|
|
Close Help | ||||||||||||||
Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, 25 de junho de 1997
Ol=E1,
Segue um texto produzido pela ONG Grain, europ=E9ia, que luta contra=
o
patenteamento da vida nos territ=F3rios da Uni=E3o Europ=E9ia. Creio que =E9=
um
excelente subs=EDdio para as discuss=F5es mais recentes dessa lista.
Abra=E7o forte,
Carlos Tautz
Jornalista
tautz@ax.apc.org
Hola,
Siegue un art=EDculo producido por la ONG Grain, europea, que lucha
contra el patenteamiento de la vida en los territorios de la Uni=F3n=
Europea.
Creo que es un bueno subsidio para las discussiones m=E1s recientes de esa=
lista.
Abrazo fuerte,
Carlos Tautz
Periodista
tautz@ax.apc.org
>X-Authentication-Warning: igc7.igc.org: Processed from queue
/var/spool/mqueue-maj
>Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 06:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Darrell Posey <darrell.posey@mansfield.oxford.ac.uk>
>Sender: owner-biodiv-conv@igc.apc.org
>Subject: Briefing on Patents on Life (GRAIN) (fwd)
>To: ethnoecology@igc.org
>X-Sender: bionet@pop.igc.org
>
>From: Anna Rosa Martinez & Henk Hobbelink, GRAIN
>To: NGOs involved/interested in stopping life patents
>Re: A new campaign tool from GRAIN
>Barcelona, 12 June, 1997
>
>
>Dear friends,=20
>
>Please find attached "Patenting, Piracy and Perverted Promises", a GRAIN
>briefing on the impact of patents on life. It is meant as a campaign tool,
>especially in the fight against the new EU life patent directive, now up
>for
>voting by the European Parliament in mid July (15 to 17).
>
>Two years ago, the Members of the European Parliament frontally rejected an
>earlier version of this directive. Not surprisingly, the reaction of both
>industry and the European Commission has been to increase the pressure to
>accept patents on life, and the Euro-parliamentarians are being bombarded
>by
>the pro-patent lobby like never before.
>
>It is difficult to over-emphasise the importance of this directive. If the
>proposed directive would get relatively unscathed through the parliament
>now, its effects would be felt far beyond Europe. Nothing would stop the
>OECD countries then to use the WTO-TRIPs review in 1999 to push the Third
>World into the "inevitable" realities of patents on indigenous knowledge,
>genes, plants and animals. The doors would be=20
>open to turn the Biodiversity Convention into a mere gene market between
>the
>rich and the poor. Europe's current role as a buffer between the hardliners
>such as the USA and the poorer Third World countries, would simply cease to
>exist.=20
>
>While our report is oriented as a campaign tool in the fight over the
>European Directive, we thought that it could be useful in your work as
>well.
>Please feel free to use it as you see fit. Please keep us informed on any
>follow up you can give on this.=20
>
>Later this month an open letter to European Parliamentarians will be
>circulated over the Internet for signature. We will send you a copy and
>hope
>you can sign on. We have until the middle of July to avoid the worst! Also,
>let us know if you want to be regularly updated on the directive and the
>campaign against it.
>
>Warm regards.
>
>Henk Hobbelink & Anna Rosa Martinez.
>
>
>If you want a copy in Word 7 or Wordperfect, just drop us a note. Within
>two
>weeks we plan to have a "polished up" version ready and will post it on the
>Internet in PDF format.
>-------------
>
>PATENTING, PIRACY AND PERVERTED PROMISES
>The European patent directive: the last assault on the commons
>
>by
>
>GRAIN
>Genetic Resources Action International
>
>Two years after its refusal in March 1995 to adopt a similar proposal, in
>July the European Parliament (EP) has to vote again on a proposal that
>would make the patenting of life - genes, food crops, livestock and human
>cells - legal in the European Union. The people pushing the EU directive on
>the "Legal protection of biotechnological inventions" are major
>transnational corporations who want these patent rights in order to
>increase their profits from food, drug and technology sales. At stake for
>them is billions of dollars in additional income and, more importantly,
>legal control over the basic technologies and resources of our food supply
>and health care systems. At stake for society is a wide range of ethical,
>economic and political concerns revolving around one central question:
>whether it is right that corporations should own the biological
>underpinnings of life.
>
>The patent system, and other forms of intellectual property rights, is
>supposed to stimulate innovation. Governments give inventors an exclusive
>monopoly on their creations while society, for a period of time, by
>allowing such incentives, is supposed to get the disclosure of the
>invention and the technological progress in return.
>
>Patents are rights to stop anyone else from using an invention without
>permission -- and the user has to pay a price -- be it a license to
>manufacture Honda Civics or a royalty on a can of Coke. While this might
>seem fine for cars or soft drinks, should farmers need to get a license to
>grow crops? Should people see their body parts patented? Should European
>scientists get ownership rights over indigenous peoples' traditional
>knowledge, crops and medicines? This is what is happening today. And this
>is what the European Parliament has to firmly decide is right or wrong.
>
>Right now, it is illegal in Europe to patent plant and animal varieties as
>well as inventions that offend morality. Yet companies and university
>researchers working in biotechnology are claiming widespread monopoly
>rights on human cells, entire species such as genetically modified soybean,
>plant derived sweeteners long used by Africans and pain killers developed
>by the Chinese. This is causing outrage. Public interest groups consider
>that patenting life is unethical and will foster the development of
>unsustainable, even anti-social, technologies and development strategies.
>Developing countries, for their part, call this kind of patenting
>"biopiracy" as many of the biotech "inventions" are based on locally
>developed biodiversity and knowledge, thus robbing traditional communities
>from their collectively held knowledge systems
>
>In March 1995, the EP voted against a first version of this patenting
>directive, and the version now on the table is remarkably similar to the
>one which was rejected then. Then the Parliament argued quite sensibly that
>Europe should first decide what to do with biotechnology and then decide
>how to provide incentives to stimulate its socially acceptable
>applications. First things first: what science and technology do we want?
>Then: what incentives do we need to promote them?=20
>
>What follows are thirteen examples of patents already granted in some parts
>of the world on plants, animals and humans. Each of them has profound and
>wide ranging implications for society. All of them would be allowed and
>justified in Europe if the current proposed patent directive were to be
>approved by the European Parliament.
>
>PATENTS ON LIFE
>13 Examples Of What The European Directive Would Legalise=20
>And The European Parliament Should Stop
>
>
>PATENTING OUR FOOD SYSTEM
>
>Seventy percent of our food supply comes from a few plants: wheat, maize,
>rice, potato.... The European Patent Convention of 1975 states that patents
>may not be granted for plant varieties, the thinking being that they are
>the very backbone of food security, crop production and plant breeding.
>However, biotechnology corporations and researchers are trying to get
>through this legal loophole by claiming ownership on "genes" and "plants"
>instead of specific varieties. How can genes be new? How can you invent a
>plant? What about those that developed the desired traits in the first
>place? But perhaps most importantly: what does it mean for farmers and for
>local, national and global food security?
>
>
>Bt gene
>
>* Background: A naturally-occurring soil bacterium called Bacillus
>thuringiensis (Bt) produces a protein that kills a range of common insects
>once it is ingested. Because of this, Bt has been used as a biological
>pesticide by farmers since the 1940s. Due to severe ecological consequences
>associated with synthetic chemical pesticides, the
>environmental-friendliness of Bt has caught the attention and investments
>of several large agrochemical companies. Biotechnologists have isolated the
>Bt gene and inserted it directly into a range of crops, including maize,
>soybean, cotton, rapeseed, potato, tobacco, rice and tomato so these plants
>may produce their own insecticide.
>
>* Patents: As of March 1996, there were no less than 432 patents granted or
>pending related to Bt worldwide. Sixty percent of these come from just ten
>companies, which means the technology is heavily concentrated in few hands.
>Bt-maize, Bt-cotton and Bt-potato have all received patent approval in the
>US. In Europe, the approval of Novartis' Bt-maize has been stalled over the
>presence of a marker gene which codes for antibiotic resistance. If animals
>- or people! -- consume this marker gene through Bt-maize-based products
>such cattle feed or starch, some antibiotics would become ineffective as a
>medicine. In fact, companies are at each others' legal throats over who
>really owns what. For instance, Belgium's Plant Genetic Systems (a
>biotechnology company now owned by the giant AgrEvo) has been granted a US
>patent for "all transgenic plants containing Bt", and the American Mycogen
>has been issued a European patent which covers the insertion of "any
>insecticidal gene in any plant". Such broad patents confer huge market
>power to the company that wins....while blocking anyone else that wants to
>work further in this area.
>
>* Implications: As a technology, Bt crops carry many threats. The insects
>that are supposed to die once they chew on a Bt plant can develop
>resistance to the toxic gene extremely fast. Experiments at the University
>of Hawaii show that insects which survive Bt transmit genetic resistance to
>their immediate offspring. In one generation, insects are resistant to many
>forms of the toxin, rendering Bt useless as an implanted pest control
>strategy. Worse, it means organic farmers cannot use Bt as a spray any
>more, since conventional farmers using transgenic Bt crops will have
>destroyed its effectiveness. Being able to patent Bt genes and crops
>encourages the development of Bt crops. Biotechnology companies will thus
>be able too make quick money by convincing the farmers to buy seeds which
>supposedly do not need insecticide sprays. The potential market is huge and
>companies have quickly cornered it. In the US, legal wrangles over
>ownership of Bt technology are consuming vast amounts of time and money
>amongst many of the leading agrochemical companies. This time and money
>could be spent developing alternatives to a technology that is likely to
>fail. Rather than promote innovation, the patent system applied to life
>rather seems to foster pirating of proven technologies and a waste of
>resources. The livelihoods of thousands of farmers and the consumer's right
>to choose are also at stake.
>
>
>Soybean
>
>* Background: Soybean (Glycine max L.)is a multi-billion dollar commodity
>crop. It was domesticated by the Chinese as a food crop and is now an
>important oil crop and animal feed. Today, the top soybean producers are
>the USA, Brazil, China and Argentina, with the USA cornering well over half
>of the global export market. While still an important vegetable and protein
>crop for Asians, soybean now ends up in unfathomable industrial products -
>from the ink in your daily newspaper to the ketchup on every fast-food
>outlet's hamburger. Patent rights over the world's soybean crop would mean
>enormous economic, social and political control over a basic item in the
>world economy.
>
>* Patent: In 1994, the biotechnology company Agracetus was awarded European
>patent number 301 749 which, among other demands claims "A soybean seed
>which will yield upon cultivation a soybean plant comprising in its genome
>a foreign gene effective to cause the expression of a foreign gene product
>in the cells of the soybean plant". This means that Agracetus' patent
>covers all transgenic soybeans. The biotechnology industry was stunned by
>the patent, which underwent fire in the courts. The chemical giant Monsanto
>opposed the patent in November 1994 on the grounds that, "the alleged
>invention lacks an inventive step" and was "not ... novel". But then later
>Monsanto simply bought up the whole of Agracetus -- including the patent -
>and stopped complaining.
>
>* Implications: Species patents such as this one on soybean, and others on
>cotton and rice, show how the patent system itself is being grossly
>distorted by unbridled corporate greed. Transgenic species do not exist as
>such, and technologies have to find their expression in specific terms,
>such as well-defined varieties which farmers grow in well-defined
>conditions. Patents as this one are being used to stake territorial claims
>with no relation to invention, as a means to block research and
>competition. In addition, farmers have to follow stringent rules when using
>transgenic soybeans in those countries where the patents are recognised. US
>soybean farmers have already been subjected to this kind of contract to
>grow Monsanto's "Roundup Ready Soybeans". In purchasing the patented seed,
>farmers may only use Monsanto's herbicide on the crop, may not save a
>single seed to save costs for the next season - as is traditionally done
>--and may not conduct any research using the soybean.=20
>
>
>Quinoa
>
>* Background: Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) is a high protein cereal which is
>an important part of the diet of millions of people in Andean countries of
>Latin America, especially indigenous people. Since pre-Incan times, they
>have cultivated and developed varieties of quinoa suitable for the wide
>range of harsh conditions in the Andes. In recent years, quinoa has started
>to enter the US and European market for its high nutritional value -- about
>twice the protein content of maize or rice. The value of Bolivia's export
>market is estimated at about US$1 million per annum.
>=20
>* Patent: In 1994, two researchers from the University of Colorado received
>US patent number 5,304,718, which gives them exclusive monopoly control of
>male sterile plants of the traditional Bolivian "Apelawa" quinoa variety.
>The researchers admit that they did nothing to create the male sterile
>variety, which one researcher agrees it was "just part of the native
>population of plants ... we just picked it up." They do claim that they
>were the first to identify and use a reliable system of cytoplasmic male
>sterility in quinoa for the production of hybrids. The US patent claim is
>not limited to a single hybrid variety, but covers any quinoa hybrid that
>is derived from "Apelawa" male sterile cytoplasm, including, but not
>limited to, some 36 traditional varieties cited in the patent application.=
=20
>
>* Implications: Although the researchers have promised to make the
>technology available to researchers in Chile and Bolivia, the US patent has
>serious implications for Bolivian farmers. The primary aim of developing
>hybrid quinoa is to increase the crop's yield and to make it suitable for
>commercial-scale cultivation in North America. Before long, the patent is
>likely to find its way into corporate hands, where the right for the patent
>owners to prevent Bolivian exports of quinoa to the US will probably be
>exercised. The displacement of the Bolivia's export market would undermine
>the livelihoods of the thousands of farmers who grow quinoa, who are
>predominantly small holders. Alternatively, they may be pressured to grow
>the industrial high-yielding varieties for export. If they start planting a
>handful of hybrid varieties instead of the diverse array they now grow,
>there will likely be serious erosion of local quinoa diversity. In
>addition, the high-yielding varieties may well not be adapted to local
>conditions.=20
>
>
>Brazzein
>
>* Background: Brazzein is the name of a protein found in a West African
>berry that is reported to be 500 times sweeter than sugar. Unlike other
>non-sugar sweeteners, brazzein is a natural substance and does not lose its
>sweet taste when heated, making it particularly valuable to the food
>industry. The sweetener was chanced upon by a researcher after he observed
>people and animals eating the berries in West Africa.
>
>* Patent: Researchers at the University of Wisconsin have received US
>patent 5,527,555 and European patent 684995 for a protein isolated from the
>berry of Pentadiplandra brazzeana. Subsequent work has focused on making
>transgenic organisms to produce brazzein in the laboratory, thereby
>eliminating the need for it to be collected or grown commercially in West
>Africa.=20
>=20
>* Implications: The University of Wisconsin reports that corporate interest
>in brazzein is strong: the worldwide market for sweeteners is reported to
>be $100 billion a year. The university is quite clear that brazzein is "an
>invention of a UW-Madison researcher" and there are no plans for
>benefit-sharing with the West African people that discovered and nurtured
>the plant for their original pleasure. This is a clear example of how the
>patent system completely disregard local knowledge and innovation of
>Southern peoples by permitting biotechnologists to claim that something was
>invented once it was isolated and reproduced in a Northern laboratory. By
>allowing patents on discoveries, the redefined patent system promotes what
>Third World countries rightly call biopiracy.
>=20
>
>
>PATENTING ANIMALS
>
>The European Patent Convention and subsequent national laws prohibit the
>patenting of animal breeds/races and inventions contrary to morality. As
>with the prohibition against patenting plant varieties, scientists,
>companies and patent offices have been skirting around these rules and are
>obtaining patents on animals. These moves have aroused strong objections
>for the cruelty involved and the hazy borderline between technological
>applications on animals and on humans. Others are concerned about the
>future of raising livestock, currently still in the sphere of family
>farming but with the help of the patent system likely to be moved further
>under corporate control.
>
>
>Dolly=20
>
>* Background: Dolly is the world's first cloned mammal, a living proof that
>viable offspring can be developed from a single adult animal cell. News of
>this cloned sheep took the world by surprise in February 1997, for while
>there had been much talk of cloning mammals over recent years, few people
>realised how close the reality was. What shocked people even more was how
>relatively easy Dolly was to create, and how cloning a human being would be
>almost as simple to achieve. Suddenly the ethical and moral debates
>surrounding life patenting came alive for millions of people.
>
>* Patent: The Roslin Institute, responsible for the Dolly experiment, has
>applied two world patents (WO 97/07668 and WO 97/07669, still to be
>approved at the national levels) for the cloning technology used. The
>patents cover the use of the technology in all animals, including humans.
>The reason for this, Roslin says, is that the Institute has no commercial
>interest in, nor moral tolerance of, human cloning, and that it
>specifically included humans so as to ensure that nobody else could lay
>claim to human cloning. While the motivation may be honest, this outcome is
>unlikely. Depending on the conditions of licensing agreements, with
>Pharmaceutical Proteins Limited (PPL, the company Roslin created to
>commercialise its research) or any of the large pharmaceutical companies
>knocking at the door, companies may be within their rights to develop human
>cloning. In addition, rarely any successful small institute has escaped
>being bought by one of the large transnationals. And most importantly, once
>the legal precedence has been set for the patenting of humans, turning the
>clock back is much more difficult.
>
>* Implications: In addition to the well publicised moral and ethical
>dilemmas about cloning, Dolly raises further questions. Widespread cloning
>of livestock will further exacerbate the serious problem of genetic erosion
>among domestic animals. Livestock breeds are already being lost at the rate
>of 5% each year thanks to selective breeding and artificial insemination,
>and cloning could make the situation much worse. This furthering of genetic
>erosion in the European livestock sector as promoted by the patent system
>will have a dramatic impact on the vulnerability to pests and diseases of
>the animals involved, which in turn will mean greater use of potentially
>harmful control strategies.
>=20
>
>Tracey
>
>* Background: Tracey is a sheep which was transformed into what a company
>spokesperson described as one of Pharmaceutical Proteins Ltd's (PPL) "furry
>little factories walking around in fields." The introduction of human genes
>into her mammary glands mean that they now produce the protein
>alpha-1-antitrypsin, a human blood-clotting agent. Tracey's transformation
>was considered successful enough by PPL to provide "a strong impetus to the
>further exploitation of transgenic sheep as bioreactors for the production
>of large amounts of pharmacologically active proteins". Some people call
>this "factory pharming".
>
>* Patent: Tracey and her relatives are now the subject of US patent
>5,476,995 and a multi-million pound contract between PPL and the German
>chemical giant Bayer.=20
>
>* Implications: Tracey raises important questions about how animals are not
>only treated in industrial-scale processes but now radically altered in
>their genetic makeup to serve as tools for corporate profits. Sheep
>naturally produce meat, milk and wool. The do not naturally produce human
>proteins. Turned into a four-legged pharmaceutical factory, Tracey is no
>longer an animal but a machine that is described as a human invention and
>patented, much like a typewriter or refrigerator. By allowing the patent to
>be applied to such engineered animals, corporate interests will be able to
>further impose its conditions upon family farming, thus marginalising the
>backbone of agriculture even further.=20
>
>
>The oncomouse
>
>* Background: The oncomouse or Harvard mouse was genetically transformed to
>be susceptible to cancer. Medical research facilities now have a ready-made
>test patient for experiments in cancer therapy, since all its offspring are
>predisposed to contract the disease.
>
>* Patent: The oncomouse was the first animal to be patented, in 1987, in
>the US. The research had been done at Harvard University but the patent was
>granted to Du Pont Corporation. Du Pont was awarded European Patent 169 672
>in 1992 for the oncomouse. Du Pont's European patent application attempted
>to gain control over all animals, and their descendants, modified using
>the oncomouse technique. The company also claimed patent protection on any
>anticancer product ever derived from the mice.
>
>* Implications: The European patent on the oncomouse has been heavily
>challenged by public interest groups on the grounds that this patent
>contravenes principles of morality. The EPO authorities first replied by
>saying they had no competence to interpret what is morally acceptable and
>what is not. They later accepted the challenge and ruled that any invention
>whose benefit to mankind outweighs the suffering of an animal is on high
>moral ground. Opponents to the patent find this unsatisfactory and the
>patent is still in limbo in Europe. The central question in this case is:
>should we allow patents on animals created to suffer their entire live and
>die of cancer, thus further pushing this approach to animal experiments?
>
>
>
>PATENTING HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
>
>Health care systems often turn to biochemical compounds found in nature.
>This is as true for approaches using synthesised drugs as it is for natural
>medicine. Many of these compounds derive from the biodiversity of the
>tropics and subtropics. And most leads on their effectiveness come from
>indigenous and local communities who have rich medicinal knowledge of their
>environments. Western scientists are often accused of biopiracy when they
>pinch not only the chemical cures derived from the rainforests but also the
>traditional knowledge of shamans and healers who master the use of local
>materials for health problems. This is not only physical theft but
>intellectual theft, since indigenous knowledge gets patented by foreigners
>once they return home. This is completely against the ethics of most local
>communities, for whom private ownership and monopoly of life and associated
>knowledge is unthinkable.
>
>
>Turmeric=20
>
>* Background: To many people from India, turmeric (Curcuma longa) is a
>magic cure-all. The orange root is native to the subcontinent and for
>thousands of years has been used for sprains, inflammatory conditions and
>topical wound healing. Turmeric is an ancient component of ayurdevic
>medicine.
>
>* Patent: In 1995, two US scientists from the University of Mississippi
>were granted a US patent (No. 5,401,504) on the use of turmeric for healing
>wounds, claiming this to be novel. The Indian government has filed a
>challenge to the patent, which it considers a form of blatant thievery. For
>the appeal to be upheld, India will have to provide proof that turmeric has
>been used in India specifically to heal wounds, in the form of an academic
>paper which predates the patent application. The US researchers
>acknowledged in their application that "turmeric has long been used in
>India as a traditional medicine for treatment of various sprains and
>inflammatory conditions". But they claimed that there was no research on
>the use of turmeric as a healing agent for external wounds. Indian
>officials say that their legal challenge includes many research papers that
>will destroy the novelty claim.
>
>* Implications: The US patent would prevent Indian companies from marketing
>turmeric for wound healing in the US. If the US government is successful in
>pushing stronger patent protection in other countries including India, the
>same patent would also illegalise the use of turmeric in India. Still, the
>Indian government is mainly opposing the patent on principle. It is
>concerned about the increasing plundering of its natural resources by
>foreign companies and has been vocal on these issues in international fora,
>such as the World Trade Organisation. The best example is India's
>celebrated Neem tree which has now more than 35 patents on it in the US and
>Europe, mainly for its pesticidal properties. Local communities are already
>victims of reduced access to this traditional resource due to greatly
>increased market prices
>
>
>Sangre de Drago
>
>* Background: Sangre de Drago (Croton spp) is a medicinal plant widely
>known and used throughout the Amazonian region for wound healing,
>haemorrhoids, skin problems, and as an anti-inflammatory and anti-rheumatic
>agent.
>
>* Patent: Shaman Pharmaceuticals, a US company which prides itself on its
>progressive stance towards local peoples and biological resources, has
>developed two Sangre de Drago-derived products: Provir, an anti-diarrhoeal;
>and Virend, an anti-herpetic. Both are in clinical trials. A patent for
>anti-viral activity has already been awarded to the company (US 5,211,944).
>The company argues that the development of new medicines from wild
>biodiversity and local ethnobotanical knowledge will not only benefit the
>company, but will also aid biodiversity conservation and improve the
>quality of life of indigenous peoples, since Shaman's policy is to provide
>returns to the communities it collects from.
>
>* Implications: The Sangre de Drago case parades as an equitable
>benefit-sharing agreement, which is supposed to give bioprospecting a clean
>face. The resources are extracted, the knowledge is lifted, the results are
>patented but at least the locals get a share of the profits in return.
>These deals sound good on paper, but in practice yield little, if any,
>benefit for local communities. In the case of Sangre de Drago, Shaman gave
>the community involved a large cow to feed them and Shaman's scientists,
>plus US$1500 to improve the local airstrip. Medium-term benefits consisted
>of cash in return for plant collection but not for the knowledge. The says
>the company's long-term benefit scheme promises further compensation once
>the profits start rolling in, but nothing has been articulated about what
>this really means: how much, for whom? In its publications, Shaman
>acknowledges the importance of crediting the "intellectual property rights"
>of communities yet Sangre de Drago products are patented in the US under
>the company's sole name. The real issue, however, is that patents like this
>one privatise and individualise a collective knowledge widely held by many
>indigenous peoples in different parts of Latin America
>
>
>
>PATENTING PEOPLE
>
>>From micro-organisms like Bt to macro-organisms like Homo sapiens, the
>patent threshold is perilously thin. One broadly defined claim can make all
>the difference between a patent on mice and a patent on men. Whether plant
>genes are human inventions is subject to debate. Whether human genes are
>human inventions adds a whole other layer of emotion to this debate. The
>emotion is not misplaced. Our patent laws are powerful tools to regulate
>control over technology and markets. Should they be used to control the
>fate of humanity? Can scientists and the companies hiring them have
>intellectual property over people and over so-called inventions they cannot
>even describe? Are people just strings of DNA which have an industrial
>application? The patenting of human life - genes, sequences, constructs,
>even body parts and means of programming our children's traits - is
>probably the most controversial aspect of the European patent directive.
>And rightly so. Once you accept the patenting of life, there is no way of
>keeping the doors closed to the patenting of human genes, cells, organs and
>whatever other parts of the human body from which one can make money on.
>
>
>John Moore
>
>* Background: In 1976, Mr. John Moore underwent surgery at the University
>of California. He had a rare form of leukemia and the doctors had to remove
>his cancerous spleen. Although he signed a pre-operative consent form which
>said his spleen would be destroyed after removal, the doctors cultured some
>tissues and cells from it and found that it produced a special protein.
>Moore knew nothing until his attorney told him that his doctor had received
>a patent on a cell line taken from his body. Later John heard that the
>doctor referred to him as his "gold mine".
>
>* Patent: Moore's doctor obtained a US patent for the cell line dubbed "Mo"
>removed from Moore's spleen, which was claimed to produce valuable
>pharmaceutical compounds for use in cancer therapy. The long term
>commercial value of the cell line was estimated at more than three billion
>US dollars, and in the end the Swiss pharma giant Sandoz obtained the
>exclusive right for the commercial exploitation of the patent for the
>alleged amount of US$ 15 million. Moore felt violated and debased, and he
>demanded the return of the cells and control over his body parts. However,
>the California Supreme Court decided that he was not entitled to any rights
>to his own cells after they had been removed from his body.
>
>* Implications: While the court has ruled that Moore has no claims to his
>own cells, this patent is unique since it was the first one on human genes
>and the "donor" of the invention is well and alive to talk about it. In
>Moore's words, "Ultimately, everyone was protected and rewarded: the
>researcher, the physician, the entrepreneur, even Science. But I knew
>nothing. What was I? The dehumanisation of having one's cells conveyed to
>places and for purposes that one does not know of can be very, very
>painful." The question is not whether Moore hinders useful research on
>cancer - as some accuse him of - by claiming rights over his own cells: he
>might very well have wanted to donate his cells to humanity if anyone had
>bothered to ask... Permitting patents on human material is not only about
>ethics and morality. It is about the personal agony of injustice and
>speculative greed. Current trends in patent system development are
>unacceptable once they validate, encourage and legalise the corporate
>appropriation of human parts, as John Moore's case proves.
>
>
>Tristan da Cunha asthma genes
>
>* Background: The people of Tristan da Cunha -- a small island in the
>South Atlantic -- have one of the highest incidences of asthma in the
>world, with 30% of the population suffering from asthma and another 20%
>being asthma-prone. Two or three of the island's original seven families of
>settlers were known to suffer from asthma, and so this isolated population
>represents the ideal "target" community for researchers in search for
>asthma genes.=20
>
>* Patent: In 1991, researchers from the University of Toronto began the
>two-year process of persuading the unwilling residents of Tristan da Cunha
>to participate in their research. In 1993, the researchers finally acquired
>blood samples from 272 of the residents and returned to Canada. The
>following year the samples were turned over to Sequana Therapeutics, which
>is using DNA to pinpoint the genetic mutation that predisposes people to
>asthma. In May 1995, Sequana's Director of Operations reported that the
>company had "made tremendous progress" in locating the precise location of
>the so-called asthma gene. Three months later, the company announced that
>it has signed a deal worth up to $70 million with pharmaceutical giant
>Boehringer Ingelheim, which now has the worldwide rights to develop and
>commercialise therapeutics based on the asthma genes. Sequana retains
>rights to diagnostics. The island people, in return, have some equipment to
>test lung function left by the Canadian researchers.=20
>
>* Implications: As mainstream scientists increasingly tries to identify
>genes as an explanation for every human physical and psychological trait,
>human populations are becoming prime subjects of research, particularly
>isolated communities like the people of Tristan da Cunha. The Guaymi people
>of Panama and residents of the Solomon Islands have also found their cell
>lines become the subject of patents owned by the US government. In none of
>these cases was it made explicit to the people that agreeing to give blood
>samples meant becoming subject to a patent claim, and once they found out
>local people were outraged. Many indigenous groups see the patenting of
>human life as a violation of their integrity and against their own
>traditions and laws. In some cases, local communities' loud objections,
>supported by NGOs, have led to withdrawal of these patent applications, but
>overall the practice of patenting particular cells of special human
>populations for the benefit of a particular researcher or company continues
>as before.
>
>
>Umbilical cords
>
>* Background: Foetal tissue is widely used in medical research. Blood cells
>of the umbilical cord of new-born babies are of particular interest both in
>traditional transplant medicine and gene-therapies. The blood cells are
>especially important for blood and marrow transplantation. The special
>properties of umbilical cord blood cells is widely know in medical circles.
>
>* Patent: The US-based Biocyte Corporation, recently bought by Avicord, has
>been granted European patent (EP 343 217) on the blood cells of the
>umbilical cord of foetuses and the newborn. The patent holder has done
>nothing except show that these cells can be isolated and deep frozen. The
>patent gives Biocyte/Avicord monopoly control over the extraction and use
>of the cells and over any therapies developed in connection with them. The
>granting of this patent means that Biocyte can refuse the access to and use
>of these blood cells and any therapeutic products derived from them to
>anyone unwilling or unable to pay their fees. Further, the patent does not
>require the consent of the subjects from whom the cells are taken.=20
>
>* Implications: The patent has been challenged by European public interest
>groups on the grounds that the European Patent Convention prohibits the
>patents of therapeutic and diagnostic processes. Opponents also claim that
>this is a discovery, there is no inventive step, and that it is an offence
>against morality and public order. The patent has also been challenged by
>Eurocord, an alliance of transplant doctors. The International Society of
>Transplantation states that "no part of the human body can be
>commercialised and that organ or cell donations should be free and
>anonymous". Eurocord holds that "We deplore any attempt to patent a
>non-pharmacological method of treating patients with haematological
>diseases and recommend that clinicians and scientists disassociate
>themselves from patents of this type, be they already granted or only in
>application form."=20
>
>
>
>African HIV carriers
>
>* Background: The HIV virus, which causes AIDS, is thought to have
>originated in Africa. Be they prostitutes in Kenya or villagers in the West
>African Savannah, HIV carriers are being tapped for DNA samples in the form
>of blood, saliva and other cells by Western researchers trying to find a
>source of immunity which could lead to a vaccine or some other means to
>stop the scourge.
>
>* Patents: In 1991, the Paris-based Institut Pasteur, which claims it first
>discovered the HIV virus, was granted US patent number 5,019,510. The
>patent covers a mutant of HIV virus-1 which is claimed to be useful as a
>source of antigens for vaccines and detecting antibodies to the retro
>virus. This strain of HIV-1 was isolated from a Gabonese "donor" in 1986.
>
>* Implications: There are, in fact, several HIV-related patents on human
>cell lines taken from African carriers. It has not been determined whether
>their consent was clearly granted before they become donors and patented
>subjects, once stripped of their cells and these were cultured in Europe or
>the US. Nevertheless, the controversy arising from these patents is that
>the Africans will most likely never benefit from the research carried out
>on them. AIDS research is the most lucrative corner of the pharmaceutical
>industry. Profit margins on current therapies tip the 70% mark, before
>distribution. While Africa harbours well over half the 22 million HIV
>carriers today, the current cost of triple-drug therapy is 30 times the
>average annual income on the continent. Patents are jacking up the jackpot
>from the US$ 2.3 billion market in the industrialised countries, at the
>expense of African HIV donors. This will always be the case as long as
>major medical research is governed by commercial interests: medicines will
>only be accessible to those who can buy them.
>
>***
>
>
>
>This briefing has been produced by Genetic Resources Action International
>(GRAIN), an international NGO based in Barcelona, Spain. GRAIN promotes the
>sustainable management and use of agricultural biodiversity based on
>people's control over genetic resources and local knowledge, with a special
>emphasis on developing countries. In our opinion, the patenting of live
>goes against this important objective as it undermines people's control
>over their resources and livelihoods, and pirates the collective knowledge
>systems of local communities in many parts of the world.
>
>Janet Bell did a lot of the research and writing for this briefing, while
>GRAIN staff in Barcelona and Los Banos provided backup research and did the
>final editing and production. Sources used were many, but include the
>original patents, GRAIN's newsletter Seedling, several issues of RAFI
>Communique of the Rural Advancement Foundation International, and materials
>from "Global 2000" and the "No Patents on Life Coalition"
>
>We would appreciate feedback and comments. For more information:
>
> Genetic Resources Action International, GRAIN
> Girona 25, pral
> E-08010 Barcelona, Spain
> Phone: (34-3) 301.13.81; Fax: (34-3) 301.16.27
> Email: grain(bcn.servicom.es
>
>=3D=3D June 1997 =3D=3D
>
>
>************************************
>Biodiversity Action Network (BIONET)
>1400 16th Street, NW - Suite 502
>Washington, DC 20036 - USA
>Tel: +1.202.547.8902
>Fax: +1.202.265.0222
>E-mail: bionet@igc.apc.org
>URL: http://www.igc.apc.org/bionet
>************************************
>
>
