P.hd in Studies in Science Policy: Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and other Regulatory Mechanisms in the era of ‘de-Regulation’

P.hd in Studies in Science Policy: Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and other Regulatory Mechanisms in the era of ‘de-Regulation'

The Centre offers M.Phil/Ph.D. and direct Ph.D. programmes. The M.Phil. programme requires completion of 24 credits in four semesters. Direct Ph.D. programme is open to scholars who have completed an M.Phil. degree in one of the social or natural science disciplines or demonstrated their research capability by way of equivalent published work in science policy studies. The Centre strongly recommends such direct Ph.D. scholars to audit courses at the M.Phil. level for two semesters while pursuing research.

Analysis in Science and Technology Policy
Research Methodology
Science and Technology in a Social Context
Technology Futures Analysis
Economics of Technological Change Innovation Systems
Technology, Environmentalism and Sustainable Development
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR):A Foundation Course

Recent years have witnessed a phenomenal growth of institutions aimed at shaping and regulating the trajectories of scientific progress and technological change. On one hand, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) institutions have been strengthened to a considerable extent. On the other hand, a plethora of other regulating institutions have came into being with an aim to regulate unintended consequences of new technologies on society and environment. In a nutshell, the recent developments in the institutional framework have two main characteristics:

a. their specific focus on issues of international trade (rather than distribution and capability building issues), and

b. a rigorous attempt to homogenize the institutional framework across the globe.

Some more notable among them are the TRIPS, The Cartagena Protocol of Biosafety Norms, International Conference on Harmonization (of medicinal quality), and international manufacturing norms like ISO. There are certain regulatory mechanisms under GATS for higher educational institutions.

However, this development has raised various controversies, among academicians and policy makers. In particular, the efficacy of homogenization of institutions between countries with diverse social norms, informal institutions, and developmental requirement has come under serious attack. Within the discourse of IPR regime two main issues arise:

a) Whether the old styled institution of IPR, which was originally framed to address the intellectual property rights issues of uni-disciplinary areas like mechanical and chemical technologies, is capable to provide incentive for research and development in new technologies like biotechnology and information technology, which are essentially multidisciplinary in nature.

b) Implications of the recent trend of appropriating university research, through patents and other means, on the progress of scientific knowledge is being critically examined. In particular, which aspects of science and technology should be appropriated through IPR and which aspects should be put in the public domain of knowledge is being discussed and debated widely.

Interestingly, this increasing trend towards regulating science and technological activities are taking place in an era, which sought to de regulate economic activities from the red tapes of bureaucratic hassles and governmental interventions. The differences between these two types of regulatory mechanisms need to be studied extensively in this regard.