response to his voter base – the ability to subject controversial ideas to rigorous testing allows debaters to better engage in the research process, discern what arguments are most accurate, and learn how to refine our own beliefs to become more compelling advocates – not reading a plan allows a constant spew of new content that never reaches those high levels of contestation without the constraints of the topic – Even if this topic isn’t the perfect topic, the predictability of debates under it are worth potential substantive tradeoff. Limits produce a rigorous culture of justification instead of a culture of assertion or presumption. Without a bridge for subjecting beliefs to a rigorous test, we are left with might-makes-right. This link turns the Aff again, because our ability to develop critical subjectivities that can strategically challenge power structures necessitates this type of argument culture. Cheryl MISAK Philosophy @ Toronto ‘8 “A Culture of Justification: The Pragmatist's Epistemic Argument for Democracy” Episteme 5 (1) p. 100-104 The charge that...they are enforceable.
Frame procedural impacts through a lens of optimization – we don’t need to win that they make the game impossible, just relatively less effective. In the same way you would vote aff to reject a bad process CP even if there are theoretically solvency deficits based on certainty and immediacy – the fact that we still have some neg ground doesn’t mean that reading the cap k for the 87th time against a survival strategy aff is a good debate to have for anyone involved
They have no offense
View T impacts as a process, not a product – any education impact about their content being important are solved by reading a book – filter impacts through what is unique to the process of debating itself 2. They get to read it on the neg – if their k of being topical is true then reading the aff as a K on the neg means they get auto-wins, we still access their education 3. The TVA solves – they could have read an aff that uses the insights of wake work to critisize the process of allowing private companies to appropriate space even though the only reason that those companies are powerful enough to do so is because they exploited the labor of enslaved black people and that corporate colonization will allow them to continue doing this - this would allow a discussion of the aff in a forum that allows us to have nuanced responses – yes, it isn’t perfect, but those imperfections are neg ground – if they aren’t forced to defend a controversy, then the meaning of any wins they get become hollow anyway which takes out solvency.
1/15/22
JF- Therapeutic Capture K
Tournament: Harvard Westlake Debates | Round: 2 | Opponent: Perry JA | Judge: Indu Pandey Performance of the aff is an invitation for therapeutic capture. Fighting for subjectivity and self-actualization locates politics on the terrain of psychological modalities. This process leads our attention away from the material realities that have created suffering in the first place. Their relationship to the ballot is therapeutic – Individual and social problems are viewed as stemming from improper thoughts and that only by correcting our views of ourselves can produce more fulfilled lives. Stewart 9 Tyrone Anthony Stewart, Ph. D., Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, WHAT IS A BLACK MAN WITHOUT HIS¶ PARANOIA? : CLINICAL DEPRESSION AND THE POLITICS OF AFRICAN AMERICANS’ ANXIETIES TOWARDS EMOTIONAL VULNERABILITY On the first...meaning, for themselves. Alt - Adopt a politics of “I want this for us” instead of “I am”. This uses identity as a resource for material change rather than a place of foreclosure and hopelessness. Brown ’95 Wendy Brown Professor of political science at Berkeley, States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity (Princeton University Press) (1995), pp. 75-76. What if it...an alternative future? Optimism and solidarity are the only hope - their strategy assumes the foundational premises of racism as its starting point for politics and teaches white people to act as though they can’t help to stop this oppression. hooks ’95 - hooks, bell (Distinguished Professor in Residence Berea College). “Killing Rage: Ending Racism”. New York: H. Holt and Co, 1995. http://books.google.com/booksid=3JlNFYKLheUCandq=unitary+representations#v=snippetandq=unitary20representationsandf=false, p.269 More than ever...go from here.
1/15/22
ND- Econ DA
Tournament: Damus Hollywood Invitational | Round: 3 | Opponent: Brentwood MH | Judge: Christian Schock Growth is surging. Halloran ’9-14 Michael; 2021; M.B.A. from Carnegie Mellon University, former aerospace research engineer, Equity Strategist; Janney, “Despite Potential Headwinds, Key Labor Market Indicators Bode Well for the Economy,” https://www.janney.com/latest-articles-commentary/all-insights/insights/2021/09/14/despite-potential-headwinds-key-labor-market-indicators-bode-well-for-the-economy However, we remain...labor market remains COVID creates an economic brink---recovery is strong now because of effective monetary policy, but we’ve hit the zero-lower bound. Christopher Rugaber 21. Associated Press. “Federal Reserve keeps key interest rate near zero, signals COVID-19 economic risks receding.” https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-fed-interest-rates-economy-20210428-bumyc3ynpza6ri4ygsntmdsmya-story.html. WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve...their stimulus-boosted savings. Strikes hurt critical core industries that is necessary for economic growth John McElroy, 2019, Strikes Hurt Everybody.Wards Auto Industry News, October 25, https://www.wardsauto.com/ideaxchange/strikes-hurt-everybody This creates a...torching the countryside. Strikes create a stigmatization effect over labor and consumption that devastates the economy Tenza 20, Mlungisi. "The effects of violent strikes on the economy of a developing country: a case of South Africa." Obiter 41.3 (2020): 519-537. (Senior Lecturer, University of KwaZulu-Natal) When South Africa...by 0.72 and 0.78.32 Economic decline causes nuclear war – collapses faith in deterrence Tønnesson, 15—Research Professor, Peace Research Institute Oslo; Leader of East Asia Peace program, Uppsala University (Stein, “Deterrence, interdependence and Sino–US peace,” International Area Studies Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, p. 297-311, dml) Several recent works...disputes and diplomacy.
11/6/21
ND- Police Unions PIC
Tournament: Damus Hollywood Invitational | Round: 3 | Opponent: Brentwood MH | Judge: Christian Schock CP Text: A just government should recognize the unconditional right of non-police workers to strike, abolishing police unions. The aff makes police collective bargaining worse and gives more power to police unions. Andrew Grim, 20 Ph.D. candidate in history at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, is at work on a dissertation on anti-police brutality activism in post-WWII Newark - ("What is The Blue Flue and How Has It Increased Police Power," Washington Post, 7-1-2020, 11-2-2021https:www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/01/what-is-blue-flu-how-has-it-increased-police-power/)AW This weekend, officers...concessions from municipalities. Police unions use collective bargaining to reinforce systems of racism and violence. Clark ‘19 Paul F. Clark School Director and Professor of Labor and Employment Relations, Penn State, 10-10-2019, "Why police unions are not part of the American labor movement," Conversation, https://theconversation.com/why-police-unions-are-not-part-of-the-american-labor-movement-142538accessed 10/20/2021 marlborough jh In the wake...nation at large. Police backed by unions are more violent than non-unionized police. Ingraham ’20. Christopher Ingraham Reporter 20. ("Police Unions and Police Misconduct: What the Research Says About the Connection," Washington Post, 6-10-2020, 10-27-2021 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/10/police-unions-violence-research-george-floyd/)//AW Some of the...said on Twitter. Turn Unions Police unions are anti-labor- means the aff can never solve without getting rid of them AND turns case. Modak 20. Ria Modak Student Coordinator, Muslim American Studies Working Group, Harvard Student Labor Action Movement and the Harvard Graduate Students Union 20 - ("Police Unions Are Anti-Labor," Ria Modak, Harvard Political Review, 9-9-2020, 10-27-2021 https://harvardpolitics.com/police-unions-are-anti-labor/)//AW My own experiences...protect anti-worker interests.
11/6/21
ND- Postwork K
Tournament: Damus Hollywood Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart RR | Judge: Sam Larson The aff’s refusal to work is not a refusal of work – their endorsement of striking reinforces the belief that withholding labor puts people in a position of power. This reduces humans to labor capital, which causes work-dependency and inhibits alternatives. Hoffmann, 20 (Maja, "Resolving the ‘jobs-environment-dilemma’? The case for critiques of work in sustainability research. Taylor and Francis, 4-1-2020, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23251042.2020.1790718)//usc-br/ The societal dependence...with in sustainability research. Work necessitates material throughput and waste that destroys the environment, even when the jobs are ‘green’ Hoffmann, 20 (Maja, "Resolving the ‘jobs-environment-dilemma’? The case for critiques of work in sustainability research. Taylor and Francis, 4-1-2020, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23251042.2020.1790718)//usc-br/ An ecological critique...beyond sustainable limits (Haberl et al. 2009). Unions are intrinsically invested in labor being good – they don’t strike to get rid of work; they strike to get people back to work. Lundström 14: Lundström, Ragnar; Räthzel, Nora; Uzzell, David {Uzell is Professor (Emeritus) of Environmental Psychology at the University of Surrey with a BA Geography from the University of Liverpool, a PhD Psychology from the University of Surrey, and a MSc in Social Psychology from London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London. Lundstrom is Associate professor at Department of Sociology at Umea University. Rathzel is an Affiliated as professor emerita at Department of Sociology at Umea University.}, 14 - ("Disconnected spaces: introducing environmental perspectives into the trade union agenda top-down and bottom-up," Taylor and Francis, 12-11-2014, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23251042.2015.1041212?scroll=topandamp;needAccess=true)//marlborough-wr/ Even though there...hand becomes elusive. The alternative is rejecting the affirmative to embrace postwork – it questions the centrality of work and ontological attachments to productivity to enable emancipatory transformation of society to an ecologically sustainable form. Your ballot symbolizes an answer to the question of whether work can be used as the solution to social ills. The plan doesn’t “happen,” and you are conditioned to valorize work – vote neg to interrogate these ideological assumptions. Hoffmann, 20 (Maja, "Resolving the ‘jobs-environment-dilemma’? The case for critiques of work in sustainability research. Taylor and Francis, 4-1-2020, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23251042.2020.1790718)//usc-br/ What is postwork?...for the future.
11/6/21
ND- UBI CP
Tournament: Damus Hollywood Invitational | Round: 3 | Opponent: Brentwood MH | Judge: Christian Schock CP Text: A just government ought to provide universal basic income Striking can’t solve layoffs when the employer doesn’t need their workers anymore – UBI would give workers a cushion to survive unemployment AND increase their ability to strike by providing a strike fund Tascha Shahriari-Parsa, 21 Tascha Shahriari-Parsa is a student at Harvard Law School. ("Why Universal Basic Income is a Labor Issue," OnLabor, 4-30-2021, https://onlabor.org/why-universal-basic-income-is-a-labor-issue/)//va For both Stern...else that matters. ¶
Tournament: Damus Hollywood Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart RR | Judge: Sam Larson Counterplan: A just government ought to guarantee the right to strike except for violent strike tactics. Strikes can be violent, South Africa proves. This link turns the AC by harming the affected sector and decking the economy. Tenzam ’20 - Mlungisi Tenzam LLB LLM LLD Senior Lecturer, University of KwaZulu-Natal, 2020, The effects of violent strikes on the economy of a developing country: a case of South Africa, http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttextandpid=S1682-58532020000300004 The Constitution guarantees...economy and employment.
11/6/21
ND- WSDE CP
Tournament: 2021 USC Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake AD | Judge: Jared Burke Plan text: Firms should be transformed into worker self-directed enterprises. Wolff ND - Richard D. Wolff professor of economics emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and a visiting professor at the New School in New York City. He has also taught economics at Yale University, the City University of New York, and the University of Paris I (Sorbonne), “Start with Worker Self-Directed Enterprises,” The Next System Project. https://thenextsystem.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/RickWolff.pdf AT We therefore propose...the capitalist sector. Empirics prove that self-directed firms are more democratic and successful. Jerry Ashton, 13 - ("The Worker Self-Directed Enterprise: A "Cure" for Capitalism, or a Slippery Slope to Socialism?," HuffPost, 1-2-2013, accessed 11-16-2021, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/worker-self-directed-enterprise_b_2385334)//MS Decidedly so, Wolff...benefits and risks." ¶
12/11/21
SO- HIF CP
Tournament: The Meadows Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Presentation AB | Judge: Symphony Wang HIF CP Counterplan text: The member nations of the World Trade Organization should implement and fund a Health Impact Fund as per the Hollis and Pogge 08 card The Health Impact Fund would guarantee patent rights and increase profits, while also equalizing the cost of medicines Hollis and Pogge ’08 - Aidan Hollis Associate Professor of Economics, the University of Calgary and Thomas Pogge Leitner Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs, Yale University, “The Health Impact Fund Making New Medicines Accessible for All,” Incentives for Global Health (2008) AT We propose the Health Impact Fund as the most sensible solution that comprehensively addresses the problems. Financed by governments, the HIF would offer patentees the option to forgo monopoly pricing in exchange for a reward based on the global health impact of their new medicine. By registering a patented medicine with the HIF, a company would agree to sell it globally at cost. In exchange, the company would receive, for a fixed time, payments based on the product’s assessed global health impact. The arrangement would be optional and it wouldn’t diminish patent rights.¶ The HIF has the potential to be an institution that benefits everyone: patients, rich and poor alike, along with their caregivers; pharmaceutical companies and their shareholders; and taxpayers.¶ HOW THE HEALTH IMPACT FUND WORKS FOR PATIENTS¶ The HIF increases the incentives to invest in developing medicines that have high health impact. It directs research toward the medicines that can do the most good. It can also reward the development of new products, and the discovery of new uses for existing products, which the patent system alone can’t stimulate because of inadequate protection from imitation. All patients, rich and poor, would benefit from refocusing the innovation and marketing priorities of pharmaceutical companies toward health impact.¶ Any new medicines and new uses of existing medicines registered for health impact rewards would be available everywhere at marginal cost from the start. Many patients – especially in poor countries, but increasingly in wealthy ones too – are unable to afford the best treatment because it is too expensive. Even if fully insured, patients oft en lack access to medicines because their insurer deems them too expensive to reimburse. The HIF simply and directly solves this problem for registered drugs by setting their prices at marginal cost.¶ HOW THE HEALTH IMPACT FUND WORKS FOR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES¶ Most proposals for increasing access to medicines would reduce the profits of pharmaceutical companies and hence their ability to fund research. The HIF, however, leaves the existing options of pharmaceutical firms untouched. It merely gives them the opportunity to make additional profits by developing new high-impact medicines that would be unprofitable or less profitable under monopoly pricing. Selling such registered medicines at cost, firms won’t be forced to defend a policy of charging high prices to poor people and they won’t be pressured to make charitable donations. With HIF-registered medicines they can instead “do well by doing good”: bring real benefit to patients in a profitable way. Research scientists of these firms will be encouraged to focus on addressing the most important diseases, not merely those that can support high prices.¶ HOW THE HEALTH IMPACT FUND WORKS FOR TAXPAYERS¶ The HIF will be supported mainly by governments, which are supported by the taxes they collect. Taxpayers want value for their money, and the HIF provides exactly that. Because the HIF is a more efficient way of incentivizing the pharmaceutical RandD we all want, total expenditures on medicines need not increase. However, if they do, the reason is that new medicines that would not have existed without the HIF are being developed. The HIF mechanism is designed to ensure that taxpayers always obtain value for money in the sense that any product regis-tered with the HIF will have a lower cost for a given amount of health impact than products outside the HIF. Taxpayers may also benefit from a reduction in risks of pandemics and other health problems that easily cross national borders.
10/30/21
SO- Innovation DA
Tournament: Heart of Texas Invitational | Round: 4 | Opponent: Westlake AH | Judge: Devin Hernandez Bioterror - Short NC Shell COVID has kept patents and innovation strong, but continued protection is key to innovation by incentivizing biomedical research – it’s also crucial to preventing counterfeit medicines, economic collapse, and fatal diseases, which independently turns case. Macdole and Ezell 4-29: Jaci Mcdole and Stephen Ezell {Jaci McDole is a senior policy analyst covering intellectual property (IP) and innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). She focuses on IP and its correlations to global innovation and trade. McDole holds a double BA in Music Business and Radio-Television with a minor in Marketing, an MS in Education, and a JD with a specialization in intellectual property (Southern Illinois University Carbondale). McDole comes to ITIF from the Institute for Intellectual Property Research, an organization she co-founded to study and further robust global IP policies. Stephen Ezell is vice president, global innovation policy, at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). He comes to ITIF from Peer Insight, an innovation research and consulting firm he cofounded in 2003 to study the practice of innovation in service industries. At Peer Insight, Ezell led the Global Service Innovation Consortium, published multiple research papers on service innovation, and researched national service innovation policies being implemented by governments worldwide. Prior to forming Peer Insight, Ezell worked in the New Service Development group at the NASDAQ Stock Market, where he spearheaded the creation of the NASDAQ Market Intelligence Desk and the NASDAQ Corporate Services Network, services for NASDAQ-listed corporations. Previously, Ezell cofounded two successful innovation ventures, the high-tech services firm Brivo Systems and Lynx Capital, a boutique investment bank. Ezell holds a B.S. from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, with an honors certificate from Georgetown’s Landegger International Business Diplomacy program.}, 21 - ("Ten Ways Ip Has Enabled Innovations That Have Helped Sustain The World Through The Pandemic," Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 4-29-2021, https://itif.org/publications/2021/04/29/ten-ways-ip-has-enabled-innovations-have-helped-sustain-world-through)//marlborough-wr/ To better understand the role of IP in enabling solutions related to COVID-19 challenges, this report relies on 10 case studies drawn from a variety of nations, technical fields, and firm sizes. This is but a handful of the thousands of IP-enabled innovations that have sprung forth over the past year in an effort to meet the tremendous challenges brought on by COVID-19 globally. From a paramedic in Mexico to a veteran vaccine manufacturing company in India and a tech start-up in Estonia to a U.S.-based company offering workplace Internet of Things (IoT) services, small and large organizations alike are working to combat the pandemic. Some have adapted existing innovations, while others have developed novel solutions. All are working to take the world out of the pandemic and into the future. The case studies are: Bharat Biotech: Covaxin Gilead: Remdesivir LumiraDX: SARS-COV-2 Antigen POC Test Teal Bio: Teal Bio Respirator XE Ingeniería Médica: CápsulaXE Surgical Theater: Precision VR Tombot: Jennie Starship Technologies: Autonomous Delivery Robots Triax Technologies: Proximity Trace Zoom: Video Conferencing As the case studies show, IP is critical to enabling innovation. Policymakers around the world need to ensure robust IP protections are—and remain—in place if they wish their citizens to have safe and innovative solutions to health care, workplace, and societal challenges in the future. THE ROLE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN RandD-INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES Intangible assets, such as IP rights, comprised approximately 84 percent of the corporate value of SandP 500 companies in 2018.4 For start-ups, this means much of the capital needed to operate is directly related to IP (see Teal Bio case study for more on this). IP also plays an especially important role for RandD-intensive industries.5 To take the example of the biopharmaceutical industry, it is characterized by high-risk, time-consuming, and expensive processes including basic research, drug discovery, pre-clinical trials, three stages of human clinical trials, regulatory review, and post-approval research and safety monitoring. The drug development process spans an average of 11.5 to 15 years.6 For every 5,000 to 10,000 compounds screened on average during the basic research and drug discovery phases, approximately 250 molecular compounds, or 2.5 to 5 percent, make it to preclinical testing. Out of those 250 molecular compounds, approximately 5 make it to clinical testing. That is, 0.05 to 0.1 percent of drugs make it from basic research into clinical trials. Of those rare few which make it to clinical testing, less than 12 percent are ultimately approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).7 In addition to high risks, drug development is costly, and the expenses associated with it are increasing. A 2019 report by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions concluded that since 2010 the average cost of bringing a new drug to market increased by 67 percent.8 Numerous studies have examined the substantial cost of biopharmaceutical RandD, and most confirm investing in new drug development requires $1.7 billion to $3.2 billion up front on average.9 A 2018 study by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness found similar risks and figures for vaccines, stating, “In general, vaccine development from discovery to licensure can cost billions of dollars, can take over 10 years to complete, and has an average 94 percent chance of failure.”10 Yet, a 2010 study found that 80 percent of new drugs—that is, the less than 12 percent ultimately approved by the FDA—made less than their capitalized RandD costs.11 Another study found that only 1 percent (maybe three new drugs each year) of the most successful 10 percent of FDA approved drugs generate half of the profits of the entire drug industry.12 To say the least, biopharmaceutical RandD represents a high-stakes, long-term endeavor with precarious returns. Without IP protection, biopharmaceutical manufacturers have little incentive to take the risks necessary to engage in the RandD process because they would be unable to recoup even a fraction of the costs incurred. Diminished revenues also result in reduced investments in RandD which means less research into cancer drugs, Alzheimer cures, vaccines, and more. IP rights give life-sciences enterprises the confidence needed to undertake the difficult, risky, and expensive process of life-sciences innovation secure in the knowledge they can capture a share of the gains from their innovations, which is indispensable not only to recouping the up-front RandD costs of a given drug, but which can generate sufficient profits to enable investment in future generations of biomedical innovation and thus perpetuate the enterprises into the future.13 THE IMPORTANCE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO INNOVATION Although anti-IP proponents have attacked biopharmaceutical manufacturers particularly hard, the reality is all IP-protected innovations are at risk if these rights are ignored, or vitiated. Certain arguments have shown a desire for the term “COVID-19 innovations” to include everything from vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and PPE to biotechnology, AI-related data, and educational materials.14 This could potentially open the floodgates to invalidate IP protection on many of the innovations highlighted in this report. However, much of the current discussion concerning IP focuses almost entirely on litigation fears or RandD incentives. Although RandD is an important aspect of IP, as previously mentioned, these discussions ignore the fact that IP protection can be—and often is—used for other purposes, including generating initial capital to create a company and begin manufacturing and, more importantly, using licensing agreements and IP to track the supply chain and ensure quality control of products. This report highlights but a handful of the thousands of IP-enabled innovations that have sprung forth over the past year in an effort to meet the tremendous challenges brought on by COVID-19 globally. In 2018, Forbes identified counterfeiting as the largest criminal enterprise in the world.15 The global struggle against counterfeit and non-regulated products, which has hit Latin America particularly hard during the pandemic, proves the need for safety and quality assurance in supply chains.16 Some communities already ravaged by COVID-19 are seeing higher mortality rates related to counterfeit vaccines, therapeutics, PPE, and cleaning and sanitizing products.17 Polish authorities discovered vials of antiwrinkle treatment labeled as COVID-19 vaccines. 18 In Mexico, fake vaccines sold for approximately $1,000 per dose.19 Chinese and South African police seized thousands of counterfeit vaccine doses from warehouses and manufacturing plants.20 Meanwhile, dozens of websites worldwide claiming to sell vaccines or be affiliated with vaccine manufacturers have been taken down.21 But the problem is not limited to biopharmaceuticals. The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center has recovered $48 million worth of counterfeit PPE and other products.22 Collaborative efforts between law enforcement and manufacturers have kept numerous counterfeits from reaching the population. In countries with strong IP protection, the chances of counterfeit products reaching the market are significantly lower. This is largely because counterfeiting tends to be an IP-related issue, and these countries generally provide superior means of tracking the supply chain through trademarks, trade secrets, and licensing agreements. This enables greater quality control and helps manufacturers maintain a level of public confidence in their products. By controlling the flow of knowledge associated with IP, voluntary licensing agreements provide innovators with opportunities to collaborate, while ensuring their partners are properly equipped and capable of producing quality products. Throughout this difficult time, the world has seen unexpected collaborations, especially between biopharmaceutical companies worldwide such as Gilead and Eva Pharma or Bharat Biotech and Ocugen, Inc. Throughout history, and most significantly in the nineteenth century through the widespread development of patent systems and the ensuing Industrial Revolution, IP has contributed toward greater economic growth.23 This is promising news as the world struggles for economic recovery. A 2021 joint study by the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and European Patent Office (EPO) shows a strong, positive correlation between IP rights and economic performance.24 It states that “IP-owning firms represent a significantly larger proportion of economic activity and employment across Europe,” with IP-intensive industries contributing to 45 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) (€6.6 trillion; US$7.9 trillion).25 The study also shows 38.9 percent of employment is directly or indirectly attributed to IP-intensive industries, and IP generates higher wages and greater revenue per employee, especially for small-to-medium-sized enterprises.26 That concords with the United States, where the Department of Commerce estimated that IP-intensive industries support at least 45 million jobs and contribute more than $6 trillion dollars to, or 38.2 percent of, GDP.27 In 2020, global patent filings through the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) system reached a record 275,900 filings amidst the pandemic, growing 4 percent from 2019.28 The top-four nations, which accounted for 180,530 of the patent applications, were China, the United States, Japan, and Korea, respectively.29 While several countries saw an increase in patent filings, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia both saw significant increases in the number of annual applications, with the top two filing growths of 73 percent and 26 percent, respectively.30 The COVID-19 pandemic slowed a lot of things, but it certainly couldn’t stop innovation. There are at least five principal benefits strong IP rights can generate, for both developing and developed countries alike.31 First, stronger IP protection spurs the virtuous cycle of innovation by increasing the appropriability of returns, enabling economic gain and catalyzing economic growth. Second, through patents—which require innovators to disclose certain knowledge as a condition of protection—knowledge spillovers build a platform of knowledge that enables other innovators. For instance, studies have found that the rate of return to society from corporate RandD and innovation activities is at least twice the estimated returns that each company itself receives.32 Third, countries with robust IP can operate more efficiently and productively by using IP to determine product quality and reduce transaction costs. Fourth, trade and foreign direct investment enabled and encouraged by strong IP protection offered to enterprises from foreign countries facilitates an accumulation of knowledge capital within the destination economy. That matters when foreign sources of technology account for over 90 percent of productivity growth in most countries.33 There’s also evidence suggesting that developing nations with stronger IP protections enjoy the earlier introduction of innovative new medicines.34 And fifth, strong IP boosts exports, including in developing countries.35 Research shows a positive correlation between stronger IP protection and exports from developing countries as well as faster growth rates of certain industries.36 The following case studies illustrate these benefits of IP and how they’ve enabled innovative solutions to help global society navigate the COVID-19 pandemic. This sets a precedent that spills over to all future diseases – Hopkins 21: Jared S. Hopkins {Jared S. Hopkins is a New York-based reporter for The Wall Street Journal covering the pharmaceutical industry, including companies such as Pfizer Inc. and Merck and Co. He previously was a health-care reporter at Bloomberg News and an investigative reporter at the Chicago Tribune. Jared started his career at The Times-News in Twin Falls, Idaho covering politics. In 2014, he was a finalist for the Livingston Award For Young Journalists for an investigation into charities founded by professional athletes. In 2011, he was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Reporting for a series about neglect at a residential facility for disabled kids. Jared graduated from the Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland-College Park with a bachelor's degree in journalism}, 21 - ("U.S. Support for Patent Waiver Unlikely to Cost Covid-19 Vaccine Makers in Short Term ," WSJ, 5-7-2021, https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-support-for-patent-waiver-unlikely-to-cost-covid-19-vaccine-makers-in-short-term-11620414260)//marlborough-wr/ The Biden administration’s unexpected support for temporarily waiving Covid-19 vaccine patents won’t have an immediate financial impact on the companies making the shots, industry officials and analysts said. Yet the decision could mark a shift in Washington’s longstanding support of the industry’s valuable intellectual property, patent-law experts said. A waiver, if it does go into effect, may pose long-term risks to the vaccine makers, analysts said. Moderna Inc., MRNA -4.12 Pfizer Inc. PFE -3.10 and other vaccine makers weren’t counting on sales from the developing countries that would gain access to the vaccine technology, analysts said. If patents and other crucial product information behind the technology is made available, it would take at least several months before shots were produced, industry officials said. Yet long-term Covid-19 sales could take a hit if other companies and countries gained access to the technologies and figured out how to use it. Western drugmakers could also confront competition sooner for other medicines they are hoping to make using the technologies. A World Trade Organization waiver could also set a precedent for waiving patents for other medicines, a long-sought goal of some developing countries, patient groups and others to try to reduce the costs of prescription drugs. “It sets a tremendous precedent of waiving IP rights that’s likely going to come up in future pandemics or in other serious diseases,” said David Silverstein, a patent lawyer at Axinn, Veltrop and Harkrider LLP who advises drugmakers. “Other than that, this is largely symbolic.” Bioterror causes extinction---quick innovation key Farmer 17 (“Bioterrorism could kill more people than nuclear war, Bill Gates to warn world leaders” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/17/biological-terrorism-could-kill-people-nuclear-attacks-bill/) Bioterrorists could one day kill hundreds of millions of people in an attack more deadly than nuclear war, Bill Gates will warn world leaders. Rapid advances in genetic engineering have opened the door for small terrorism groups to tailor and easily turn biological viruses into weapons. A resulting disease pandemic is currently one of the most deadly threats faced by the world, he believes, yet governments are complacent about the scale of the risk. Speaking ahead of an address to the Munich Security Conference, the richest man in the world said that while governments are concerned with the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons, they are overlooking the threat of biological warfare. Mr Gates, whose charitable foundationis funding research into quickly spotting outbreaks and speeding up vaccine production, said the defence and security establishment “have not been following biology and I’m here to bring them a little bit of bad news”. Mr Gates will today (Saturday) tell an audience of international leaders and senior officers that the world’s next deadly pandemic “could originate on the computer screen of a terrorist”. He told the Telegraph: “Natural epidemics can be extremely large. Intentionally caused epidemics, bioterrorism, would be the largest of all. “With nuclear weapons, you’d think you would probably stop after killing 100million. Smallpox won’t stop. Because the population is naïve, and there are no real preparations. That, if it got out and spread, would be a larger number.” He said developments in genetic engineering were proceeding at a “mind-blowing rate”. Biological warfare ambitions once limited to a handful of nation states are now open to small groups with limited resources and skills. He said: “They make it much easier for a non-state person. It doesn’t take much biology expertise nowadays to assemble a smallpox virus. Biology is making it way easier to create these things.” The increasingly common use of gene editing technology would make it difficult to spot any potential terrorist conspiracy. Technologies which have made it easy to read DNA sequences and tinker with them to rewrite or tweak genes have many legitimate uses. He said: “It’s not like when someone says, ‘Hey I’d like some Plutonium’ and you start saying ‘Hmmm.. I wonder why he wants Plutonium?’” Mr Gates said the potential death toll from a disease outbreak could be higher than other threats such as climate change or nuclear war. He said: “This is like earthquakes, you should think in order of magnitudes. If you can kill 10 people that’s a one, 100 people that’s a two... Bioterrorism is the thing that can give you not just sixes, but sevens, eights and nines. “With nuclear war, once you have got a six, or a seven, or eight, you’d think it would probably stop. With bioterrorism it’s just unbounded if you are not there to stop the spread of it.” By tailoring the genes of a virus, it would be possible to manipulate its ability to spread and its ability to harm people. Mr Gates said one of the most potentially deadly outbreaks could involve the humble flu virus. It would be relatively easy to engineer a new flu strain combining qualities from varieties that spread like wildfire with varieties that were deadly. The last time that happened naturally was the 1918 Spanish Influenza pandemic, which went on to kill more than 50 million people – or nearly three times the death toll from the First World War. By comparison, the recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa which killed just over 11,000 was “a Richter Scale three, it’s a nothing,” he said. But despite the potential, the founder of Microsoft said that world leaders and their militaries could not see beyond the more recognised risks. He said: “Should the world be serious about this? It is somewhat serious about normal classic warfare and nuclear warfare, but today it is not very serious about bio-defence or natural epidemics.” He went on: “They do tend to say ‘How easy is it to get fissile material and how accurate are the plans out on the internet for dirty bombs, plutonium bombs and hydrogen bombs?’ “They have some people that do that. What I am suggesting is that the number of people that look at bio-defence is worth increasing.” Whether naturally occurring, or deliberately started, it is almost certain that a highly lethal global pandemic will occur within our lifetimes, he believes. But the good news for those contemplating the potential damage is that the same biotechnology can prevent epidemics spreading out of control. Mr Gates will say in his speech that most of the things needed to protect against a naturally occurring pandemic are the same things needed to prepare for an intentional biological attack. Nations must amass an arsenal of new weapons to fight such a disease outbreak, including vaccines, drugs and diagnostic techniques. Being able to develop a vaccine as soon as possible against a new outbreak is particularly important and could save huge numbers of lives, scientists working at his foundation believe.
10/17/21
SO- Innovation DA Longer Bioterror Impact
Tournament: The Meadows Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Presentation AB | Judge: Symphony Wang Bioterror - Longer NC Shell The pharma industry is strong now but patents are key for continued economic growth. Batell and PhRMA 14: Batell and PhRMA {Battelle is the world’s largest nonprofit independent research and development organization, providing innovative solutions to the world’s most pressing needs through its four global businesses: Laboratory Management, National Security, Energy, Environment and Material Sciences, and Health and Life Sciences. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) represents the country’s leading pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies, which are devoted to inventing medicines that allow patients to live longer, healthier, and more productive lives.}, 14 – “The U.S. Biopharmaceutical Industry: Perspectives on Future Growth and The Factors That Will Drive It,” http://phrma-docs.phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2014-economic-futures-report.pdf//marlborough-wr// Compared to other capital-intensive, advanced manufacturing industries in the U.S., the biopharmaceutical industry is a leader in RandD investment, IP generation, venture capital investment, and RandD employment. Policies and infrastructure that helped foster these innovative activities have allowed the U.S. to seize global leadership in biopharmaceutical RandD over the past 30 years. However, as this report details, other countries are seeking to compete with the U.S. by borrowing and building upon some of these pro-innovation policies to improve their own operating environment and become more favorable to biopharmaceutical companies making decisions about where to locate their RandD and manufacturing activities. A unique contribution of this report was the inclusion of the perspective of senior-level strategic planning executives of biopharmaceutical companies regarding what policy areas they see as most likely to impact the favorability of the U.S. business operating environment. The executives cited the following factors as having the most impact on the favorability of the operating environment and hence, potential growth of the innovative biopharmaceutical industry in the U.S.: • Coverage and payment policies that support and encourage medical innovation • A well-functioning, science-based regulatory system • Strong IP protection and enforcement in the U.S. and abroad The top sub-attribute identified as driving future biopharmaceutical industry growth in the U.S. cited by executives was a domestic IP system that provides adequate patent rights and data protection. Collectively, these factors underscore the need to reduce uncertainties and ensure adequate incentives for the lengthy, costly, and risky RandD investments necessary to develop new treatments needed by patients and society to address our most costly and challenging diseases. With more than 300,000 jobs at stake between the two scenarios, the continued growth and leadership of the U.S. innovative biopharmaceutical industry cannot be taken for granted. Continued innovation is fundamental to U.S. economic well-being and the nation’s ability to compete effectively in a globalized economy and to take advantage of the expected growth in demand for new medicines around the world. Just as other countries have drawn lessons from the growth of the U.S. biopharmaceutical sector, the U.S. needs to assess how it can improve the environment for innovation and continue to boost job creation by increasing RandD investment, fostering a robust talent pool, enhancing economic growth and sustainability, and continuing to bring new medicines to patients. COVID has kept patents and innovation strong, but continued protection is key to innovation by incentivizing biomedical research – it’s also crucial to preventing counterfeit medicines, economic collapse, and fatal diseases, which independently turns case. Macdole and Ezell 4-29: Jaci Mcdole and Stephen Ezell {Jaci McDole is a senior policy analyst covering intellectual property (IP) and innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). She focuses on IP and its correlations to global innovation and trade. McDole holds a double BA in Music Business and Radio-Television with a minor in Marketing, an MS in Education, and a JD with a specialization in intellectual property (Southern Illinois University Carbondale). McDole comes to ITIF from the Institute for Intellectual Property Research, an organization she co-founded to study and further robust global IP policies. Stephen Ezell is vice president, global innovation policy, at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). He comes to ITIF from Peer Insight, an innovation research and consulting firm he cofounded in 2003 to study the practice of innovation in service industries. At Peer Insight, Ezell led the Global Service Innovation Consortium, published multiple research papers on service innovation, and researched national service innovation policies being implemented by governments worldwide. Prior to forming Peer Insight, Ezell worked in the New Service Development group at the NASDAQ Stock Market, where he spearheaded the creation of the NASDAQ Market Intelligence Desk and the NASDAQ Corporate Services Network, services for NASDAQ-listed corporations. Previously, Ezell cofounded two successful innovation ventures, the high-tech services firm Brivo Systems and Lynx Capital, a boutique investment bank. Ezell holds a B.S. from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, with an honors certificate from Georgetown’s Landegger International Business Diplomacy program.}, 21 - ("Ten Ways Ip Has Enabled Innovations That Have Helped Sustain The World Through The Pandemic," Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 4-29-2021, https://itif.org/publications/2021/04/29/ten-ways-ip-has-enabled-innovations-have-helped-sustain-world-through)//marlborough-wr/ To better understand the role of IP in enabling solutions related to COVID-19 challenges, this report relies on 10 case studies drawn from a variety of nations, technical fields, and firm sizes. This is but a handful of the thousands of IP-enabled innovations that have sprung forth over the past year in an effort to meet the tremendous challenges brought on by COVID-19 globally. From a paramedic in Mexico to a veteran vaccine manufacturing company in India and a tech start-up in Estonia to a U.S.-based company offering workplace Internet of Things (IoT) services, small and large organizations alike are working to combat the pandemic. Some have adapted existing innovations, while others have developed novel solutions. All are working to take the world out of the pandemic and into the future. The case studies are: Bharat Biotech: Covaxin Gilead: Remdesivir LumiraDX: SARS-COV-2 Antigen POC Test Teal Bio: Teal Bio Respirator XE Ingeniería Médica: CápsulaXE Surgical Theater: Precision VR Tombot: Jennie Starship Technologies: Autonomous Delivery Robots Triax Technologies: Proximity Trace Zoom: Video Conferencing As the case studies show, IP is critical to enabling innovation. Policymakers around the world need to ensure robust IP protections are—and remain—in place if they wish their citizens to have safe and innovative solutions to health care, workplace, and societal challenges in the future. THE ROLE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN RandD-INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES Intangible assets, such as IP rights, comprised approximately 84 percent of the corporate value of SandP 500 companies in 2018.4 For start-ups, this means much of the capital needed to operate is directly related to IP (see Teal Bio case study for more on this). IP also plays an especially important role for RandD-intensive industries.5 To take the example of the biopharmaceutical industry, it is characterized by high-risk, time-consuming, and expensive processes including basic research, drug discovery, pre-clinical trials, three stages of human clinical trials, regulatory review, and post-approval research and safety monitoring. The drug development process spans an average of 11.5 to 15 years.6 For every 5,000 to 10,000 compounds screened on average during the basic research and drug discovery phases, approximately 250 molecular compounds, or 2.5 to 5 percent, make it to preclinical testing. Out of those 250 molecular compounds, approximately 5 make it to clinical testing. That is, 0.05 to 0.1 percent of drugs make it from basic research into clinical trials. Of those rare few which make it to clinical testing, less than 12 percent are ultimately approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).7 In addition to high risks, drug development is costly, and the expenses associated with it are increasing. A 2019 report by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions concluded that since 2010 the average cost of bringing a new drug to market increased by 67 percent.8 Numerous studies have examined the substantial cost of biopharmaceutical RandD, and most confirm investing in new drug development requires $1.7 billion to $3.2 billion up front on average.9 A 2018 study by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness found similar risks and figures for vaccines, stating, “In general, vaccine development from discovery to licensure can cost billions of dollars, can take over 10 years to complete, and has an average 94 percent chance of failure.”10 Yet, a 2010 study found that 80 percent of new drugs—that is, the less than 12 percent ultimately approved by the FDA—made less than their capitalized RandD costs.11 Another study found that only 1 percent (maybe three new drugs each year) of the most successful 10 percent of FDA approved drugs generate half of the profits of the entire drug industry.12 To say the least, biopharmaceutical RandD represents a high-stakes, long-term endeavor with precarious returns. Without IP protection, biopharmaceutical manufacturers have little incentive to take the risks necessary to engage in the RandD process because they would be unable to recoup even a fraction of the costs incurred. Diminished revenues also result in reduced investments in RandD which means less research into cancer drugs, Alzheimer cures, vaccines, and more. IP rights give life-sciences enterprises the confidence needed to undertake the difficult, risky, and expensive process of life-sciences innovation secure in the knowledge they can capture a share of the gains from their innovations, which is indispensable not only to recouping the up-front RandD costs of a given drug, but which can generate sufficient profits to enable investment in future generations of biomedical innovation and thus perpetuate the enterprises into the future.13 THE IMPORTANCE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO INNOVATION Although anti-IP proponents have attacked biopharmaceutical manufacturers particularly hard, the reality is all IP-protected innovations are at risk if these rights are ignored, or vitiated. Certain arguments have shown a desire for the term “COVID-19 innovations” to include everything from vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and PPE to biotechnology, AI-related data, and educational materials.14 This could potentially open the floodgates to invalidate IP protection on many of the innovations highlighted in this report. However, much of the current discussion concerning IP focuses almost entirely on litigation fears or RandD incentives. Although RandD is an important aspect of IP, as previously mentioned, these discussions ignore the fact that IP protection can be—and often is—used for other purposes, including generating initial capital to create a company and begin manufacturing and, more importantly, using licensing agreements and IP to track the supply chain and ensure quality control of products. This report highlights but a handful of the thousands of IP-enabled innovations that have sprung forth over the past year in an effort to meet the tremendous challenges brought on by COVID-19 globally. In 2018, Forbes identified counterfeiting as the largest criminal enterprise in the world.15 The global struggle against counterfeit and non-regulated products, which has hit Latin America particularly hard during the pandemic, proves the need for safety and quality assurance in supply chains.16 Some communities already ravaged by COVID-19 are seeing higher mortality rates related to counterfeit vaccines, therapeutics, PPE, and cleaning and sanitizing products.17 Polish authorities discovered vials of antiwrinkle treatment labeled as COVID-19 vaccines. 18 In Mexico, fake vaccines sold for approximately $1,000 per dose.19 Chinese and South African police seized thousands of counterfeit vaccine doses from warehouses and manufacturing plants.20 Meanwhile, dozens of websites worldwide claiming to sell vaccines or be affiliated with vaccine manufacturers have been taken down.21 But the problem is not limited to biopharmaceuticals. The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center has recovered $48 million worth of counterfeit PPE and other products.22 Collaborative efforts between law enforcement and manufacturers have kept numerous counterfeits from reaching the population. In countries with strong IP protection, the chances of counterfeit products reaching the market are significantly lower. This is largely because counterfeiting tends to be an IP-related issue, and these countries generally provide superior means of tracking the supply chain through trademarks, trade secrets, and licensing agreements. This enables greater quality control and helps manufacturers maintain a level of public confidence in their products. By controlling the flow of knowledge associated with IP, voluntary licensing agreements provide innovators with opportunities to collaborate, while ensuring their partners are properly equipped and capable of producing quality products. Throughout this difficult time, the world has seen unexpected collaborations, especially between biopharmaceutical companies worldwide such as Gilead and Eva Pharma or Bharat Biotech and Ocugen, Inc. Throughout history, and most significantly in the nineteenth century through the widespread development of patent systems and the ensuing Industrial Revolution, IP has contributed toward greater economic growth.23 This is promising news as the world struggles for economic recovery. A 2021 joint study by the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and European Patent Office (EPO) shows a strong, positive correlation between IP rights and economic performance.24 It states that “IP-owning firms represent a significantly larger proportion of economic activity and employment across Europe,” with IP-intensive industries contributing to 45 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) (€6.6 trillion; US$7.9 trillion).25 The study also shows 38.9 percent of employment is directly or indirectly attributed to IP-intensive industries, and IP generates higher wages and greater revenue per employee, especially for small-to-medium-sized enterprises.26 That concords with the United States, where the Department of Commerce estimated that IP-intensive industries support at least 45 million jobs and contribute more than $6 trillion dollars to, or 38.2 percent of, GDP.27 In 2020, global patent filings through the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) system reached a record 275,900 filings amidst the pandemic, growing 4 percent from 2019.28 The top-four nations, which accounted for 180,530 of the patent applications, were China, the United States, Japan, and Korea, respectively.29 While several countries saw an increase in patent filings, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia both saw significant increases in the number of annual applications, with the top two filing growths of 73 percent and 26 percent, respectively.30 The COVID-19 pandemic slowed a lot of things, but it certainly couldn’t stop innovation. There are at least five principal benefits strong IP rights can generate, for both developing and developed countries alike.31 First, stronger IP protection spurs the virtuous cycle of innovation by increasing the appropriability of returns, enabling economic gain and catalyzing economic growth. Second, through patents—which require innovators to disclose certain knowledge as a condition of protection—knowledge spillovers build a platform of knowledge that enables other innovators. For instance, studies have found that the rate of return to society from corporate RandD and innovation activities is at least twice the estimated returns that each company itself receives.32 Third, countries with robust IP can operate more efficiently and productively by using IP to determine product quality and reduce transaction costs. Fourth, trade and foreign direct investment enabled and encouraged by strong IP protection offered to enterprises from foreign countries facilitates an accumulation of knowledge capital within the destination economy. That matters when foreign sources of technology account for over 90 percent of productivity growth in most countries.33 There’s also evidence suggesting that developing nations with stronger IP protections enjoy the earlier introduction of innovative new medicines.34 And fifth, strong IP boosts exports, including in developing countries.35 Research shows a positive correlation between stronger IP protection and exports from developing countries as well as faster growth rates of certain industries.36 The following case studies illustrate these benefits of IP and how they’ve enabled innovative solutions to help global society navigate the COVID-19 pandemic.
10/30/21
SO- Innovation DA future pandemics
Tournament: Heart of Texas Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Peninsula EL | Judge: Faizaan Dossani Future Pandemics – Short NC Shell COVID has kept patents and innovation strong, but continued protection is key to innovation by incentivizing biomedical research – it’s also crucial to preventing counterfeit medicines, economic collapse, and fatal diseases, which independently turns case. Macdole and Ezell 4-29: Jaci Mcdole and Stephen Ezell {Jaci McDole is a senior policy analyst covering intellectual property (IP) and innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). She focuses on IP and its correlations to global innovation and trade. McDole holds a double BA in Music Business and Radio-Television with a minor in Marketing, an MS in Education, and a JD with a specialization in intellectual property (Southern Illinois University Carbondale). McDole comes to ITIF from the Institute for Intellectual Property Research, an organization she co-founded to study and further robust global IP policies. Stephen Ezell is vice president, global innovation policy, at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). He comes to ITIF from Peer Insight, an innovation research and consulting firm he cofounded in 2003 to study the practice of innovation in service industries. At Peer Insight, Ezell led the Global Service Innovation Consortium, published multiple research papers on service innovation, and researched national service innovation policies being implemented by governments worldwide. Prior to forming Peer Insight, Ezell worked in the New Service Development group at the NASDAQ Stock Market, where he spearheaded the creation of the NASDAQ Market Intelligence Desk and the NASDAQ Corporate Services Network, services for NASDAQ-listed corporations. Previously, Ezell cofounded two successful innovation ventures, the high-tech services firm Brivo Systems and Lynx Capital, a boutique investment bank. Ezell holds a B.S. from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, with an honors certificate from Georgetown’s Landegger International Business Diplomacy program.}, 21 - ("Ten Ways Ip Has Enabled Innovations That Have Helped Sustain The World Through The Pandemic," Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 4-29-2021, https://itif.org/publications/2021/04/29/ten-ways-ip-has-enabled-innovations-have-helped-sustain-world-through)//marlborough-wr/ To better understand... the COVID-19 pandemic. This sets a precedent that spills over to all future diseases – Hopkins 21: Jared S. Hopkins {Jared S. Hopkins is a New York-based reporter for The Wall Street Journal covering the pharmaceutical industry, including companies such as Pfizer Inc. and Merck and Co. He previously was a health-care reporter at Bloomberg News and an investigative reporter at the Chicago Tribune. Jared started his career at The Times-News in Twin Falls, Idaho covering politics. In 2014, he was a finalist for the Livingston Award For Young Journalists for an investigation into charities founded by professional athletes. In 2011, he was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Reporting for a series about neglect at a residential facility for disabled kids. Jared graduated from the Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland-College Park with a bachelor's degree in journalism}, 21 - ("U.S. Support for Patent Waiver Unlikely to Cost Covid-19 Vaccine Makers in Short Term ," WSJ, 5-7-2021, https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-support-for-patent-waiver-unlikely-to-cost-covid-19-vaccine-makers-in-short-term-11620414260)//marlborough-wr/ The Biden administration’s...is largely symbolic.” The DA outweighs on time-frame and magnitude: Need to sustain effective research now to avoid future pandemics Lander 8/4/21 Eric Lander, President Biden’s Science Advisory and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) “Opinion: As bad as Covid-19 has been, a future pandemic could be even worse—unless we act now” 8/4/21, The Washington Post RM Coronavirus vaccines can...on national investment.
10/17/21
SO- Novice NC
Tournament: Chuck Ballingall | Round: 4 | Opponent: Christ Lutheran OL | Judge: Emily Vitan Novice NC I negate the resolution.
Because the resolution asks what we ought to do, my value is Morality.
The criterion for determining morality is minimizing suffering. No coherent theory of justice or morality can deny that suffering is morally bad. Each of us knows from our own experiences that suffering is a moral evil, and that other people experience suffering in the same way we do. Therefore, if we regard everyone’s pain as morally equal, we are obligated to minimize the amount of suffering people experience.
Moreover, maximizing utility is the only way to affirm equal and unconditional human dignity. Cummiskey ’90 - David Cummiskey. Associate Philosophy Professor at Bates College.Kantian Consequentialism. Ethics, Vol. 100, No. 3. 1990. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2381810.
We must not obscure the issue by characterizing this type of case as the sacrifice of individuals for some abstract “social entity.” It is not a question of some persons having to bear the cost for some elusive “overall social good.” Instead, the question is whether some persons must bear the inescapable cost for the sake of other persons. Robert Nozick, for example, argues that “to use a person in this way does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person, that his is the only life he has.” But why is this not equally true of all those whom we do not save through our failure to act? By emphasizing solely the one who must bear the cost if we act, we fail to sufficiently respect and take account of the many other separate persons, each with only one life, who will bear the cost of our inaction. In such a situation, what would a conscientious Kantian agent, an agent motivated by the unconditional value of rational beings, choose? A morally good agent recognizes that the basis of all particular duties is the principle that “rational nature exists as an end in itself” (GMM 429). Rational nature as such is the supreme objective end of all conduct. If one truly believes that all rational beings have an equal value, then the rational solution to such a dilemma involves maximally promoting the lives and liberties of as many rational beings as possible (chapter 5). In order to avoid this conclusion, the non-consequentialist Kantian needs to justify agent-centered constraints. As we saw in chapter 1, however, even most Kantian deontologists recognize that agent-centered constraints require a non- value-based rationale. But we have seen that Kant’s normative theory is based on an unconditionally valuable end. How can a concern for the value of rational beings lead to a refusal to sacrifice rational beings even when this would prevent other more extensive losses of rational beings? If the moral law is based on the value of rational beings and their ends, then what is the rationale for prohibiting a moral agent from maximally promoting these two tiers of value? If I sacrifice some for the sake of others, I do not use them arbitrarily, and I do not deny the unconditional value of rational beings. Persons may have “dignity, that is, an unconditional and incomparable worth” that transcends any market value (GMM 436), but persons also have a fundamental equality that dictates that some must sometimes give way for the sake of others (chapters 5 and 7). The concept of the end-in-itself does not support the view that we may never force another to bear some cost in order to benefit others. If one focuses on the equal value of all rational beings, then equal consideration suggests that one may have to sacrifice some to save many.
Contention 1: Innovation Intellectual property is critical to innovation by incentivizing biomedical research – it’s also crucial to preventing counterfeit medicines, economic decline, and future fatal diseases. Macdole and Ezell 4-29: Jaci Mcdole and Stephen Ezell {Jaci McDole is a senior policy analyst covering intellectual property (IP) and innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). She focuses on IP and its correlations to global innovation and trade. McDole holds a double BA in Music Business and Radio-Television with a minor in Marketing, an MS in Education, and a JD with a specialization in intellectual property (Southern Illinois University Carbondale). McDole comes to ITIF from the Institute for Intellectual Property Research, an organization she co-founded to study and further robust global IP policies. Stephen Ezell is vice president, global innovation policy, at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). He comes to ITIF from Peer Insight, an innovation research and consulting firm he cofounded in 2003 to study the practice of innovation in service industries. At Peer Insight, Ezell led the Global Service Innovation Consortium, published multiple research papers on service innovation, and researched national service innovation policies being implemented by governments worldwide. Prior to forming Peer Insight, Ezell worked in the New Service Development group at the NASDAQ Stock Market, where he spearheaded the creation of the NASDAQ Market Intelligence Desk and the NASDAQ Corporate Services Network, services for NASDAQ-listed corporations. Previously, Ezell cofounded two successful innovation ventures, the high-tech services firm Brivo Systems and Lynx Capital, a boutique investment bank. Ezell holds a B.S. from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, with an honors certificate from Georgetown’s Landegger International Business Diplomacy program.}, 21 - ("Ten Ways Ip Has Enabled Innovations That Have Helped Sustain The World Through The Pandemic," Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 4-29-2021, https://itif.org/publications/2021/04/29/ten-ways-ip-has-enabled-innovations-have-helped-sustain-world-through)//marlborough-wr/ To better understand the role of IP in enabling solutions related to COVID-19 challenges, this report relies on 10 case studies drawn from a variety of nations, technical fields, and firm sizes. This is but a handful of the thousands of IP-enabled innovations that have sprung forth over the past year in an effort to meet the tremendous challenges brought on by COVID-19 globally. From a paramedic in Mexico to a veteran vaccine manufacturing company in India and a tech start-up in Estonia to a U.S.-based company offering workplace Internet of Things (IoT) services, small and large organizations alike are working to combat the pandemic. Some have adapted existing innovations, while others have developed novel solutions. All are working to take the world out of the pandemic and into the future. The case studies are: Bharat Biotech: Covaxin Gilead: Remdesivir LumiraDX: SARS-COV-2 Antigen POC Test Teal Bio: Teal Bio Respirator XE Ingeniería Médica: CápsulaXE Surgical Theater: Precision VR Tombot: Jennie Starship Technologies: Autonomous Delivery Robots Triax Technologies: Proximity Trace Zoom: Video Conferencing As the case studies show, IP is critical to enabling innovation. Policymakers around the world need to ensure robust IP protections are—and remain—in place if they wish their citizens to have safe and innovative solutions to health care, workplace, and societal challenges in the future. THE ROLE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN RandD-INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES Intangible assets, such as IP rights, comprised approximately 84 percent of the corporate value of SandP 500 companies in 2018.4 For start-ups, this means much of the capital needed to operate is directly related to IP (see Teal Bio case study for more on this). IP also plays an especially important role for RandD-intensive industries.5 To take the example of the biopharmaceutical industry, it is characterized by high-risk, time-consuming, and expensive processes including basic research, drug discovery, pre-clinical trials, three stages of human clinical trials, regulatory review, and post-approval research and safety monitoring. The drug development process spans an average of 11.5 to 15 years.6 For every 5,000 to 10,000 compounds screened on average during the basic research and drug discovery phases, approximately 250 molecular compounds, or 2.5 to 5 percent, make it to preclinical testing. Out of those 250 molecular compounds, approximately 5 make it to clinical testing. That is, 0.05 to 0.1 percent of drugs make it from basic research into clinical trials. Of those rare few which make it to clinical testing, less than 12 percent are ultimately approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).7 In addition to high risks, drug development is costly, and the expenses associated with it are increasing. A 2019 report by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions concluded that since 2010 the average cost of bringing a new drug to market increased by 67 percent.8 Numerous studies have examined the substantial cost of biopharmaceutical RandD, and most confirm investing in new drug development requires $1.7 billion to $3.2 billion up front on average.9 A 2018 study by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness found similar risks and figures for vaccines, stating, “In general, vaccine development from discovery to licensure can cost billions of dollars, can take over 10 years to complete, and has an average 94 percent chance of failure.”10 Yet, a 2010 study found that 80 percent of new drugs—that is, the less than 12 percent ultimately approved by the FDA—made less than their capitalized RandD costs.11 Another study found that only 1 percent (maybe three new drugs each year) of the most successful 10 percent of FDA approved drugs generate half of the profits of the entire drug industry.12 To say the least, biopharmaceutical RandD represents a high-stakes, long-term endeavor with precarious returns. Without IP protection, biopharmaceutical manufacturers have little incentive to take the risks necessary to engage in the RandD process because they would be unable to recoup even a fraction of the costs incurred. Diminished revenues also result in reduced investments in RandD which means less research into cancer drugs, Alzheimer cures, vaccines, and more. IP rights give life-sciences enterprises the confidence needed to undertake the difficult, risky, and expensive process of life-sciences innovation secure in the knowledge they can capture a share of the gains from their innovations, which is indispensable not only to recouping the up-front RandD costs of a given drug, but which can generate sufficient profits to enable investment in future generations of biomedical innovation and thus perpetuate the enterprises into the future.13 THE IMPORTANCE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO INNOVATION Although anti-IP proponents have attacked biopharmaceutical manufacturers particularly hard, the reality is all IP-protected innovations are at risk if these rights are ignored, or vitiated. Certain arguments have shown a desire for the term “COVID-19 innovations” to include everything from vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and PPE to biotechnology, AI-related data, and educational materials.14 This could potentially open the floodgates to invalidate IP protection on many of the innovations highlighted in this report. However, much of the current discussion concerning IP focuses almost entirely on litigation fears or RandD incentives. Although RandD is an important aspect of IP, as previously mentioned, these discussions ignore the fact that IP protection can be—and often is—used for other purposes, including generating initial capital to create a company and begin manufacturing and, more importantly, using licensing agreements and IP to track the supply chain and ensure quality control of products. This report highlights but a handful of the thousands of IP-enabled innovations that have sprung forth over the past year in an effort to meet the tremendous challenges brought on by COVID-19 globally. In 2018, Forbes identified counterfeiting as the largest criminal enterprise in the world.15 The global struggle against counterfeit and non-regulated products, which has hit Latin America particularly hard during the pandemic, proves the need for safety and quality assurance in supply chains.16 Some communities already ravaged by COVID-19 are seeing higher mortality rates related to counterfeit vaccines, therapeutics, PPE, and cleaning and sanitizing products.17 Polish authorities discovered vials of antiwrinkle treatment labeled as COVID-19 vaccines. 18 In Mexico, fake vaccines sold for approximately $1,000 per dose.19 Chinese and South African police seized thousands of counterfeit vaccine doses from warehouses and manufacturing plants.20 Meanwhile, dozens of websites worldwide claiming to sell vaccines or be affiliated with vaccine manufacturers have been taken down.21 But the problem is not limited to biopharmaceuticals. The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center has recovered $48 million worth of counterfeit PPE and other products.22 Collaborative efforts between law enforcement and manufacturers have kept numerous counterfeits from reaching the population. In countries with strong IP protection, the chances of counterfeit products reaching the market are significantly lower. This is largely because counterfeiting tends to be an IP-related issue, and these countries generally provide superior means of tracking the supply chain through trademarks, trade secrets, and licensing agreements. This enables greater quality control and helps manufacturers maintain a level of public confidence in their products. By controlling the flow of knowledge associated with IP, voluntary licensing agreements provide innovators with opportunities to collaborate, while ensuring their partners are properly equipped and capable of producing quality products. Throughout this difficult time, the world has seen unexpected collaborations, especially between biopharmaceutical companies worldwide such as Gilead and Eva Pharma or Bharat Biotech and Ocugen, Inc. Throughout history, and most significantly in the nineteenth century through the widespread development of patent systems and the ensuing Industrial Revolution, IP has contributed toward greater economic growth.23 This is promising news as the world struggles for economic recovery. A 2021 joint study by the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and European Patent Office (EPO) shows a strong, positive correlation between IP rights and economic performance.24 It states that “IP-owning firms represent a significantly larger proportion of economic activity and employment across Europe,” with IP-intensive industries contributing to 45 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) (€6.6 trillion; US$7.9 trillion).25 The study also shows 38.9 percent of employment is directly or indirectly attributed to IP-intensive industries, and IP generates higher wages and greater revenue per employee, especially for small-to-medium-sized enterprises.26 That concords with the United States, where the Department of Commerce estimated that IP-intensive industries support at least 45 million jobs and contribute more than $6 trillion dollars to, or 38.2 percent of, GDP.27 In 2020, global patent filings through the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) system reached a record 275,900 filings amidst the pandemic, growing 4 percent from 2019.28 The top-four nations, which accounted for 180,530 of the patent applications, were China, the United States, Japan, and Korea, respectively.29 While several countries saw an increase in patent filings, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia both saw significant increases in the number of annual applications, with the top two filing growths of 73 percent and 26 percent, respectively.30 The COVID-19 pandemic slowed a lot of things, but it certainly couldn’t stop innovation. There are at least five principal benefits strong IP rights can generate, for both developing and developed countries alike.31 First, stronger IP protection spurs the virtuous cycle of innovation by increasing the appropriability of returns, enabling economic gain and catalyzing economic growth. Second, through patents—which require innovators to disclose certain knowledge as a condition of protection—knowledge spillovers build a platform of knowledge that enables other innovators. For instance, studies have found that the rate of return to society from corporate RandD and innovation activities is at least twice the estimated returns that each company itself receives.32 Third, countries with robust IP can operate more efficiently and productively by using IP to determine product quality and reduce transaction costs. Fourth, trade and foreign direct investment enabled and encouraged by strong IP protection offered to enterprises from foreign countries facilitates an accumulation of knowledge capital within the destination economy. That matters when foreign sources of technology account for over 90 percent of productivity growth in most countries.33 There’s also evidence suggesting that developing nations with stronger IP protections enjoy the earlier introduction of innovative new medicines.34 And fifth, strong IP boosts exports, including in developing countries.35 Research shows a positive correlation between stronger IP protection and exports from developing countries as well as faster growth rates of certain industries.36 The following case studies illustrate these benefits of IP and how they’ve enabled innovative solutions to help global society navigate the COVID-19 pandemic. Reducing IP protections sets a precedent that spills over to future public health crises. – Hopkins 21: Jared S. Hopkins {Jared S. Hopkins is a New York-based reporter for The Wall Street Journal covering the pharmaceutical industry, including companies such as Pfizer Inc. and Merck and Co. He previously was a health-care reporter at Bloomberg News and an investigative reporter at the Chicago Tribune. Jared started his career at The Times-News in Twin Falls, Idaho covering politics. In 2014, he was a finalist for the Livingston Award For Young Journalists for an investigation into charities founded by professional athletes. In 2011, he was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Reporting for a series about neglect at a residential facility for disabled kids. Jared graduated from the Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland-College Park with a bachelor's degree in journalism}, 21 - ("U.S. Support for Patent Waiver Unlikely to Cost Covid-19 Vaccine Makers in Short Term ," WSJ, 5-7-2021, https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-support-for-patent-waiver-unlikely-to-cost-covid-19-vaccine-makers-in-short-term-11620414260)//marlborough-wr/ The Biden administration’s unexpected support for temporarily waiving Covid-19 vaccine patents won’t have an immediate financial impact on the companies making the shots, industry officials and analysts said. Yet the decision could mark a shift in Washington’s longstanding support of the industry’s valuable intellectual property, patent-law experts said. A waiver, if it does go into effect, may pose long-term risks to the vaccine makers, analysts said. Moderna Inc., MRNA -4.12 Pfizer Inc. PFE -3.10 and other vaccine makers weren’t counting on sales from the developing countries that would gain access to the vaccine technology, analysts said. If patents and other crucial product information behind the technology is made available, it would take at least several months before shots were produced, industry officials said. Yet long-term Covid-19 sales could take a hit if other companies and countries gained access to the technologies and figured out how to use it. Western drugmakers could also confront competition sooner for other medicines they are hoping to make using the technologies. A World Trade Organization waiver could also set a precedent for waiving patents for other medicines, a long-sought goal of some developing countries, patient groups and others to try to reduce the costs of prescription drugs. “It sets a tremendous precedent of waiving IP rights that’s likely going to come up in future pandemics or in other serious diseases,” said David Silverstein, a patent lawyer at Axinn, Veltrop and Harkrider LLP who advises drugmakers. “Other than that, this is largely symbolic.” Indigenous Medicines PIC Indigenous people need strong intellectual property rights to traditional medicines – their unique medicinal knowledge is open to appropriation and theft from larger Western pharmaceutical companies without it – Sinela and Ramcharan ‘05 SINJELA, MPAZI, and ROBIN RAMCHARAN. “Protecting Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Medicines of Indigenous Peoples through Intellectual Property Rights: Issues, Challenges and Strategies.” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, vol. 12, no. 1, 2005, pp. 1–24. LK At one stage a desire began to emerge in indigenous circles for a forum in the United Nations that dealt not only with human rights issues but with the broad range of environmental, developmental and cultural issues affecting indigenous populations. This led to calls for the establishment, as a subsidiary body of the ECOSOC, of a permanent forum on indigenous issues. This forum was finally established in 2000 and met for the first time at UN headquarters in New York in the summer of 2002.9 The Permanent Forum has thus far held three sessions. As of the time of writing there is a debate going on whether the buo Commission's Working Group on Indigenous Populations should be continued in the light of the establishment of the Permanent Forum. Some governments have apparently favored the discontinuance of the Working Group while indigenous peoples favor its continuation. At the Summer Session of the ECOSOC in 2004 the Secretary General of the United Nations submitted a report summarizing the views of States and indigenous organizations on this issue, and, as of the time of writing, the issue still remains open. The study by Mr. Martinez Cobo, the Working Group on Indigenous issues, the working group on a draft declaration and the Permanent Forum have thus been the main building blocks within the United Nations in the past four decades to advance the human rights of indigenous peoples. In the course of their work, they have, inter alia, highlighted the need for the protection of the intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples. Following on from the work of Mr. Martinez Cobo, cultural heritage and intellectual property have been issues of interest to the Working Group. In 1992, the Working Group and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) held a Technical Conference on Indigenous peoples at which participants recommended that the United Nations develop more effective measures to protect the intellectual and cultural property rights of indigenous peoples.10 A 1993 report by Erica Daes, Chairperson of the Working Group, on the protection of cultural and intellectual property, noted that the term "'indigenous' embraces the notion of a distinct and separate culture and way of life, based on long-held traditions and knowledge which are connected, fundamentally, to a specific territory. Indigenous peoples cannot survive, or exercise their fundamental human rights as distinct nations, societies and peoples, without the ability to conserve, revive, develop and teach the wisdom they have inherited from their ancestors."" The Chairperson was "compelled to the conclusion" that the distinction between cultural and intellectual property, from the indigenous viewpoint, was an artificial one. Indeed, "Industrialized societies tend to distinguish between art and science, or between creative inspiration and logical analysis. Indigenous peoples regard all products of the human mind and heart as interrelated, and as flowing from the same source: the relationship between the people and their land, their kinship with other living creatures that share the land, and with the spirit world. Since the ultimate source of knowledge and creativity is the land itself, all of the art and science of a specific people are manifestations of the same underlying relationship, and can be considered as manifestations of the people as a whole."12 It is not a coincidence that Article 8(j) of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted at the Rio Earth Summit, creates legal obligations for States party to respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous people related to the conservation and sustainable use of bio diversity. The protection of cultural and intellectual property "is connected fundamentally with the realization of the territorial rights and self determination of indigenous peoples".13 The Chairpersons' report noted that the Working Group had received news from "indigenous representatives from every continent about the priority and urgency they attach to the protection of their spiritual and cultural life, arts and scientific and medical knowledge".14Consequently, the Draft Declaration prepared by the Sub-Commission, while recognizing in its preamble the "inherent rights and characteristics of indigenous peoples, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources," provided for the right to fully participate, inter alia, in the cultural life of the State (Article 4), the right to revitalize and practice their cultural traditions (Article 11), the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their language, oral traditions, writing systems and literatures (Article 13) and, more importantly for present purposes, "the right to their traditional medicines and health practices, including the right to the protection of vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals" (Article 22). In this vein, the draft Article 27 provides that "indigenous peoples have the right to special measures to protect, as intellectual property, their sciences, technologies and cultural manifestations, including genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs and visual performing arts". Moreover, Article 28 provides that States should seek the free and informed consent of indigenous peoples "prior to commencement of any projects on their lands and territories, particularly in connection with natural resource development or exploitation of mineral or other sub-surface resources".15 In December 1995, to give impetus to the Decade for Indigenous People, the UN General Assembly adopted a Program of activities aimed at strengthening international cooperation for the solution of problems faced by indigenous people in such areas as human rights, the environment, development, health, culture and education. Among the specific actions to be taken were: "the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous people and their empowerment to make choices which enable them to retain their cultural identity while participating in political, economic and social life, with full respect for their cultural values, languages, traditions and forms of social organization" and (ii) a request for specialized agencies of the UN system and other international and national agencies, as well as communities and private enterprises, "to devote special attention to development activities of benefit to indigenous peoples".16 WIPO has responded accordingly and the report by the Coordinator of the UN Decade for Indigenous Peoples has noted that WIPO's response "has been dramatic" as there is an entire division as part of the regular budget which is now responsible for traditional knowledge and related issues.17 The Permanent Forum has maintained a keen interest in traditional knowledge, soliciting information from all relevant parts of the UN system, notably WIPO.18 The last three sessions of WIPO have focused on its activities in the areas of intellectual property and genetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, and are described in greater detail below. Before proceeding to a consideration of the protection of the intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples, we shall in the next section, examine a major heritage of indigenous peoples - traditional medicine. TM, an important part of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE, refers to medicines used by local, tribal and indigenous communities. Such medicine is often herbal and sometimes combined with spiritual elements, such as those practiced by the shaman in tribal communities.19 TM has been refined over centuries of practice by communities who have inherited knowledge from their ancestors. For example, Felix, a member of the Arawak indigenous community of Guyana who works in the Shanklands resort on the banks of Essequibo River, conveyed his impressive knowledge of his community's medicinal uses of various plants and trees in the tropical rainforest. Using the native names of trees, he related the use of the 'yarula' tree for preventing and curing malaria, the use of the 'kakaballi' tree for treating diarrhea and the use of the 'capadulla' tree as a local viagra.20 While relying on textbooks for the Latin names, Felix's knowledge came from his father, the shaman in his community and from inherited knowledge among his people. Thus, often such knowledge is held communally and does not 'belong' to any single person or entity. Equally often, such knowledge cross-cuts communities as well as territorial boundaries. These aspects have implications for intellectual property protection, which we will consider below. The type of TM differs from community to community depending on the type of healing system that is historically prevalent. Until recently non-western healing systems and medicines were disregarded by western health systems, which insist on the development of medicines and healing techniques based on scientific proof and testing. Centuries-old healing systems of the world, such as Chinese traditional medicine and Indian Ayurveda, were given scant attention as the 'scientific' approach was allegedly missing. In Chinese medicine, for example, "disease is viewed as a disharmony of the various elements of the body and the personality of the patient. Chinese therapeutic thought concerns the entire organism's balance, rather than being devoted to clearly localizing and defining the nature of the illness" as in western medicine.21 The argument that non-western medicine is not based on scientific evidence may well ignore the centuries of trial and error, which has actually gone into making a particular medicine or remedy appropriate to a given community. Western science has grudgingly accepted alternative healing systems. However, they have readily sought after TRADITIONAL MEDICINE/IK, which could lead to the production of new drugs, "especially since the cost of putting new drugs on the market is becoming very high".22 Erica Daes noted in her 1993 report, cited above, that studies found that "using traditional knowledge increased the efficiency of screening plants for medical properties by more than 400 percent".23 Already by 1993, estimates of the total world sales of products derived from traditional medicines ran as high as USD 43 billion.24 However, only a tiny fraction of the profits are returned to the indigenous peoples and local communities. For example, it was estimated in the early 1990s, "that less than 0.001 per cent of profits from drugs developed from natural products and traditional knowledge accrue to the traditional people who provided technical leads for research".25 Attempts by Western governments and drug producing companies to harness such TRADITIONAL MEDICINE and TM for their own benefit have led to phenomena such as 'bio piracy' (theft of genetic resources by 'bioprospectors'). Concern has arisen for the preservation of biological diversity and genetic resources. The United States National Cancer Institute had already, by 1960, began a global program to collect and study naturally occurring substances and had tested some 35,000 plant species and a larger number of micro-organisms by 1981. This process intensified with the advent of research to combat AIDS. Pharmaceutical companies, necessarily driven by profit, have become increasingly aware of the potential economic rewards of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE/TM. Among the major US pharmaceutical companies engaged in screening plant species were Merck and Co., Smithkline Beecham, Monsanto, Sterling and Bristol Meyers. But this creates a conflict with the holders of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE/TM. The problem was stated thus by former Filipino President, Fidel Ramos at a ceremony for the signing of a Traditional and Alternative Health Care Law (R.A. 8423) in Manila on 9 December 1998: "We have looked forward to other nations for new technologies and cures, even for ordinary ailments. Indeed, many other nations have been exploiting the potentials of our own resources, claiming them as their own discoveries without giving due credit to us, and in addition to making tremendous profits at our own expense".26 The problem was recognized by Mrs. Daes in her report in 1993, namely that 'collectors' or bio-prospectors, "do not ordinarily have any formal contractual arrangements ... with the indigenous peoples upon whose knowledge of ecology they may rely. Indigenous people have also objected to alleged appropriation of their bodily substances which is taking place in the context of the Human Genome Diversity Project.28
CP Text: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines except for those medicines created, discovered, preserved, or primarily used by Indigenous peoples. IP rights for those medicines should be expanded in a flexible and culturally appropriate context according to principles of IP law including but not limited to repression of unfair competition, recognition of rights, equity and benefit-sharing, prior informed consent, full and effective participation of knowledge holders, and an appropriate framework for access as per the Sinjela and Ramcharan card. IP rights should never prevent Indigenous people from taking advantage of their own knowledge. SINJELA, MPAZI, and ROBIN RAMCHARAN 05 “Protecting Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Medicines of Indigenous Peoples through Intellectual Property Rights: Issues, Challenges and Strategies.” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, vol. 12, no. 1, 2005, pp. 1–24. mb-va The question is whether the existing laws, national and international, govern ing intellectual property allow for the effective protection of traditional knowl edge and folklore in particular. If the laws are not appropriate then is there a need for a sui generis system. On the latter point, a sui generis system must be in function of the needs and demands of the TRADITIONAL MEDICINE holders. As Kongolo and Shyllon note, "the fact is that knowledge that is claimed to have been 'invented' and hence 'patented' and converted into intellectual property is often an existing innovation in traditional or indigenous knowledge systems". With respect to the use of traditional medicinal plants, they posit four main issues for consideration: (1) whether the contribution of traditional knowledge to a final product is the sort of contribution that would allow one or more traditional persons to be considered joint inventor; (2) whether publication of information concerning indigenous plant use would bar the availability of a patent, (3) how to address the problems of compensation in the exploitation of herbal knowledge, and (4) whether devel oping countries should recognize through national legislation the rights of tradi tional flows from industrialized countries.61 Any system of protection must recognize the customary laws under which the knowledge evolved. In this connection, WIPO has noted, in the context of the work of the IGC, that, "the use of private property rights for TRADITIONAL MEDICINE protection should thus be carefully balanced with other policy measures to reflect the char acteristics of the protected TRADITIONAL MEDICINE, the stakeholder interests involved, the customary uses, and custodianship patterns. Most countries which have implemented TRADITIONAL MEDICINE protection have therefore supplemented a limited use of private property rights with a combination of other measures."62 Examples of sui generis initiatives include the combination of the grant of exclusive rights with access regulation in Brazil; combination of defensive protection of native insignia with repression of unfair competition in native Indian products in the United States; and combina tion of exclusive property rights, access regulation and unfair competition law to create tailored TRADITIONAL MEDICINE protection measures in Costa Rica and Portugal. "By learning from such national experiences, the combined or comprehensive approach would thus join different legal doctrines and policy tools which have been identified by Member States and have been proven effective in their jurisdictions in order to achieve an appropriate form of protection."63 Thus a 'bundle of rights and methods' may be best suited for the protection of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE. This combined approach "would result in the availability of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE protec tion through a bundle of rights at the national level, which would include the use of existing IP rights, sui generis measures, and non-IP tools, such as access reg ulation and contractual agreements". 61 T. Kongolo and F. Shyllon, 'Panorama of the Most Controversial IP Issues in Developing Countries', 6 European Intellectual Property Review, p. 260. 62 WIPO, Traditional Knowledge: Policy and Legal Options, WIPO/GRTRADITIONAL MEDICINEF/IC/6/4, 12 December 2003, para. 11. The international dimension of protection is addressed in-depth in doc ument WIPO/GRTRADITIONAL MEDICINEF/IC/6/6. Defensive protection of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE is covered only briefly, since documents WIPO/GRTRADITIONAL MEDICINEF/IC/5/6 and WIPO/GRTRADITIONAL MEDICINE.F/IC/6/8 cover this more extensively. 63 6. Key Legal Issues for the Protection of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE/TM What, then, are the core principles and legal doctrines that must underwrite the protection of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE. For this purpose we rely on WIPO studies undertaken for the IGC.64 The principles and doctrines enumerated below have emerged from exten sive discussions within the IGC on national experiences of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE protection. 6.1. Core Principles First, a comprehensive and combined approach is a starting point. It is recog nized that a comprehensive and TRADITIONAL MEDICINE specific approach must be taken using exist ing IP mechanisms, the repression of unfair competition, the grant of exclusive sui generis rights and/or the application of prior informed consent requirements linked to access regimes. It has been noted that a "bundle of rights" and meth ods might be applied for protection. Such a combined approach is not foreign to conventional IP law. For example, ornamental or visually distinctive aspects of products can be protected by a combination of copyright, individual or unfair competition law. Second, the repression of unfair competition, including appropriation and mis take of distinctive traditional characteristics. This may entail the suppression of any false, misleading or culturally offensive references to TRADITIONAL MEDICINE in the commercial arena, and any false or misleading indications or linkage with or endorsement of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE holders. Third, the principle of recognition of rights of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE holders, pertains to con ventional IP rights arising from innovation and intellectual creativity contained in TRADITIONAL MEDICINE elements, as well as to sui generis exclusive rights that may be available for TRADITIONAL MEDICINE. Aggrieved TRADITIONAL MEDICINE holders should be able to seek remedies for misuse of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE and possibly to gain remuneration and benefit-sharing. Fourth, the principle of prior informed consent (PIC) entails confirming that TRADITIONAL MEDICINE, held by a traditional community should not be accessed, recorded, used or commercialized without the prior informed consent of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE holders. Fifth, the principle of equity and benefit-sharing, entails protecting TRADITIONAL MEDICINE in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, balancing rights and obliga tions, and the equitable sharing of benefits. "A broad principle of equity is cen tral to IP law, and is also implied in non-IP international legal instruments".65 Sixth, the principle of regulatory diversity, including sectoral distinctions, entails that a comprehensive use of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE protection "may need to reflect distinct policy objectives in specific sectors, and may need to be integrated with several regulatory systems at the national level".66 Distinct measures have been taken in some countries to regulate traditional medicine, traditional agricultural practices, TRADITIONAL MEDICINE associated with genetic resources and tradition-based industries.67 64 Ibid., para. 22. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid., para. 23. 67 Seventh, a principle of adapting the form of protection to the nature of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE. Whatever law is adopted, that law may be shaped or guided by the particular characteristics of the TRADITIONAL MEDICINE. TRADITIONAL MEDICINE may be disclosed or undisclosed, attributable or unattributable, collectively or individually held, codified or uncodified, and may be defined and bounded by diverse forms of customary laws and protocols."68 Eighth, a principle of effective and appropriate remedies entails "making avail able effective and expeditious remedies such as injunctions and penalties, or mechanisms for payment of use fees or other compensation where there is out right prohibition on third party use".69 Ninth, a principle of safeguarding customary uses entails the encouragement of the use of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE and associated genetic resources, which "should not be restrained by the formal legal protection of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE, nor by other IP rights".70 Tenth, the principle of consistency with access and benefit-sharing frameworks for associated genetic resources entails adopting measures which regulate access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing. Legal protection of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE associated with genetic resources should be coordinated with policy frameworks for associated genetic resources, including conservation, sustainable use and benefit-sharing.71 Related principles governing procedural and consultative process might be con sidered including the principle of full and effective participation of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE holders and the principle of coordination with other relevant fora and processes.72 These principles clearly are geared towards affording maximum flexibility to TRADITIONAL MEDICINE holders, legislators and policy makers. The development of a bundle or menu of legal and policy options, "flexibility can be achieved by drawing selectively on general legal doctrines in order to tailor the form of protection to specific needs, TRADITIONAL MEDICINE subject matter and the legal systems of a given jurisdiction".73 6.2. Legal Doctrines and Policy Tools Various doctrines have been used as policy tools for TRADITIONAL MEDICINE protection in national law. Their selective use "could build a sufficiently versatile doctrinal basis for TRADITIONAL MEDICINE protection". The major doctrines are as follows. The first is the grant of exclusive property rights for TRADITIONAL MEDICINE. Such rights may be communally or collectively held. This is for TRADITIONAL MEDICINE that is distinct and has a clear owner. Existing IP rights have been used to protect TRADITIONAL MEDICINE or TRADITIONAL MEDICINE related subject matter. For example, practitioners of traditional medicine have protected their innovations by using patent rights under patent systems. An example is China, which granted 4479 patents for Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in 2002.74 Where existing exclusive IP rights are deemed to be insufficient to take into 68 Ibid., para. 24. 65 Ibid., para. 25. 70 Ibid., para. 26. 71 Ibid., para. 27. 72 76id., paras. 28-30. 73 76/d., para. 31. 74 The Economist, supra note 43. 21 account the specificities of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE, sui generis rights have been called for. Difficul ties have arisen in this regard: meeting requirements of novelty or originality, and inventive step or non-obviousness; requirements in many IP laws for protected subject-matter to be fixed in material form; and the frequently informal nature of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE and the customary laws and protocols that define ownership; concern that protection systems should correspond to a positive duty to preserve and maintain TRADITIONAL MEDICINE, and not merely provide means to prevent unauthorized use; perceived tension between individualistic notions of IP rights and the sense of collective owner ship of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE; and limitations on the term of protection in IP systems (20 years in the case of patents).75 The second, is the application of the principle of prior informed consent (PIC). This enables a regulatory framework so as to control the use of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE by third par ties and ensure a flow of benefits to the knowledge holders, in ways consistent with the collective nature of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE. The third, is the compensatory liability approach, which would entitle TRADITIONAL MEDICINE holders to compensatory contributions from TRADITIONAL MEDICINE users who borrowed traditional know-how for industrial applications of their own during a specified period of time. This would ensure that TRADITIONAL MEDICINE holders gain a share of the economic and moral rewards resulting from exploitation of such knowledge and at the same time con tribute to ensuring access to such knowledge. The fourth, is repression of unfair competition. The law of unfair competition includes a wide range of remedies, including repression of misleading and decep tive trade practices, unjust enrichment, passing off, and taking of unfair com mercial advantage. The fifth, is recognition of customary laws and protocols, "which functions as a cross-cutting interface with local legal systems in all the above-mentioned tools".76 An African Model Law77 and the sui generis laws of Peru78 and the Philippines79 incorporate customary laws by reference to such laws. 7. Strategies and interim measures These then are the main legal principles and doctrines, which must be consid ered. At the national level, several steps are vital in the search for a functioning and effective TRADITIONAL MEDICINE protection system. 75 Ibid., para. 21. 76 Ibid., para. 45. 77 African Model Law for Protection of the Rights of Local Communities, Farmers and Breeders and the regulation of access to Biological Resources, 2000. 78 See 'Efforts at Protecting Traditional Knowledge: The Experience of Peru', document prepared for WIPO Roundtable on Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge, Geneva, 1-2 November 1999. See also WIPO, Intellectual Property Needs and Expectations of Traditional Knowledge Holders. WIPO Report on Fact-finding Missions on Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge (1998-1999) Report of Fact Finding missions of the WIPO, Publication No. 768. ™ Philippines Executive Order, No. 247, 1995, Section 2(a). Policy objectives have to be clearly defined for any sui generis system. In the case of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE and TM, for example, the following objectives could be considered: - to create an appropriate system for access to TRADITIONAL MEDICINE - to ensure fair and equitable benefit-sharing for TRADITIONAL MEDICINE - to promote respect, preservation, wider application and development of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE - to provide mechanisms for the enforcement of rights of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE holders; and - to improve the quality of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE-based products and remove low quality tra ditional medicine. (ii) The scope of the subject matter has to be defined and eligible for TRADITIONAL MEDICINE pro tection. The use of appropriate terms and criteria for eligibility has to be clearly spelled out. (iii) Formal requirements for acquisition of rights need to be established. For example, TRADITIONAL MEDICINE protection may be automatic (as in copyright protection which is automatic upon creation of the work) or a formal step may be required, such as registering the TRADITIONAL MEDICINE before protection becomes effective (as in the case of a trademark). (iv) Substantive criteria for eligibility must be established. For example, in Panama's sui generis law, only elements of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE that remain 'traditional', that is intrin sically linked to the community that has originated them, would be pro tected under the sui generis system.80 (v) The nature of rights in TRADITIONAL MEDICINE conferred depends on the legal doctrine or com bination of doctrines used for protection (vi) The scope of rights will determine the degree of control, which the right holder will be able to exercise. Potential rights may include prevention of unauthorized access to protected TRADITIONAL MEDICINE, unauthorized commercial use of such TRADITIONAL MEDICINE, third party claims over protected TRADITIONAL MEDICINE and so on. (vii) Determination of the custodians or beneficiaries. Does an individual or the community own the TRADITIONAL MEDICINE? Is TRADITIONAL MEDICINE understood in the national context to refer to a collective product? This may then dictate the granting of collective rights and not to individuals. On the other hand, distinctive right holders may not be necessary, as collective marks and certification marks may be protected on behalf of a group of beneficiaries. (viii) Expiration and loss of rights. The duration of rights, normally a key issue, may be problematic, as sui generis systems sometimes do not contain expiration and loss of rights provisions. Article 23 of the African Model Law states that community intellectual rights "shall at all times remain inalienable".8' (ix) Sanctions and enforcement. Appropriate mechanisms will need to be devised. Ley de Propiedad Intellectual Indigena, Ley No. 20 (26 June 2000). African Model Law, supra note 77. Defensive protection. This involves, for example, the publication of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE on a digital database, so as to record that a particular community has been using that knowledge. This may avoid the misguided grant of patents men tioned above. (xi) Linkages with benefit sharing schemes. As some TRADITIONAL MEDICINE is closely related to biological and genetic resources, such as when these resources are linked with traditional ways of life, regulation of access to biological resources may serve as a basis for protection of TRADITIONAL MEDICINE. In this regard, related conven tions such as the CBD will have to be closely studied
AT Innovation Patents are good-~--key to innovation Laxminarayan 1, Ramanan Laxminarayan directs the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics and Policy. He is also a Senior Research Scholar and Lecturer at Princeton University. - See more at: http://www.cddep.org/profile/ramanan_laxminarayan#sthash.YqaghohJ.dpuf Spring 2001 http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-Resources-143-antibiotic.pdf The Role of Patents Firms that manufacture antibiotics face conflicting incentives with respect to resistance. On the one hand, bacterial resistance to a product can reduce the demand for that product. On the other hand, the resistance makes old drugs obsolete and can therefore encourage investment in new antibiotics. Pharmaceutical firms are driven to maximize profits during the course of the drug’s effective patent life—the period of time between obtaining regulatory approval for the antibiotic and the expiration of product and process patents to manufacture the drug. Given the paucity of tools at the policymaker’s disposal, the use of patents to influence antibiotic use may be worth considering. A longer effective patent life could increase incentives for a company to minimize resistance, since the company would enjoy a longer period of monopoly benefits from its antibiotic’s effectiveness. Patent breadth is another critical consideration. When resistance is significant, other things being equal, it may be prudent to assign broad patents that cover an entire class of antibiotics rather than a single antibiotic. In such a situation, the benefits of preserving effectiveness could outweigh the cost to society of greater monopoly power associated with broader patents. Broad patents may prevent many firms from competing inefficiently for the same pool of effectiveness embodied in a class of antibiotics, while providing an incentive to develop new antibiotics. TRIPs encourages innovation Margaret Kyle and Yi Qian 14, Kyle is Professor of Economics. Center for Industrial Economics, “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND ACCESS TO INNOVATION: EVIDENCE FROM TRIPS,” https://www.nber.org/papers/w20799 The TRIPS Agreement, which generally strengthened and harmonized IPRs across countries, does appear to have changed market outcomes. On average, access to new pharmaceuticals has at least not decreased following TRIPS. Point estimates show an increase in the probability of new product launch and quantities sold, although differences are not always statistically significant. While patents are also associated with higher prices, there is some evidence that prices in poorer countries have fallen, though not to the level of off-patent products. However, the effect of IPRs may be confounded by other policy changes. It is certainly possible that in the absence of countervailing policies, stronger IPRs would have resulted in a larger increase in prices. It is also likely that IPRs have very different implications for countries with a large generic sector (e.g., India) than for most of the developing countries we examine. Nevertheless, we believe the results should be considered relatively good news about the relationship between IPRs and access to innovative medicines, although considerable work remains to improve the latter. Longer patents are net-good, downsides aren’t outweighed by the benefits David Abrams 9, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School, “Did TRIPS Spur Innovation? An Empirical Analysis of Patent Duration and Incentives to Innovate,” https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/274/ Let us consider the increase in value of innovation due to a one– standard-deviation increase in patent-term extension. The standard deviation of the term extension (by class) is 114 days (see Figure 6 for the full distribution). Multiplying this by the coefficient above, we find that a one-standard-deviation increase in patent term extension is associated with an increase of about seven monthly patents. From a mean of approximately thirty-four, in percentage terms, this comes to a twenty-one percent increase in value of innovation—a very substantial increase. It seems unlikely that the deadweight loss due to exclusive rights would be enough to offset this considerable gain, suggesting that an increase in patent terms could lead to greater welfare. AT Global Health inequality 1NC-~--TRIPS=/=GHI
TRIPS reduces global health inequality Samir Raheem Alsoodani 15, “"The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) may offered an access to essential pharmaceutical drugs for developing countries,” Journal Of the College of law /Al-Nahrain University 2015, Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages 393-410, https://www.iasj.net/iasj/article/109180 To conclude, it is beyond doubt that the TRIPS Agreement and its later, permanent amendment of 2005 attempted in good faith to address an urgent issue faced by many developing countries with regards to accessing essential medicine. To a certain extent in its basic tenets, it has had a profound and positive effect on the system, as it has made permanently possible the opportunity for the poorest countries to obtain medications more cheaply through manufacture in developing countries under a compulsory licensing system. Certain positive outcomes arguably include the fact that disputes have been brought under the jurisdiction of one regulatory body, and the least developed Members have found some redress in the power balance regarding costs paid to the pharmaceutical industries based in the wealthier, developed countries (even if this redress has only been to the extent of facilitating increased bargaining capability). This can be considered a triumph from the perspective of universal human rights. AT HIV/AIDS No solvency—there are already generic versions of HIV/AIDS drugs. Kapczynski 19 Amy Kapczynski professor of law at Yale Law School, faculty co-director of the Global Health Justice Partnership, and co-founder of the Law and Political Economy Blog, 19 - ("The Right to Medicines in an Age of Neoliberalism," Humanity Journal, 4-26-2019, http://humanityjournal.org/issue10-1/the-right-to-medicines-in-an-age-of-neoliberalism/)//ML Why are these newer medicines so astronomically costly? Not because they are costly to make, but because producers enjoy monopoly rights. For example, a new breakthrough treatment for hepatitis C can be made for as little as $170, but the company holding the key patents priced it at $84,000 in the United States.85 This is, in fact, one of the core insights that fueled the access to medicines campaign: HIV medicines that were being sold for $10,000 to $15,000 a year (and that must be taken for life) could be sold for as little as $100 in the absence of monopoly.86 The treatment of millions of people with HIV in the global South has been, in fact, predicated on the use of cheaper, high-quality generic medicines, often imported from India or made locally.¶
Reducing patent protections doesn’t stop pharma companies from existing or from having the resources to produce medicines based on TRADITIONAL MEDICINE more cheaply than their Native/Indigenous creators and keepers – in the world of the aff, those Indigenous people are left with no way to safeguard their knowledge, creating a world where their practice of traditional medicine and healing is disrespected but pharma-produced drugs using the same compounds and techniques generate billions for settler-owned corporations. We use existing IP laws to not only protect TRADITIONAL MEDICINE from exploitative and nonconsensual use but to encourage its protection and continued use by its Native originators.
11/6/21
SO- T v K Affs
Tournament: Heart of Texas Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Little Rock Central XJ | Judge: Clement Agho-Otoghile NC – T v K Affs (2:00) Interpretation: the affirmative must defend the hypothetical implementation of the resolution or a subset thereof – The World Trade Organization is an international body that oversees global trade. Tarver 6/15 Evan Tarver bachelor's in finance and economics from San Diego State University-California, 21 - ("How Best to Define the World Trade Organization (WTO)," Investopedia, 6-15-2021, accessed 7-5-2021, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wto.asp)//ML Created in 1995, the World Trade Organization (WTO) is an international institution that oversees the global trade rules among nations . It superseded the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) created in the wake of World War II.¶ The WTO is based on agreements signed by the majority of the world’s trading nations. The main function of the organization is to help producers of goods and services, as well as exporters and importers, protect and manage their businesses . As of 2021, the WTO has 164 member countries , with Liberia and Afghanistan the most recent members, having joined in July 2016, and 25 “observer” countries and governments.1 Intellectual property includes patents, trademarks, and copyrights Yang 19 James Yang (patent attorney). “Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them.” OC Patent Lawyer. 2019. JDN. https://ocpatentlawyer.com/four-types-intellectual-property-protect-idea/¶ To protect your idea so that someone else cannot steal your idea, you need to secure one or more of the four different types of intellectual property (IP). Intellectual property rights are exclusionary rights given to authors, inventors, and businesses for their literary and artistic works of authorship, useful and ornamental inventions, and valuable information.¶ Every invention generally starts as an inventor’s trade secret. Before inventors market their inventions, they need to secure one or more of the other forms of intellectual property protection – patents, trademarks, and copyrights.¶ FOUR TYPES OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS¶ The four types of intellectual property include:¶ Trade Secrets¶ Trademarks¶ Copyrights, and¶ Patents .¶ The first type of intellectual property right is a trade secret. All inventions generally start as a trade secret of the inventor. Inventors have an instinctual desire to keep their ideas secret. To market your invention, you should protect your idea with one or more of the other types of intellectual property rights: patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Reduce is to decrease in size or amount Merriam Webster no date - ("Definition of REDUCE," Merriam Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reduce)//ML to draw together or cause to converge : CONSOLIDATE ¶reduce all the questions to one b(1): to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number ¶reduce taxes ¶reduce the likelihood of war Vote negative – the ballot only signifies a win or loss within debate as a game, and their aff is outside the constraints of that game Not reading a topical aff creates incredible structural advantages for the aff – they get first and last speech and perms which means without a stable advocacy they get to morph their aff into whatever minimizes direct clash, and allows for a retreat to moral high ground There’s two Impacts –
Clash – it’s a pre-requisite to debate which is an intrinsic good since we are all here for the purpose of debating – yes this may seem tautological, but so is every impact – you should use your ballot to assert that since we all took our weekend and spent it here, that clash does have meaning 2. Iterative argumentative testing – the ability to subject controversial ideas to rigorous testing allows debaters to better engage in the research process, discern what arguments are most accurate, and learn how to refine our own beliefs to become more compelling advocates – not reading a plan allows a constant spew of new content that never reaches those high levels of contestation without the constraints of the topic – Even if this topic isn’t the perfect topic, the predictability of debates under it are worth potential substantive tradeoff. Without a bridge for subjecting beliefs to a rigorous test, we are left with might-makes-right. Cheryl MISAK Philosophy @ Toronto ‘8 “A Culture of Justification: The Pragmatist's Epistemic Argument for Democracy” Episteme 5 (1) p. 100-104 The charge that Rorty has had to face again and again is that he really is a relativist, holding that one belief is no better than another, and that one must “treat the epistemic standards of any and every epistemic community as on a par” (Haack 1995, 136). Rorty, that is, leaves us with no way of adjudicating claims that arise in different communities. It is argued that this is not only an unsatisfactory view, but it is incompatible with his commitment to his own set of beliefs and with his practice of arguing or giving reasons for them. Peirce would join in this charge, arguing that it is the community of inquirers or reasoners that matter, not this or that local community. One of Rorty’s responses to this clutch of objections is to say that he doesn’t have to treat the epistemic standards of every community as on a par: “I prize communities which share more background beliefs with me above those which share fewer” (Rorty 1995b, 153). There is nothing incoherent about asserting that your community has it right, for all “right” amounts to is what your community agrees upon. I have argued (2000, 12ff) that this kind of comeback puts Rorty in a very difficult position, giving him nothing to say against the likes of Carl Schmitt , the fascist legal philosopher who found it natural to join the Nazi bandwagon. Schmitt, like Rorty, argued that there is no truth and rationality in politics . Rather, politics is the arena in which groups assert themselves, with the strongest coming out on top and the weaker groups disappearing. One makes an existential choice – opts for a conception of the good – and then tries to attain “substantive homogeneity” in the population. Might ends up being right and the elimination of those who disagree with us ends up being a fine method of reaching our political decisions . A democrat or liberal like Rorty has an impossible time in giving us – and himself – reasons for opting for his view rather than his fascist opponent’s view. Once you give up aiming at truth, once you give up aiming at something that goes beyond the standards of your own community, then you give up the wherewithal to argue against the might-is-right view. The charge I am trying to answer here, on behalf of the non-Rortian pragmatist, is that mixing truth and politics is dangerous. One of the points I want to make is that, whatever the dangers are in saying morals and politics aim at the truth, the dangers of denying it are even more alarming. If we were to get rid of the notion of truth, nothing would protect us from the idea that there is nothing to get right, no better or worse action, and no better or worse way of treating others. Nothing would protect us from the Schmittian worldview. Another point is that the pragmatist view encourages something which is downright salutary, not dangerous at all. It encourages a culture of justification, a culture the importance of which grows as we face the challenges of living in a global society with worldviews struggling against each other . This thought was prominent in the debate about how the new democratic order in South Africa should be conceived. Here is how Etienne Murienik put it: If the new constitution is a bridge away from a culture of authority, it is clear what it must be a bridge to. It must lead to a culture of justification – a culture in which every exercise of power is expected to be justified; in which the leadership given by government rests on the cogency of the case offered in defense of its decisions, not the fear inspired by the force of its command. The new order must be a community built on persuasion , not on coercion.4 A final point rests on the nature of the kinds of answers the pragmatist envisions. Rorty and Rawls seem to think that any view of truth carries with it the idea that there is one and only one true answer to every question. It is important to see that, whatever the case might be for other views of truth, the pragmatist’s view of truth does not entail anything about the precise nature of right answers. On the Peircean view of truth, it might be true that the best solution to a problem is to compromise in a certain way. Or a question might have a number of equally right answers: it might be true that either A or B or C is an acceptable solution to a problem. That is, bringing truth into politics need not result in a view on which one theory of the good triumphs over the others. Indeed, the pragmatist account of truth does not require agreement at the end of the day (whatever that might mean) and it does not require the consent of all who are affected by a particular decision here and now. The right answer to a question might be one that only a few see is right. A right answer is the one that would be best – would stand up to the evidence and arguments – were we to inquire into the matter as far as we fruitfully could . That is, we are not primarily aiming at agreement in deliberation – we are aiming at getting a view that will stand up to reasons and evidence . That said, there may be cases in moral and especially political deliberation in which we do aim for agreement because we think that what will best stand up to reasons in that case is a solution that is agreed upon by all or by all who are affected. But this will be just one kind of case amongst many. Right answers aren’t necessarily answers that are acceptable by all. Nor are right answers necessarily those that resolve a conflict with a compromise, although sometimes a compromise or cooperative solution may indeed be what is required. Nor is bargaining always not conducive to truth – in some cases, that may be exactly what is required. This view of truth does not lead to zeal, oppression, closing off of discussion, or a squashing of pluralism, even if it might happen to be the case that there is only one reasonable conception of the good out there. The idea is that we are always aiming at getting the best answer – whatever that may be – and to do that we need to take into account the views of all. 6 . WHO DECIDES? One of the first questions put to those who would like to think of politics as a species of truth-oriented deliberation is this: why deliberate with the ignorant multitude? Would it not be better to expose our moral and political beliefs only to the reasons and experience of experts? Science, after all, doesn’t work by asking the person in the street what he or she thinks about quantum mechanics. The reason that the pragmatist’s epistemic justification is a justification of democratic politics, rather than of a hierarchical politics, in which an elite makes decisions, is that we do not and will not ever have an identifiable pool of moral and political experts. Dewey saw this clearly. As experts become specialized, “they are shut off from knowledge of the needs which they are supposed to serve” (Dewey 1926/1984, 364). Everyone engages in moral and political deliberation and it is not obvious that having special education makes you better at it – just look at priests, politicians, and moral philosophers/political theorists and ask yourself if they seem especially decent or especially wise when it comes to practical matters. Some people are good at examining moral and politi\cal issues, but it’s not clear that they are the ones trained to do so. Even if we could identify genuinely wise people, this kind of expertise is liable to be corrupted merely by being identified – merely by the wise person starting to think of herself as a moral expert.5 And it is far from clear that the rule of the wise would really take the views and experiences of all into account better than the democratic rule of the people. So how do we distinguish deliberating well and deliberating badly if we cannot appeal to education and training? No account of deliberative democracy can ignore the call to make the distinction. The trouble is that, in saying what good, as opposed to poor, deliberation amounts to, one finds oneself facing a justificatory problem: how can we specify what good deliberation is without simply assuming that our current standards of deliberation and inquiry are the gold standards? (This is the deep and central question of pragmatism: how do genuine norms arise out of contingent practices?) It will be unsurprising that I agree with Robert Talisse that the way forward is to focus on an epistemic justification of the whole range of deliberative virtues. Some of the virtues we think important in inquiry are open- mindedness, courage, honesty , integrity, rigor, willingness to listen to the views of others and to seriously entertain challenges to one’s own views , willingness to put oneself in another’s shoes, and the like. These virtues may well have a number of kinds of justifications – justifications, for instance, with their origins in the canons of etiquette or in this or that substantive moral or religious view. Politeness and Christianity (do unto others . . . ), for instance,may both dictate that we should listen to the views of others. But this kind of justification doesn’t break out of the circle of local practices. Talisse argues that the virtues are justified because they lead to true belief. Listening to others is not merely the polite thing to do, but it is also good because we might learn something. The epistemic argument I have presented on Peirce’s behalf gets us this far: we need to expose our beliefs to the views of others if we are to follow a method that will get us good or better or true beliefs. Talisse takes us the next step – there are other characteristics that make one an inquirer who aims at the truth. Honesty is the trait of following reasons and evidence, rather than self-interest. Modesty is the trait of taking your views to be fallible. Charity is willingness to listen to the views of others. Integrity is willingness to uphold the deliberative process, no matter the difficulties encountered. The distinction between deliberating well (having deliberative virtues) and deliberating badly (having deliberative vices), that is, is drawn in terms of whether a method promotes beliefs which are responsive to and fit with the reasons and evidence. 7 . THE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY The pragmatist has offered us a compelling reason to take the views of others seriously and encourage the values associated with deliberative democratic politics. For inquirers must engage in the ongoing project of continually subjecting their beliefs to the tests of further experience and argument. The virtues inherent in a deliberative model of democratic citizenship must be cultivated if we are to come to good beliefs about how to treat others, how to resolve conflicts, and how to arrange society. The model of democratic citizenship which results is one that makes democratic citizenship part of a culture of justification. Citizens search for how best to structure our institutions and how best to live our lives. Democratic citizenship is a quest to get things right, with a genuine engagement in looking for right answers to pressing questions.We are not after mere agreement and we are not after the transformation of initial preferences into something that others can accept. We aim at getting things right – at getting beliefs that would forever stand up to scrutiny . In so aiming, citizens commit themselves to abiding by the decisions produced by the democratic procedure. For those decisions are the best we can do here and now. Here we find the justification of the coercive power of democracies. Eventually there has to be a decision in politics. The question that faces all societies is who decides and who wields the power to coerce once the decision is made? My argument is that as more people deliberate and more reasons and experience go into the mix, it will become more likely that the decisions made will account for the reasons and experience of all. The more likely, that is, that the answer will be right. Decisions produced by a democratic deliberative process are made by a rational method and so they are enforceable. Frame procedural impacts through a lens of optimization – we don’t need to win they make the game impossible, just relatively less effective. In the same way you would vote aff to reject a bad process CP even if there are theoretically solvency deficits based on certainty and immediacy – the fact that we still have some neg ground doesn’t mean that reading the cap k for the 87th time against a survival strategy aff is a good debate to have for anyone involved They have no offense
View T impacts as a process, not a product – any education impact about their content being important are solved by reading a book – filter impacts through what is unique to the process of debating itself 2. They get to read it on the neg – if their k of being topical is true then reading the aff as a K on the neg means they get auto-wins, we still access their education, and if forces affs to shift to better arguments 3. The TVA solves – they could have read an aff that - this would allow a discussion of the aff in a forum that allows us to have nuanced responses – yes, it isn’t perfect, but those imperfections are neg ground – if they aren’t forced to defend a controversy, then the meaning of any wins the gets become hollow anyway which takes out solvency
10/17/21
SO- Vaccine Equity CP
Tournament: Heart of Texas Invitational | Round: 5 | Opponent: Peninsula EL | Judge: Faizaan Dossani Advantage CP Counterplan text: States should increase Covax support, prioritise trade facilitation, commit to aid for trade, and invest in preparedness. Gonzalez 21 Violeta Gonzalez Behar is head of partnerships, communications, and resource mobilization at the Enhanced Integrated Framework, a sustainable trade multilateral partnership at the World Trade Organization. In this capacity, she leads a global team in helping EIF build strategic partnerships, communicate results, and secure financing for operations in 51 developing economies. “Opinion: 4 ways to promote vaccine equity through trade”. 8-1-2021. Devex. https://www.devex.com/news/opinion-4-ways-to-promote-vaccine-equity-through-trade-100457. Accessed 8-12-2021; MJen Vaccine inequity is...pandemic inevitably hits.