-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 14 May 2001 09:31
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Plant variety protection
In his message of 11 May, Wytze de Lange quoted from Pierre Roger's message (9 May) that "a patent provides transparent information about scientific knowledge and by limiting patentability I fear that transparency will be lost", and added "In Europe, this argument is used over and over again but it is demonstrably and absolutely wrong."
Let us see such a demonstration. The argument sounds reasonable, but falls some way short of a demonstration. I will argue against it, as follows:
1. Scientists acknowledge a duty to communicate their knowledge, but generally reserve the right to decide their own timing. Even in areas where patents have no relevance at all, we see cases of this (e.g., mathematics).
2. Many scientists work in the private sector. Here, the patent system definitely makes it easier to publish work (I know this from my own experience in industry). Once a patent application has been filed (or, at the latest, published) companies will allow research to be published, and often to hand out samples. Without this, they would take a very cautious view, and try to keep everything secret.
3. Work in the private sector is increasingly important. Money for public research is tight. Private research is strongly motivated to suceed, and (provided the dangers of over-concentration are avoided) is likely to take more diverse approaches. Of course, private research cannot tackle problems of market failure - public money remains important for that reason (more is needed). But the idea that all private research either can or should be replaced by public money is difficult to take seriously. If private research is to continue, those who invest in it successfully must be able to recover their investments - and for this, IP is essential.
Tim Roberts, UK
European Patent Attorney
(formerly employed by Zeneca Seeds)
twr@compuserve.com
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org - the last day for receiving messages is Sunday 13 May. For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 14 May 2001 09:44
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Food security and TRIPS
Input from Ruchi Tripathi, ActionAid
1. The poor farmers in the future could be left much worse off by the introduction of IPRs on food and agriculture. This will increase the cost of the inputs, and might reduce diversity if the Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability (DUS) test guidelines of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) was to be applied. On top of this, agricultural subsidies in the developing countries have been reduced due to the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Asian Development Bank pressure.
2. So far, one of the main reasons I've been able to find regarding the benefits of IPRs in agriculture is just to protect the breeders innovation - and the link with quality/marketabilty is not clear. Even UPOV admits that plant breeders rights (PBRs) have nothing to do with the qualities of market success of a crop. Then why have PBRs ? Couldn't there be another form of an incentive system?
3. The African group of contries have put forth a proposal to ban patenting of life forms throughout the world - what do people think about that, would that help stop biopiracy?
4. There are a number of TRIPS plus+ bilateral agreements being followed - a recent European Union- Bangladesh trade and aid agreement is an example - which states that Bangladesh should endeavour to adopt and join UPOV 1991. Bangladesh is a least developed country (LDC). Is UPOV 1991 appropriate for its farmers ? Moreover, Bangladesh had a very good draft act that its government had prepared in consultation with the civil society which has now just been brushed aside. And finally, isn't this a threat to the multilateral trading system?
Ruchi Tripathi
Food Trade Policy Officer
ActionAid
Hamlyn House
MacDonald Road
London N19 5PG, UK
RTripathi@actionaid.org.uk
Ph: 0207 561 7560
Fax: 0207 561 7676
www.actionaid.org
[For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 14 May 2001 09:48
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Animals and IPRs
My comments are in response to the 11 May message of Mr. David Steane of Thailand.
There exists a big gap between the dairy development status of the developing and developed countries. IPRs deal with protection of interests of the scientists and organizations who develop the new technologies or materials. In the developing countries, the allocation of resources for research and development are meager and they are only sufficient for the survival of these organizations or the continuation of the ongoing activities.
Introduction of exotic genes, especially during upgrading of the local cattle, has resulted in production of progeny that cannot resist the environmental and nutritional stress and the incidence of parasitic, protozoal, bacterial and viral diseases prevailing in the regions. Production of breeding bulls for covering the crossbred progeny is needed, which could not be achieved, at least in Pakistan. Reproductive performance of crossbred males as well as females is low, coupled with poor productivity. On the one hand, the local breeds are ignored because of their poor performance, leading to their extinction. And on the other hand, the crossbreeding could not be carried out in a proper way to benefit the farming community.
The developed countries/donors may assist the developing countries in genetic improvement of cattle in a sustainable way.
Muhammad Subhan Qureshi, PhD
Deputy Director Planning (Livestock)
Agric., Livestock and Coop. Department
Civil Secretariat Peshawar, Pakistan.
Tel. Office +92-91-9211938, Home 275572
Fax 9210033, E.mail qureshiz@brain.net.pk
[For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]