Publications
 
Scientific Research, IPR's and Societal Issues
and The Case of " Terminator Technology"
 
Dr. A.D.Damodaran

1.        Volume 282 , October 30 , 1998 issue of the prestigeous journal SCIENCE through an article entitled " Seed-Sterilizing Terminator Technology Sows Discord " describes a unique case of plant biotechnology , which has been creating a storm among wide sections of the public in many countries. ( with India  even  incorporating a clause banning " terminator technology " among the new plant varieties in her bill now under  discussion for approval of the parliament ) . To quote,   " Plant biotechnology researchers usually try to give plants a leg up on evolution, packing them with genes to fend off assaults from insects, extreme weather, and herbicides. But the latest innovation to emerge  from plant gene labs does just the opposite ; it ensures that these attributes won't be passed  along to the next generation. Using a neat trick of genetic engineering , companies ensure that genetically modified plants produce sterile seeds - a feat that will keep farmers coming back for fresh seed year after year ". This concerns the US Patent 5,723,765 issued to the cotton seed company Delta & Pine Land and the US Department of Agriculture. The technique contained therein " causes plants to bear sterile seeds through an interplay between three transplanted genes , one of which produces a toxin that kills seeds in their final stage of development", to quote SCIENCE. The seed company describes the technique as a " technology protection system" to safeguard their investments in improved plant varieties and through the development  and  popularization of such seeds to sustain its business prospects by de facto compelling the farmers to purchase the seed repeatedly for every crop.
 

2.        Not  unexpectedly , the new product has attracted wide protests from different sources even in the US. Thus to quote from SCIENCE again, a committee for the world's largest agricultural research organization - The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CGIAR , which is a
non-profit research outfit giving away its technologies free , recommended
that its 16 member institutes ban the use of this technology in their crop
improvement program , raising the profile of the technology's critics .
Another vocal critic is the Rural Advancement Forum International, a vocal
farmers' organization. Describing the above technique as " terminator technology", the critics raise the following  apprehensions :

a.        It is unfair to prevent the practice of farmers , more so in underdeveloped countries, to keep aside a part of the improved seeds and use the same for breeding with local varieties to bolster the varieties.

b.        The pollen harbouring the seed-sterilizing genes could pollinate nearby crops , rendering their seeds sterile. 

Even though the company officials , supported by the USDA , strongly repudiate such charges and insist that the technique only enables them to protect their hard-earned pest-resistant seeds, , a high-science based
"technology protection system" , the controvercy continues.

3.        A similar patent under the caption " Control of Plant Gene Expression" has been filed in the name of the USA by the Secretary of Agriculture in India with Monsanto ( who is supposed to have taken over the Delta and Pine Land Co.) playing the promoter role , obviously expecting significant financial returns over the years; and , not surprisingly , here again the seed has attracted mixed reaction. While the patent holder continues to
describe the technology as only a " technology protection system", the description "terminator technology" has got stuck  with the seed promotion program..

4.        The above example is only one among the many to describe the contemporary "gold rush" type phenomenon of " chemical industry rushing towards greener pasteurs", to quote SCIENCE  again.The beginning is quoted vividly thus:   "When Howard Schneidermann joined the chemical giant Monsanto in 1979 as the head of research , he took over a  program focused on plastics and petrochemicals. But he quickly began planting the seeds of the company's revolution..into  the budgeoning  realm of genetic engineering...produced the world's first genetically modified plant - a petunia- .first step on the road to engineering crops by adding genes that made them resistant to weed-killing herbicides or insect  pests. The journey took more years and sweat than any  thought it would : expressing herbicide-resistence genes in crops , showing that they worked and then convincing regulators, farmers and consumers that engineered plants were safe , all became major hurdles." 

5.        Thanks to such efforts to bring in a " gene revolution " in agriculture,
the US farmers are now planting an estimated 25 million acres with herbicide-resistant  seeds , nearly one third of the nation's soyabean
farmland. Monsanto accounts now about 70% of the genetically modified crops. Others going for the gold rush are Hoechst, Du Pont, Novartis, Dow,
Rhone-Poulenc Agro, and so on. Having said this , it is also very important
to quote a Du Pont source " Biotech is a very sexy area, but there is a huge
amount of science to be done". In other words, with the expansion of relevant R&D in the field , there  would also be  concurrent efforts to
"protect" these R&D results  both through scientific techniques themselves
or alternatively through specific provisions in the IPR Acts . The above
said US patent is the first such effort by one company to "protect" its new
genetically engineered plant. It is possible that others may develop
alternate strategies of protection and which  may turn out as more
acceptable to the regulator authority and the farmer-cum-society at  large.
Till then the companies may have to be regulated to be satisfied with less
profits. It is crucial that developing countries such as India develop adequate expertise to handle these newly developing scientific-technological challenges, both from the point of view of utilizing the beneficial ones to
their advantage , but also of preventing the not-so-ones from penetrating
into their vast agricultural markets surreptitiously and thereby causing
irreparable damage. As part of the above, appropriate quarantine procedures need to be evolved matching with the local agricultural practices. Concurrently the farmers also need to be exposed to both the oppurtunities and  ill effects of using these newly developed varieties.