Download
1 / 26
260 likes | 397 Views
IPRs and the Future of Plant Breeding in Canada. December 14-15 CAIRN workshop Viktoriya Galushko. Research environment in Canadian agriculture before 1980s. Formal plant breeding was conducted by public sector New technologies and varieties were freely disseminated
E N D
IPRs and the Future of Plant Breeding in Canada December 14-15 CAIRN workshop Viktoriya Galushko
Research environment in Canadian agriculture before 1980s • Formal plant breeding was conducted by public sector • New technologies and varieties were freely disseminated • Researchers freely exchanged ideas and results • Plants were considered a nature’s product and thus unpatentable
Policy shift in 1980s • Breakthroughs in molecular biology science new possibilities for seed identification • 1980 – the US Court held that life forms are patentable (Diamond vs Chakrabarty) • 1982 – the Canadian IP office allowed patenting of single-celled organisms or within cell processes • Cuts in public R&D and encouragement of private sector investment • Adoption of Plant Breeders’ Rights in 1990
Change in research environment since 1980s: wheat and canola • Wheat research has remained predominantly public with a limited application of biotechnology and IPRs • Canola research has experienced a dramatic increase in private investment with an extensive application of biotechnology and IPRs
Distribution of the canola research results between the public and private sectors
The Issue • IPRs are believed to stimulate innovation BUT… • IPRs separate building blocks in cumulative research • IPRs may restrict access to upstream innovations necessary for subsequent research IPRs may stifle or slow down innovations when research is cumulative
The Issue cont’d • IPRs can change the nature of public research: • Propensity to patent by private sector may spill over to the public sector (e.g. AAFC canola US patent) • Prospects of future financial gains may increase unwillingness of public researchers to share information • Privatization of technologies may push public researchers towards forming close ties with the industry • Accessing all pieces of IP may become prohibitively costly for public researchers
Impact of IPRs on public researchers: wheat versus canola breeding industries? • Survey of the canola and wheat breeders (Oikonomou (2007), Galushko (2007)) Main points: • Access to research materials • Secrecy • Sharing • Denied requests for research materials • Information flows
Access to research inputs and genetic materials cont’d Canola sector “…almost everybody in our industry can see the fact the freely available material for release without any burdens has dried out. So, we are really locked in a point where 1995, 1998, and 2000 was the last time where you could freely access material or germplasm”
Proportion of the developed technologies placed in the public domain
Sharing in the breeding sector • “You are unwilling to disclose your inventions and share them with other researchers” (1 – strongly agree, 7 – strongly disagree) • Wheat sector: average 6.2 (disagree) • Quote: “It is difficult to make a headway hiding information because there are so few people doing wheat work” • Canola sector: average 4.29
Sharing of research tools/germplasm cont’d Quotes by wheat breeders “As public researchers within Canada we should be providing germplasm to whoever asks especially to other public organizations. For private industry we have to be more careful what they are going to do with it…” “The private industry is less likely to share and it’s getting worse. I think these gentlemen’s agreements in the next few years are going to be very difficult and they will disappear at all”
Sharing of research tools/germplasm cont’d Quotes by canola breeders “…with all the changes in the patent system we don’t tend to give our best material” “…it is in the interest of researchers as well as the institution to protect the research before you give it to anybody. Once I have protected the invention I am willing to share it with others”
Is unwillingness to share research inputs confined to the private sector? • NO • AAFC and the genes for disease resistance • Quote by one canola breeder: “AAFC’s desire to capture the benefits from patenting and PBRs have made the exchange of basic material much more difficult than it ought to be”
Views on secrecy in the canola and wheat sectors cont’d Wheat sector: 69% reported increased secrecy Canola sector: “…Everybody knows what everyone else is doing but nobody talks about it. Secrecy has increased to ridiculous levels” “…A number of years ago we had canola meetings where the breeders would describe what they were working on. Now we don’t say anything. We have prior knowledge here and we can’t go and discuss it elsewhere because the business offices are concerned about patents and freedom to operate (FTO) issues”
Is there a tragedy in the Canadian breeding industry? Costs and benefits of IPRs • Investment in the canola industry has increased. 1989 - $7.1 mln., 2000 – $22.5 mln. (1989 dollars) (Thomas (2005)) • Number of new varieties has increased
Is there a tragedy? • Promising areas of research are abandoned due to painful negotiation process • Delays in research (maximum delay of 5 years) • Canola: 55% reported that they had to cease the projects because of inability to access the material • Wheat: 33% reported cessation of projects
Key points • IPRs has increased investment • IP protection affects the willingness of public researchers to share information and materials • Increased IPRs are associated with reduced germplasm flows • “there has been gradual erosion in access to and free sharing of germplasm, which certainly limits access to the new traits that have been identified” • “the current system does not make the best use of germplasm simply because part of it has been separated off into patented positions and so that some germplasm has become very difficult or impossible to access” • protection “has closed down a wide sharing of germplasm amongst the whole range of breeders”
THANK YOU! QUESTIONS?
