The Use of GM Crops in Developing Countries
Licensing of patented GM technologies
6.5 Five major industrial groups of large agricultural biotechnology companies control between them most of the technology which is needed to undertake commercial research in the area of GM crops.4 They have achieved this position by licensing, strategic mergers and acquisitions. Several of these companies have used their proprietary technologies effectively to develop new varieties of major crops that enhance farm productivity and reduce agricultural impacts on the environment, both in the US and elsewhere.5 However, work on crops of less commercial interest has progressed slowly, highlighting the need for greater involvement of the public sector in these cases of market failure. The power and advantage that these companies may choose to exercise in respect of licensing patent rights has attracted much negative comment. We concluded in our 1999 Report that the development of GM crops relevant to the developing world would depend in part upon availability of low cost licences or the waiving of fees for patented technologies. As with MTAs, the development of Golden Rice (case study 4) is illustrative in this respect. It shows that while patented technologies may delay the development of new crops, they are not necessarily a barrier.
6.6 Golden Rice is intended for use by farmers and traders whose profit is below US$10,000 per year. These farmers are predominantly subsistence farmers. In view of their vulnerable position it is desirable that seed can be supplied at low or no cost and without restrictions. Once research was complete it appeared that commercialisation would require licences covering 70 patents belonging to 32 different owners.6 In the event only six licences were required and licence fees were waived. This example suggests that requests for waivers of licence fees to allow the use of patented technologies for the development of crops suitable for subsistence farmers may be received sympathetically in future. However, a more systematic mechanism may be needed if large numbers of patents are involved, and if seed is to be made available to farmers at the low prices that they can afford.
6.7 The shift towards exclusive control of agricultural technologies by the private sector has been aided by organisations in the public sector.7 Universities, especially those in the US, have licensed many of their innovations, including important technologies in plant biotechnology, exclusively to companies. Consequently, three quarters of new agricultural biotechnology products, including those funded by the public sector, are controlled by the private sector. This trend of increasing investment in universities by industry is becoming much more common in the life sciences. It has led to concerns that the current levels of academicindustry collaboration are resulting in university research being increasingly influenced by corporate interests.8
6.8 The growth of IPRs has been attributed to the intense competition and low profit margins which exist in the seed industry. These conditions, it has been suggested, encourage companies to accumulate intellectual property to render technologies inaccessible to competitors despite the fact that they may have low market potential. The increasing number and complexity of IPRs which need to be licensed tends to limit their availability to researchers from the public sector. Indeed some take the view that only large companies currently have the capacity to assemble the complex mix of IPRs necessary to enable the efficient development of new technologies and products.9
Footnotes4 Syngenta, Bayer CropScience, Monsanto, DuPont and Dow AgroSciences. ETC group (2002) Ag Biotech Countdown: vital statistics and GM crops. Available: http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/biotech_countdown_2002.pdf. Accessed on: 2 June 2003.
5 Huang J et al. (2002) Plant biotechnology in China, Science 295: 674–6; Phipps RH and Park JR (2002) Environmental benefits of genetically modified crops: Global and European perspectives on their ability to reduce pesticide use, J Anim Feed Sci 11: 1–18.
6 Potrykus I (2001) Golden rice and beyond, Plant Physiol 125: 1157–61.
7 Conway G (2003) Biotechnology and the War on Poverty, in Biotechnology and Sustainable Development: Voices of the South and North, Serageldin I and Persley GJ, Editors (CAB).
8 For a discussion of how the increasing trend to acquire IPRs may also affect the direction of academic research see Royal Society (2003) Keeping Science Open: the effects of intellectual property policy on the conduct of science (London: Royal Society).
9 Conway G (2003) From the Green Revolution to the Biotechnology Revolution: Food for Poor People in the 21st Century. Speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Director’s Forum. 12 March 2003. Available: http://www.rockfound.org/documents/566/Conway.pdf. Accessed on: 10 Oct 2003.