UK Patent Agents' Paper on the disclosure of origin of 'genetic resouces'

October 27, 2005

London, 26 Oct 2005

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) seeks to promote:

  • Conservation of biological diversity.
  • Sustainable use of its components.
  • Equitable sharing of the benefits from the use of genetic resources.

Patent laws should forward these objectives, which are worthy of full support. Accordingly some suggest that patent applications concerned with genetic resources should be obliged to show that such resources have been accessed with Prior Informed Consent (PIC): or at a minimum to disclose the origin of such resources. This, it is said, will enable supplying countries to check that users of such resources are respecting the CBD, and encourage benefit-sharing.

This proposal is totally misconceived. It is based on false assumptions. It is unclear, impractical and disproportionate. If implemented, it will hinder the objectives of the CBD rather than promoting them, and impose burdens on innovators while benefitting no-one.

  • CBD

    The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) came into force in December 1993. It has about 180 members - the great majority of countries in the world, though excluding the USA. Its objectives are set out in Article 1 as:

  • Conservation of biological diversity.
  • Sustainable use of its components.
  • Equitable sharing of the benefits from the use of genetic resources.

      It recognises the sovereignty of each member nation to exploit its own genetic resources (Article 3). Accordingly, each nation has the right to control access to those resources (Art 15.1) but is obliged to 'facilitate' such access (Art 15.2). Access is to be granted on mutually agreed terms (Art 15.4) but subject to PIC of the party providing it (Art 15.5). Benefits arising from use are to be equitably shared with the providing party.

      Article 15 applies only to the provision of resources for which the providing country is the 'country of origin', or has received in accordance with the CBD (Art 15.3). The 'country of origin' is the country which possesses those genetic resources in in-situ conditions (Art 2). Article 16 deals with access to technology, which is to be facilitated, but taking account of IP rights. Art 16.5 requires members to ensure that IP rights are 'supportive of and do not run counter to' the CBD's objectives.

    • Objectives

      The objectives of the CBD are worthy of the fullest support*. Biological diversity should be conserved: both for practical and for moral and aesthetic reasons. The components of biological diversity have many valuable existing uses (feeding the world, for example), and there are many more to be discovered. Many important drugs have been extracted from plants, or synthesised from starting materials obtained from them. It is surely unarguable that the benefits from such uses should be fairly shared - though of course there may often be disagreement about what is fair.

      However, good objectives are not sufficient. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Effective legislation must take account of all relevant circumstances.

    • IP Law

      Again, it is entirely proper that IP laws should support and not frustrate the CBD's objectives. But it by no means follows that changes to IP laws are good (or even acceptable) ways of achieving those objectives. Existing IP laws provide a way of extracting returns from investments in new uses. In this way they have two effects: they encourage innovators to search for such new uses, and they enable innovators to extract a financial return from the new users. This return may then be shared, equitably, with those who have contributed resources. Regulations which make it more difficult to obtain patents discourage research on new uses. Changes are worthwhile only if the benefits will outweigh the costs.

    • The case alleged for 'disclosure of origin and PIC'. This runs broadly as follows:

    • Genetic resources have many valuable uses. They are concentrated in countries of high biodiversity, which are typically poor and less developed.

    • Rich developed countries have access to genetic resources provided by poor countries, with widespread disregard of the provisions of the CBD on PIC and benefit-sharing.

    • In particular, many patent applications relating to genetic resources are filed by residents of developed countries. These lead to profits which are not shared with providers. In most cases, the providers are quite unaware of this, and hence are unable to claim what is rightfully theirs.

    • If patent applicants were obliged to state the country of origin of biological materials used in their inventions, and document PIC, providing countries could see that those materials had been accessed legally, and claim their fair share of the profits.

    • This would reduce a significant injustice and promote development of poorer nations.
    • [...]

      Full text

      Chartered Institute of Patent Agents of the UK -- CIPA Previous Item Back to Titles Print Item Selection and Arrangement Copyright © 2005 Public Info Net Ltd.

      Please login or register to read this article

      Register to continue

      Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

      Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

      • Sign up for the editor's highlights
      • Receive World University Rankings news first
      • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
      • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

      Have your say

      Log in or register to post comments