Hi All: This is a forwarded message. Sorry about any cross-posts, but I thought it was pertinent to this list. Stefanie ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The following article has just appeared in the latest issue of Honey Bee 8(2)1997 and comments are invited. Those who are interested in subscribing to Honey Bee can send inquiries at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] sample copies of HOney bee are available for free down load at our HTTP site http://csf.colorado.edu/sristi 'Biopiracy' vis-a-vis Gene Fund: A Novel Experiment in Benefit Sharing Anil K Gupta Coordinator SRISTI and Professor, IIM Ahmedabad While the debate on benefit sharing among those who conserve biodiversity and those who benefit from it continues, an inter- esting experiment has been initiated at University of California, Davis (UCD) in USA to stem what some call 'biopiracy'. A cloned gene, "Xa21" (originally discovered in 1977), extracted from a land race of paddy (Oryza longistaminata) taken from the West African region (Mali) has been patented by UCD based on the 'invention' by Pamela Ronald, an assistant professor of plant pathology. Ronald has initiated a novel mechanism that pools university, inventor and industry resources to compensate nations for valu- able genetic material. It is the first known attempt by a major research university to formally redress perceived inequities related to genetic material property rights. An amount of US$ 150,000 as an advance share of royalty that may come from poten- tial users of the patented gene has been kept in a gene fund at this university. This fund will be used for providing scholarship to students from Mali, the country where the rice came from, as well as other West African countries where it grows, and the Philippines, where much of the breeding work was done to incorpo- rate this gene into cultivated lines. There will obviously be a lot of debate on fairness of the deal, appropriateness of amount, instrument of benefit sharing i.e. scholarships, or viability of such a measure which hinges on the voluntary nature of benefit sharing implied in the "encouragement to private sector to contribute to fund" etc. However, while we must find more fair, equitable and sustainable ways of benefit sharing, we must not deny the credit which is due in this case. According to Ronald the gene that makes rice resistant to blight - one of the most serious bacterial diseases affecting the crop - could have great value because of its potential to transfer such resistance to different varieties of rice and potentially other plants. Aboubacar Toure, head of Mali's Sorghum Breeding Program, com- mended the effort. Setting up of the fellowship program to allow students from Mali to study at UCD, will help his country more than just a simple monetary contribution, said Toure, who is on a fellowship himself this year, in Texas. With Ronald's prodding and advise from Prof Barton, law professor at Stanford Universi- ty, UCD has decided to funnel 25 percent of its share of future royalties from the patent to the fellowship fund. The plan will be reviewed when the university's contribution reaches US$52,500. The fund will also receive an undetermined portion from the share that goes to Ronald and the gene's other co-discoverers, UCD researchers Wen-Yuan Song and Guo-Liang Wang. Moreover, money will also be funneled from future profits of companies that buy licenses to develop products using the gene. Two companies have signed options to license Xa21. Ronald did not reveal the names, but Toenniessen, of Rockefeller foundation which funded part of is one. Pat Mooney, executive director of Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI), said he admires the goodwill of the pro- gram, but it shouldn't be confused with charity. When Honey Bee asked Ronald as to what triggered her thought about this experiment, she responded, "We cloned, sequenced and applied for a patent for this gene in 1995. There were several companies interested in licensing. I wanted to share any profits with the countries where the germplasm originated because this is the logical and fair thing to do. I feel it is high time to get appropriate compensation programs organized." The price of the gene and thus the amount of royalty was rather arbitrarily determined, she added. The gene acquired importance also because it was singly responsible for the disease resistance of the known phenotype. This is the first gene of this type isolated. Assessing value was not easy, Ronald said, "At this point we did not try to assess true value. We just wanted to start the program. I hope in the future there will be good ways to assess the true value although sometimes that is impossible to do beforehand." She also highlighted another aspect of this biotechnological breakthrough and that is, the advantage that varieties with this particular gene have over ones in which diseases are controlled by fungicide sprays. Thus it may be environmentally safer than other conventional varieties. Interestingly this gene expresses itself in cultivated indica and japonica lines and functions in both. Thus potentially, it has very wide applications. It could even be transferred to other crops. When asked whether this gene will be available to gene donor countries like Mali, she replied, "Yes, it already is. It is freely distributed to anyone who wants to use it for non- commercial purposes. We have already sent it to many people. They do not need a license." This gene could also be transferred through conventional techniques to new varieties. UCD claims no rights to any variety that is developed using conventional means, she added. Issues for reflection (1) Who will really benefit from the scholarship fund? The idea of providing scholarship is noble and aims at building long term capacity in the gene donor countries as well as in the country where the germplasm was conserved. The problem arises when we try to understand as to who may actually benefit from such scholar- ships. Our studies have shown that school dropout rate is gener- ally highest in biodiversity rich regions and also where agricul- ture is rain fed and risk prone. It is these regions in which land races are likely to be conserved. Yet, young boys and girls (in fact dropout rate of girls is almost twice as high as that of boys) from these regions are unlikely to get the advantage of scholarships unless a specific stipulation is made in the rules requiring this fund to be used for addressing the problem of ging students from these regions. Further, it must be made mandatory for recipients of such schol- arships to go back to their own countries. It will be ironical if the recipients stay behind in USA and the fund works like a suction pump to draw out able young scholars. (2) The contribution to conservation of land races may also require setting up trust funds under the leadership of local growers of land races in gene donor countries. It must be insist- ed that the funds must be managed by those who grow land races. Otherwise owners of irrigated land holdings, growers of high yielding varieties and those having more influence and power will dominate these funds. (3) Sharing the royalty with students from Philippines is fine so far as the need for that country to get such help is concerned. But it also amounts to giving a kind of property right to Philip- pines on every germplasm on which research is done at IRRI (International Rice Research Institute). It will be a tragedy if US government demanded a share from royalty from every gene transfer research simply because they have the largest repository of genes in Fort Collins. The implications of such sharing ar- rangements must be carefully thought out. Similarly, India will become claimant for royalty from every germplasm stored at ICRI- SAT, Columbia for CIAT's collection etc. Is it fair that the gene donor country's share in royalty be depleted by such stakehold- ers? A weighting criteria and priority list in this regard needs to be developed. Otherwise, better off countries and communities in Western Africa or any other region will take away the benefits of this new instrument (gene fund) of reciprocity between gene donors and gene beneficiaries. (4) The contributions to these funds must come not only from University royalty fund but also from corporate gainers from this gene for at least 17-20 years (the life of the patent). To ensure that such funds become large and attractive for local communities to really conserve land races - a purpose of such incentives in any case under Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), it will be necessary to generate revenues from seed companies and/or the growers of disease resistance varieties of rice having this gene. In any case all the high yielding varieties have incorporated genes from land races without exception and thus present growers of such varieties in green revolution regions of every country (including developing countries) must be encouraged to pay a small tax. This can be pooled and shared with conservators of local diversity, land races and habitats of wild relatives etc. (5) The point made by Pat Mooney is right that the sharing should be seen as a mark of responsibility rather than charity. It is however, important to mention that such a responsibility should be shown by public and private agencies (seed companies, grain procurement agencies, exporters, growers and consumers of high yielding varieties etc.,) in each country. By focussing all the ts, attractive as these are, we are missing the issue of generating larger civil society responsibil- ity in each country towards conservation. Everybody wants some one else to pay. Ronald's initiative is important and significant in this regard. It also highlights another issue which is often ignored by the activists. Ronald and Barton could persuade the university to share the royalty because there was scope for generating wealth out of the resource provided by the developing countries. Till now developing countries have shared their biodi- versity wealth unhesitatingly. Some communities still feel hesi- tant in putting a value on it and accept pecuniary advantage. But then should they remain poor because their ethical values are superior? (AKG) Pamela Ronald can be contacted at Department of Plant Pathology, 576, Hutchison Hall, UC Davis, Davis CA 95616, USA. Fax 916 752- 5674 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****************************************************************** Please visit our web site to see a pdf version of Honey Bee newsletter on grassroots creativity and innovation( a sample copy) and read about a voluntary organization SRISTI http://csf.colorado.edu/sristi gopher://csf.colorado.edu/11/environment/sristi address: Prof Anil K Gupta Co-ordinator, SRISTI (Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions) & Honey Bee network c/o Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad - 380 015, India. fax : 91-79-6427896 Phone: 6564979( r) 407241 ( ext: 4922, 4927, 4930) office email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****************************************************************** ************************************ Stefanie S. Rixecker Department of Resource Management Lincoln University, Canterbury Aotearoa New Zealand E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************
