|
Intellectual Property
Right and Genetically
Modified Organism
-by Wendy Hollingsworth,
Science, Technology and Innovation Specialist,
Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), Barbados
|
 |
|
The infiltration of IPRs issues into almost all aspects of the economy comes
with its inherent fears. It is generally accepted that if the private
sector is expected to invest large sums of money into agricultural
Research and Development (R&D), then it must be expected to recoup its
investment. Granting of IPRs assures this, however there is the fear that
granting IPRs will lead to monopolisation of knowledge, restricted access
to germplasm and controls over research focus with a resulting increase in
marginlisation of the world's population.
These concerns are legitimate. Let us examine the terminator technology
also known as "suicide technology", "traitor
technology" and "genetic use restriction technology"
("GURT").
|
Quote º
Unquote |
|
Where Do We Stand?
According to most country's patent laws, things existing naturally are
excluded from patentability and this includes varieties derived from
conventional breeding programmes. However, the current trend says that if extraneous genes are introduced or
engineered into an organism resulting in something that could not be
obtained by conventional breeding, then the resulting entity is
considered man-made and thus eligible for patentability. The
resulting patent would then cover only the engineered organism
and/or the knowledge of the genes and genetic processes and not the
natural sources of the genetic material.
It appears that a GMO can be patented once it meets the criteria set
out by the Patents Act or may be protected by the Plant Variety Act. The question of patentability and registrability is the
decision of the Controller and ultimately the court.
|
|
|
Terminator genes prevent crops from producing fertile seed, this means
that farmers growing these crops would have to buy new seed each year
rather than saving part of the harvest to plant the next years crops.
The terminator technology from a scientific perspective is a brilliant
development of the creative process. However, where the technology runs
off course is in its application. Proponents of the technology argue
that it would be a useful method of preventing infringement on any
patent rights or plant breeder's rights granted and could also be used
to minimise environmental risks of GM crops.
One of the major roles of terminator technology is preventing farmers from
reusing seed. Since the majority of crops sold e.g. corn, tomatoes,
carrots, lettuce etc. are hybrids, this kind of protection is not
necessary. The focus of this technology is really for those crops that are not
currently sold as hybrid seed, for example, coffee, wheat and rice. |
|
Farmersoften save these non-hybrid seeds and may not go back to the seed
company to purchase seed for several years. Note also that resource poor
small farmers in developing countries grow these target crops not only
for market but to supplement their diets. Therefore if they are required
to return to seed companies each year for seed their livelihood could be
devastated. All this is indeed occurring against assurances from their
national plant variety protection legislation that they can save such
seed to replant their fields for the next season.
The greatest fear poor farmers have is the amalgamation and dominance of
multinational corporations selling sterile seed. They fear increased
seed costs and loss of control over their own food supplies.
|
