A CALL to declare the planet鈥檚 genetic heritage a common resource that no one
can patent has divided environmentalists and raised serious questions about the
Biodiversity Convention, one of the major successes of the Rio Earth Summit a
decade ago.
A coalition of more than a hundred environment and citizens鈥� groups headed by
anti-biotechnology crusader Jeremy Rifkin has launched a campaign for a 鈥淭reaty
to Share the Genetic Commons鈥�. They want the treaty adopted at Rio鈥檚 successor,
the World Summit in Johannesburg in August. 鈥淥ur aim is to prohibit all patents
on plant, microorganism, animal and human life, including patents on genes and
the products they code for, as well as chromosomes, cells, tissues, organs and
organisms,鈥� the joint declaration says.
The campaign directly contradicts one of the central tenets of the
Biodiversity Convention, which green groups have persuaded most governments to
sign. To encourage developing countries to preserve habitats, the convention
allows them to claim intellectual property rights over their own genetic
resources. That means many tropical countries now sell 鈥渂ioprospecting rights鈥�
to biotech companies and deny access to independent scientists.
Advertisement
But Rifkin, of the Washington DC-based Foundation on Economic Trends, told
91av: 鈥淣o government can claim the right to own the products
of millions of years of evolution or to charge bioprospectors. What we are
saying is totally against the Biodiversity Convention.鈥�
That has not stopped some prominent green groups from joining his call for a
鈥済enetic commons鈥�. Friends of the Earth International, for example, appears to
back both the Biodiversity Convention and the new treaty.
Many biotechnologists claim that a lot of research wouldn鈥檛 be done if
companies couldn鈥檛 protect their investment by patenting genes. 鈥淭hey should
make money from patenting engineering processes, not the genes themselves,鈥�
Rifkin responds. 鈥淭hey have no more right to lock up genes for their own use
than corporations a century ago had the right to patent chemical elements they
诲颈蝉肠辞惫别谤别诲.鈥�
Rifkin argues that gene patents damage academic research because results
aren鈥檛 published, and also make genetic tests prohibitively expensive. This
week, for instance, it was reported that US labs have stopped doing genetic
tests for the iron overload condition haemochromatosis, because of the cost of
royalties.
But others stand by the value of patenting genes. 鈥淚n an ideal world perhaps
Rifkin is right, but we think patents are a more practical way of promoting
research,鈥� says Gordon Conway, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, which
funds agricultural research for the developing world.
Conway denies that patenting genes would leave research wholly in the hands
of private corporations. 鈥淲e are working to create partnerships between
biotechnology companies and African research institutes,鈥� he says.