SNAP 2007 Question Paper

The following is an excerpt from a recent article by David Ewing Duncan. Read the passage and answer the questions within its context.

Eye surgeon Virendar Sangwan has perfected a procedure so cutting-edge that most who have tried it have failed. In an operating theatre in the central Indian city of Hyderabad, he surgically implants corneas grown in a petri dish from stem cells by his colleague Geeta Vemuganti in patients with damaged eyes. Together they perform about 80 corneal regeneration procedures a year, making the L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, where they work, one of the most prolific facilities in the world using stem cells to regenerate tissues of any kind. The Sangwan-Vemuganti team uses stem cells found in the tissues of living adults, not ones derived from embryos. Teams all over the world are working with adult stem cells, trying to coax them to regrow cells in hearts, brains, livers and other organs, but progress is slow. Besides corneas, scientists have had some success regrowing skin cells and bone tissues, but those procedures remain experimental. “A number of programs around the world have tried to perfect this treatment, but they have had bad outcomes,” says University of Cincinnati eye surgeon and stem cell specialist Edward Holland. “It is impressive what they are doing at Prasad.” In addition to the Hyderabad project, only Holland’s program and a half-dozen others in the world conduct operations using corneas grown from stem cells.The treatment uses stem cells harvested from the limbus, located where the cornea touches the white of the eye. For those with damaged corneas, these cells - called “limbic” and “conjunctiva” - are harvested from a patients good eye, if he has one, or from a close relative. They are placed in a petri dish and chemically tweaked to grow into the lower layer of a cornea, called epithelium. It is then transplanted into the eye of the patient where in most cases it takes hold and grows. In 56% of the cases at the Prasad Institute, patient could still see clearly after 40 months later.

Indians are well known for reverse engineering, meaning they can deduce how drugs are made in order to produce generic versions. But in this case, Sangwan and Vemuganti, a pathologist, developed the technique on their own from reading papers and running experiments in the lab. Sangwan says he had a number of patients with burned eyes who could not helped with standard corneal transplants from cadavers, so he persuaded Vemuganti to try growing corneas in her lab. “You know how to grow cells, and I know how to do the transplant surgery.” Vemuganti recalls him saying. “Why don’t we work together?” She smiles and shakes her head. “I had no clue if this was going to work.” Vemuganti’s major innovation was developing a platform on which to grow corneas. First she designed a circular glass tube about the size of a stack of coins. Then she overlaid the glass with tissue from a human placenta which is “a good surface to grow corneas on.” She says. After that she placed stem cells in four places around a circle, added a growth medium, and watched the corneas begin to grow. Commercial interests among stem cell companies for the procedure has been scant because of the perceived small volume of patients, says venture capitalist Antoun Nabhan of ay Capital, who sits on the board of Cellerant, a leading stem cell company in San Carlos. Calif. But corneal stem cell treatment may have wider applications, say ophthalmologist Ivan Schwab of University of California at Davis. “These stem cells are similar to others in the body that make mucous membrane,” he say. “These techniques of growing stem cells might one day be used to treat mucous-membrane tissue in the sinuses, bladder, and other organs.”

For the following questions answer them individually

Read the following passage and answer within its context.

TRIPs agreement provides a comprehensive set of global trade rules for the protection of copyright patents, trademarks, industrial designs, trade secrets, semiconductor lay out designs, and geographical indications, that apply to all the number-countries irrespective of their levels of development, natural and human endowments and history. Every member-country has been asked by the WTO to amend its national patent law to confirm to that universal globalized format for legislation relating to pharmaceutical, agrochemical, food, alloys, etc. Under Article 65, the developed countries have been asked to change their laws within another five years, and the less developed countries within an additional five years. The least developed countries have been asked to make those changes by 2005 AD. This attempt at global standardisation and uniformity by way of TRIP’s agreement is in conflict with the main thrust of the Rio Earth Summit of 1992 that set out the conditions for sustainable development. These two reveal two contrasting types of international approaches and norms. While the 1992 Earth Summit and the 1993 convention on biodiversity (CBD) focused on ‘diversity’ as being fundamental to sustain life and development, TRIPs and WTO are pushing for ‘conformity’ to international standardized norms on patents, services, labour, investment and what not irrespective of their history, ecology, level of economic development, etc. But despite their diametrically opposed viewpoints, 170 countries signed CBD upholding the need for diversity, and 50 countries signed the TRIPs agreement in 1994 claiming the urgency of uniformity, with a very large element of common names (130) in both. The convention on bio-diversity (CBD) in its Article 16.5 specifically asserts that intellectual property right must not be in conflict with conservation and sustainable use of bio-diversity, a provision that has been totally ignored by those who composed the TRIPs agreement. While in case of agriculture the higher yield of patented products induces the farmers to switch form a more varied production pattern, the resulting narrowing of genetic base makes the economy and society more vulnerable to plant disease and epidemics. It is true that the move towards cultivation of a smaller number of higher yielding varieties and the uniform spread of the same variety over a large space predates the present debate on patent, particularly since the introduction of the green revolution technology in the mid-sixties, but there can be no doubt that the latter has brought about a qualitative change in the scenario and has created possibility of a vast quantitative change too in that direction. So far no attempt has been made to reconcile the two conflicting approaches of CBD and TRIPs. If diversity is so important for sustaining life, how can WTO demand conformity to standardised global formats?