Genomic Research and Intellectual Property: Observations

1. Genomic Research and Intellectual Property:Observations Douglas D. Hedley CFAVM 28 April 2011 Lord Elgin Hotel, Ottawa

2. Background • Nearly three decades with AAFC • Policy and programs: retired 2004, ADM Programs Branch • Some years overseas: • Rockefeller Foundation Overseas Scholar • Colombia, Africa, South East Asia • The Rockefeller Foundation, Winrock International • International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Nigeria (CGIAR) • Board Member: ISNAR (CGIAR) • President of IAAE and Founding Editor: Journal of the IAAE, Fellow, IAAE • Executive Director: Canadian Faculties of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine (8 Ag and 5 Vet faculties) • Private consulting and coaching Douglas Hedley

3. From the Brief: What’s missing? • Plant Breeder’s Rights • Established in law in Canada 1991 • International Union for the Protection on New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) • First established 1968, last up-dated 1991 • Covers plant varieties, biochemical and molecular techniques, and DNA-Profiling • What problem needs to be solved? Douglas Hedley

4. Problems • From a university point of view: • Lots of rules • Public funding agency historically captures any resulting IP • Different rules across funding agencies; no common approach • A negotiated agreement in many cases, often private • AAFC attempting a “common” approach • And there are ways around the rules • We seem to know what to do if IP pops up from research • But only if the researcher recognizes the IP Douglas Hedley

5. Problems • No apparent “Policy” of whether public research funding has the objective of creating IP • For what purpose? • Or “Policy” on what to do with it if it arises • Owning IP often a net cost to institutions • Private sector funded research appears to have a stronger objective to create IP than government • Both internal and university-based research Douglas Hedley

6. Problems • Assembling IP on biological forms relatively new • Fairly straightforward with one or two traits • Exponentially costly in more combinations • Societal reactions to GMOs for food • Few examples of consumer benefit from GMOs so far • Benefits lie mainly with input suppliers and producers • Increasing concern with rise of organic, natural, local • Corn, soybeans, cotton, canola Douglas Hedley

7. Problems • Why is a clear policy approach on bio-related IP important? • It’s not just about IP policy • It’s about what problems we need to resolve as a society • And the role IP plays in solving these problems • Lower costs of collaboration among researchers, and mobilizing knowledge, not strong enough drivers Douglas Hedley

8. The food dilemma: • Population and income growth to 2050 • 70 to 100% increase in food demand at stable prices • More than half of this increase must come by 2030 • Yield growth from traditional plant breeding methods in decline • Productivity growth already below sustainable level • Climate change reducing capacity to produce food • Need both mitigation and adaptation: changing the genetic foundation in our crops Douglas Hedley

9. Food and Wellness • Food and diet increasingly seen linked to human health and wellness • Opportunity to increase nutrition of major food groups • Health benefits from bio-medical IP Douglas Hedley

10. How to get policy traction on changes/up-dates to IP policy? • What metrics exist to choose among the options? • Need to put the IP issues in context of real and perceived economic and societal problems • What problems can a Canadian IP policy solve? Douglas Hedley

11. Thank you Douglas Hedley