On March 5, the University of California (Davis, CA) issued a press release about its newly created Genetic Resources Recognition Fund" with the provocative headline: "Fund Aims to Repay Developing Nations for Valuable Genes."
The news release tells a fascinating story about one University of California scientist who developed a mechanism to compensate developing nations for the use of a disease resistant rice gene which was recently patented by the University.
In 1990, plant pathologist Pamela Ronald attended a meeting sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines. Researchers at IRRI were then trying to locate a disease resistant gene they knew was present in a West African rice variety. Pamela Ronald was interested in doing further study on this disease resistant gene, and she was given samples of the African rice to take back to the United States. In 1995, Ronald successfully isolated the "Xa21" gene, the first cloned gene known to convey resistance to bacterial blight of rice caused by Xanthomonas oryzae Pv. oryzae (Xoo).
The University of California proceeded to patent the gene and offer licenses. But Dr. Ronald was personally troubled by the ethics of genetic property rights. Because of her concerns, she got together with John Barton, a well-known expert on plant intellectual property at Stanford, and they devised a new mechanism to recognize and compensate developing nations for the use of their valuable genes.
Here's how the fund works: Any company interested in licensing rights to the patented gene (and there are several companies who have purchased an option to license it) will be encouraged to contribute to the fund if and when they begin to profit from commercialization of the gene. UC Davis has already committed $50,000 dollars of its future licensing royalties from the Xa21 gene to the Fund. Once funds accumulate, the university will identify the developing country or countries that should benefit from the fund, and then the university will select students from those countries who will receive fellowships for graduate studies at UC Davis. In addition, the companies who license the gene will only have licensing rights in industrialized countries. According to Dr. Ronald, the technology is being made freely available to countries in the South.
Pamela Ronald and John Barton should be congratulated for taking the initiative to develop this mechanism. Obviously, they are concerned about Farmers' Rights and they've taken concrete steps to do what they think is right. Ultimately, however, the "Genetic Resources Recognition Fund" is not a solution. First of all, the fund is based on a patent. A patent is not a benefit sharing agreement--it is a state-sanctioned, exclusive monopoly that gives the patent holder the right to exclude others from making, using or selling the patented technology. Secondly, the fund links compensation for the use of the South's genetic resources to the goodwill of corporations and financially-strapped Northern public universities. In the future, companies will be bought and sold, and funding crises are a fact of life everywhere. The fund offers neither the accountability nor financial stability that is necessary to insure long-term conservation, utilization and further development of plant genetic resources in the South.
The good intentions of the fund could backfire by undermining negotiations in the intergovernmental sector. Multilateral negotiations are critically important because they offer many countries the opportunity to debate the issues, and a voice in determining how to recognize and reward the donors of germplasm. Finally, recognition for Farmers' Rights shouldn't depend on charity, it is a matter of justice. The Gene Recognition Fund is a sincere, well-meaning gesture, but it's still a Northern institution controlling money and decisions about how to reward someone else's innovation. "
