BioSLR latest issuePublished by Lawtext Publishing, Oxford, the Bio-Science Law Review's issue 4 for 2004/2005 has just appeared. It's a somewhat slender issue, but carries some interesting content:
The IPKat always enjoys seeing the BioSLR, though he remains perpetually perplexed as to how it numbers its issues. This one is deemed to be issue four of 2004/2005, though the Kat thinks it could put in a good claim for being issue 1 of 2006 ...* In 2004 the World Health Organization set up its Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health. The ICC Commission on Intellectual Property has made a submission to it. Nigel Jones (Linklaters), who drafted the ICC's submission, introduces and contextualises it for BioSLR readers;
* Raymond R. Mandra and Alicia A. Russo (Fitzpatrick Cella Harper & Scinto, New York) look at the regulatory basis for stem cell research in the United States, reminding us that regulation can kick in at state level as well as federally;
* Craig Khan (Adams & Adams, Pretoria, South Africa) takes a quick look at bioprospecting in the context of the local National Biodiversity Act 2004, part of which came into force at the beginning of this year.
LATEST BIO-SLR
![LATEST BIO-SLR]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Monday, January 23, 2006
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html