notes a number of global trends in the conduct of R&D that are exacerbating the problem.
The last panelist, Eugene B. Skolnikoff, professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, addresses the relationship between technology and sovereignty, and the need for new mechanisms to resolve international IPR issues and conflicts. He argues that as global economic competition replaces older security concerns, strengthening IPRs may be seen as nationalistic and protectionist. Skolnikoff predicts that frictions between developed and developing countries will likely continue, because of the lack of developed country concern for the welfare of developing countries, and that the interest of many developing countries in some form of national and international protection is likely to parallel the extent to which knowledge spreads locally and indigenous technological capability is enhanced. He adds that he expects the bargaining power of developing countries to increase because their cooperation on global issues (e.g., climate change) is increasingly required to achieve additional progress. Skolnikoff also argues that it is unrealistic to expect to create one integrated, global IPR system that would provide adequate dispute resolution and be capable of keeping up with technological change. He acknowledges that although this is contrary to the view expressed by many at the conference, he believes it is a "fact of life." At the same time, Skolnikoff emphasizes that whether or not the United States likes it, the United Nations and other international organizations will remain essential for resolving IPR problems, and argues on this basis that the United States will continue to use the United Nations and to participate in the formulation of new international agreements, because there is little choice.