Analysis of Public
Submissions
Analysis of
Public Submissions
3.
section 3.9 |
appendix 3
Outcomes of Consultation: Submissions
from the Public
Section contents
3.
Analysis of Public Submissions
22
3.9
Intellectual property
84
Background
84
Outline of this section
84
Definition and characteristics
84
The application of patenting
84
Advantages and disadvantages of patenting
85
The legislative context and its adequacy
85
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
3.9 Intellectual property
Background
The Warrant, under item (f) called for information on:
the intellectual property issues involved, or likely to be involved, now or in the future, in
relation to the use in New Zealand of genetic modification, genetically modified organisms
and products
Outline of this section
This section of the report presents 649 public submitters' views about intellectual
property. The topics covered by these submitters included:
*
definition and characteristics
*
the application of patenting
*
the advantages and disadvantages of its application.
Definition and characteristics
Few public submitters addressed the topic of intellectual property, and those who
did tended to make more general ethical statements against the concept of
"ownership of life". Many perceived the idea of patenting as a threat and a control
mechanism by which multinationals would dominate the world and control the
global food supply.
The application of patenting
Of those commenting on intellectual property matters, 189 discussed the potential
for patenting the outputs of genetic modification activities. Although most were
opposed to patenting altogether, some suggested that processes may be patented
but that the outcomes, such as the "code of life" itself could not be. Others
identified specific groups of genetically modified products that should not be even
considered for patenting for ethical, moral, cultural (particularly from a Maori
perspective) or environmental reasons. Indigenous flora and fauna, including
genetic material held off shore, received the most attention. Eighty-six submitters
raised this issue, some suggesting the issue was of particular concern to Maori
because they are the owners or guardians of indigenous flora and fauna (and
traditional knowledge and folklore). Others identified all New Zealanders as the
owners.
The list of other materials that should not be considered for patenting included:
*
all human material
*
human material in general, with the acceptance of some specific applications
using genetic information
*
naturally occurring organisms
*
any living organisms and genes (so that only processes could be patentable).
Advantages and disadvantages of patenting
Few public submitters considered patents to be valuable as an incentive mechanism.
They were, at a general level, against the patenting of any genetically modified
organisms. The most commonly identified disadvantage (raised by 70% of those
commenting on intellectual property) related to the consequences of monopoly
control by patent holders. The following quote, from a group of submitters, is
typical of public submitters' concerns about the economic consequences of
allowing patenting of any form of life:
Of serious concern to us, is the fact that the very basis of life - `the seed' - will be owned
and controlled by commercial interests. Corporate controlled vested interests are
developing gene altered seeds and utilising the patent regime, claiming exclusive
ownership of seeds to gain control over agriculture. Please ensure that this does not
happen.
Other submitters focused on the moral dimension of owning life and profiting
from the "genetic commons". A few wrote about how patenting could exclude
them from certain activities or benefits. Some submitters from a New Zealand
university mentioned that they had to cancel research because they could not
afford to access material from its patent holder. Another researcher explained how
researchers could be excluded entirely from participating in valuable research
areas, given access costs created through patenting.
The legislative context and its adequacy
As Table 3.16 shows, only a handful of public submitters referred to the legislative
context for protecting intellectual property. Some of the related legislation
includes the international Trade Related International Property Rights Agreement
Major issues
Number
%
Monopoly control by GM patent holders
454
70.0
Potential for patenting of genetic material
189
29.1
Patentability of indigenous flora and fauna
86
13.3
Patentability of human genome
73
11.2
Biopiracy
38
5.9
Inadequate protection of GM information for patent purposes
and protection of intellectual property
29
4.5
NZ needs to capture its own IP
14
2.2
Loss of intellectual property and/or patentability because of
disclosure of confidential information during review process
1
0.2
Other
9
1.4
The "Other" category included the following issues related to Intellectual Property:
*
Agreement between Crown and WHO in relation to indigenous plants and patenting and the
Treaty of Waitangi
*
immoral to own genes
*
threat to biodiversity
*
prohibit patenting of life forms under New Zealand's patent regime
*
difficulty in establishing liability when genes jump
*
patents invalid as they imply biological organism are unchanging when they are not
Multiple response
Table 3.16 Intellectual property and genetic modification (n = 649)
p86 |
Section 3: Public Submissions
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
(TRIPS) and, in New Zealand, the Trade Marks, Patents, Design, Fair Trading
and Copyright Acts. However, in their consideration of strategic options for
genetic modification use in New Zealand, discussed in detail previously (see
"Strategic outcomes, issues and options"), a small percentage of the submitters
indicated that they would like to see an explicit ban on any patenting of genetically
modified organisms or products (see Table 3.3).
Section 3: Public Submissions
| H1 | p87
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3