The WTO protection of IPR is heavily tilted in favour of inventor/ innovator/ MNC.  The MNCs backed by the US government are challenging Nelson mandela in South African courts for his decision to disregard the patent restrictions to treat AIDS. The tribal communities must be given a share of the IPR income from the drug markets.MNCs should be more transparant and honest with the public about their technology choices and the long term cost benefitsituation.
 

Text

               I have been reading with interest the comments of Frederic Piguet on the issue of intellectual property rights.Many of us feel that the WTO protection of IPR is heavily tilted in favour of inventor/innovator/MNC supporting the R&D . An immediate consequence is in the area of vaccines and medicines treating various ailments. Drug prices in India had been one of the lowest when our patent laws only permitted patenting of processes and not products.Under Americam pressure, patent laws all over the world now provide for patenting of products and assure a longer period of validity of the packet.

               It is the view of many scientists that an exaggerated view of the work of MNCs in developing new drugs has been projected.A recent work of Prof Srinivasan , an economist of Yale ( no relative of mine!) shows that most of the research work on many of the drugs now in use were carried out in public funded institutions ( many university labs) and the MNCs have utilised this work and then done productionising and marketing.

               Recently an Indian pharmaceutical company CIPLA has offered to supply AIDS vaccine to Africa, Asia and other countries at one fortieth the price charged by MNCs.The MNCs backed by the US government are challenging Nelson Mandela in South African Courts for his decision to disregard the patent restrictions to treat AIDS .( The author is referring to a South African Law of 1997.Let us recall that Nelson Mandela was the President of the republic from May 94 to June 99).Brazil which is treating AIDS victims free has also ignored the patent barriers.The drug MNCs suggest that the solution is to get around the high price question through public munificence. This is a case of evading social responsibility.

               The question of traditional knowledge raises some troubling issues. In recent years India has had to fight expensive patent litigations in US courts because the US granted patent protection to preparation made from neam,turmeric and certain natural products whose medicinal and curative properties are known and used for a thousand years or more. The burden of dance has been on India – the situation should be the other way. The patent granting body should do its job consciously and not drag an innocent user to court action in the US.

               Tribal communities around the world posses traditional knowledge in treating diseases and wounds. Research scientists are trying to understand the scientific principles involved.In such cases the tribal communities must be given a share of the IPR income from the drug marketers.There is one example in Kerala in South India, home of traditional medicine and tribal groups are paid a fair compensation for parting with their knowledge.

               There are many troubling questions on patients relating to agriculture and seeds.The large corporationsmostly US, such as Cargill or Monsanto, consider that it is good for world agricultural production to produce and market their hybrid seeds throughout the world.A few years ago, there was a report that Monsanto, in collaboration with a reputed Indian research institution, was conducting experiments on the ‘ terminator ‘ seeds. In this case the second generation seed is sterile and cannot be used for seed.The farmer is obliged to go back to the MNC for the next year’s seed.Indian Farmer associations – especially in South India – forced Monsanto to give up their experiments and a public assurance was given by Monsanto that they would not conduct the Terminator Studies in India.

               Another example concerns a variety of cotton derived by genetic engineering.The Bt ( Bacillus thuringiensis) variety has its genetic make up modified to be able to resist a particular disease of cotton , caused by Boll Worm.Monsanto claims that this new variety will need far less pesticides than the ones now in use.They accuse that the activities opposing the GM variety are being put up by the pesticide companies, thus denying the farmers a better variety using far less pesticide.It isdifficult to say where the truth lies.

               There is a great concern in India regarding acceptance of GM varieties. A farmers group , Karnataka Rajatha Sangha, has vowed to destroy every cotton plant using the Bt variety.Yet at a conference ( Indian Science Congress) held in Delhi in January 2001, a concluding statement made out that opponents of GM varieties have not scientifically established the basis of their opposition and hence society should not be denied the benefits of this new development.Onewould have thought that in these matters , abundant caution is the guiding principle.Those who promote GM plants, foods and other products must convincingly establish that accepting new products and techniques is indeed safe.There is a feeling at least among senior scientists that the ‘Gun ho’ attitude of ‘ let us try,it can’t hurt’ continues and the MNCs are impatient for profits.

               A side issue is about the relationship between an MNC from the North and a subsidiary of it in the South.It is clear that a one dimensional flow of knowledge will create a depending syndrome , hence an unequal position.We are now seeing some MNCs locating their R&D centres in India and in this list are General Electric, Microsoft and others. They wish to take advantage of the large brain power available in India to research in new areas. It is my personal feeling that while the MNCs have indeed contributed much to global economic development and health care, they should be more transparant and honest with the public at large about the technology choices they are pursuing and the long term cost benefit situation.

               To return to the question of IPR , we must call for a review of the WTO regime to arrive at a more equitable contract.

Source:      Message sent to a group of European, US and Developing Country scientists / philosophers dealing with the question of " Social Control of Science" , March 3,2001