First, let me say that I do not know enough about the HGDP to either defend
nor attack it. But I reiterate my earlier point that it is better to have a
HGDP which is prepared to be open about what it intends than a whole host
of corporations and scientists working for corporations who are in all
likelihood at this very moment bio-prospecting in various parts of the
world. The latter's activities, because not publicized, are not held up to
scrutiny. We are not going to be able to put a moratorium on work in this
area (remember how when some scientists wanted to put a moratorium on
genetic engineering back in the 1970s, the result was that the work went on
anyway, especially in the labs of the military) - better therefore to have
it out in the open where it can be monitored.
Pomeranz's reply to RAFI is most welcomed and extremely clear, but in all
likelihood RAFI will choose to misunderstand or ignore it. It has become
much of a pattern among certain types of NGOs to distort important issues.
At best, they choose to simplify what are complex matters requiring
solution under present circumstances - not some abstract, ideal world.
Patents, and patenting of genetic material in particular, is one such
issue. RAFI would rather be self-righteous than be thoughtful about the
matter - maybe because thoughtfulness does not win funding for their
organization?
Allow me to expand slightly. Ideally, there should be no patents and the
fruits of scientific effort should be the common possession and heritage of
all humanity. The fact is we live in a world of markets and corporations,
and patents can be as much defensive acts against such markets and
corporations, allowing the party holding a patent to determine, to some
degree, its use and the price for such use.
I can well understand why the PNG IMR would choose to go ahead with the
patent for the cell-line. The alternative they might otherwise have faced
is some company utilising it - once it became public domain - in some
diagnostic test, and by clever patenting of the latter, exclude the PNG IMR
from using it for the same purpose. Now that the PNG IMR is a party to the
patent they and the people of PNG can derive some benefit for their
efforts, and they can choose to license it for free, or at nominal cost, to
other poor countries. (Nevertheless, some of the inputs required to develop
or run the diagnostic test are probably under patent rights of some
corporations.)
If, instead, there had been no patent, and if some company were to utilize
the cell-line in a diagnostic kit, and to patent such use, everyone would
likely have had to pay considerably more for it. Even now, we are not
altogether out of the woods: the possibility that HTLV-1 may well provide
the means for an AIDS vaccine is, I believe, being investigated - and we
know how lucrative that can be for some corporation!
If the RAFI wants to be truly useful, they should pursue a battle against
the patent laws of the US, and against patent lawyers working on behalf of
large corporations. If I'm correct, patents are only recognized in the US
if filed in the US, whereas patents filed in the US by US corporations or
citizens are supposed to be recognized worldwide. Everyone knows how
exorbitant the process of filing a US patent can be. This militates against
those who would wish to file a primarily defensive patent.
In conclusion, it might be pointed out to RAFI that twenty-odd years ago,
when the technique of monoclonal anti-bodies was developed, the scientists
involved decided not to patent it in the believe that it should be public
domain. Their intentions were honourable, but the technique has been the
basis for the development of all sorts of reagents that are now under
patent rights of corporations. Might it not have been better if they had
decided to patent the technique, claim royalties on it, and contributed
those royalties to some sort of medical fund for assistance to poor
countries?
We live in difficult times and while morality might well dictate one course
of action, realism dictates that we consider these issues in all their
ramifications, sometimes at the cost of compromising one's moral stance!
Railing against the HGDP cannot substitute for some hard effort towards
drafting some kind of "bill of rights" to be adopted worldwide, by all
parties, that will protect the rights of indigenes and countries of origin
of biological materials. At present, too much is left up to the conscience
of individuals, groups and corporations. We could do worse than start with
the kind of agreement now adopted by the NIH and NCI - they are far from
perfect, but they at least begin to recognize the issues of equity.
Khoo Khay Jin
Kuching, Sarawak
Malaysia