Recent intellectual property rights controversies and issues at the CGIAR.

Bragdon, Susan H.; Santaniello, V.; Evenson, Robert E.; Zilberman, David; Carlson, Gerald A.

doi:10.1079/9780851994574.0077

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These ‘land races’ have traditionally been provided free of charge by developing countries to the world community. Amongst the agencies involved, the various Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) centres add value through selective breeding, and the superior varieties they generate are widely distributed without charge, thereby benefiting both developing and developed countries (Bragdon, 2000; Anon, 2001).…”

Section: Patents Ethics and International Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review: intellectual property aspects of plant transformation

Dunwell

2005

Plant Biotechnology Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryOne of the recurring themes of the debates concerning the application of genetic transformation technology has been the role of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). This term covers both the content of patents and the confidential expertise usually related to methodology and referred to as 'Trade Secrets'. This review explains the concepts behind patent protection, and discusses the wide-ranging scope of existing patents that cover all aspects of transgenic technology, from selectable markers and novel promoters to methods of gene introduction. Although few of the patents in this area have any real commercial value, there are a small number of key patents that restrict the 'freedom to operate' of new companies seeking to exploit the methods. Over the last 20 years, these restrictions have forced extensive cross-licensing between ag-biotech companies and have been one of the driving forces behind the consolidation of these companies. Although such issues are often considered of little interest to the academic scientist working in the public sector, they are of great importance in any discussion of the role of 'public-good breeding' and of the relationship between the public and private sectors.

show abstract

Section: Patents Ethics and International Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review: intellectual property aspects of plant transformation

Dunwell

2005

Plant Biotechnology Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In November 2001, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture was approved by a conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and is intended to formalize the previous International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources (IU), signed in 1994 by the CGIAR centres and the FAO. Part of the original undertaking was the recognition that genetic resources are the heritage of mankind and that property rights could not be sought over the genetic resources collected, a perspective clearly in con¯ict with the CBD (Bragdon, 2000). However, this treaty still leaves some signi®cant areas of contention in the area of how property rights can be sought over genetic resources, as well as the mechanism by which countries can be recompensed for the use of their`property'.…”

Section: Germplasmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transgenic crops, biotechnology and ownership rights: what scientists need to know

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryOwnership of intellectual and tangible property (IP/TP) rights in agricultural biotechnology (ag-biotech) and transgenic plants has become critically important. For scientists in all institutions, whether industrialized or developing country, public or private sector, an understanding of IP/TP rights is fundamental in both research and development. Transgenic plants and ag-biotech products embody numerous components and processes, each of which may have IP/TP rights attached. To identify these rights, a transgenic plant or ag-biotech product must be dissected into its essential components and processes, with each`piece' analysed under the IP/TP`microscope'. This product deconstruction is an integral step in product clearance (PC) analysis leading to freedom to operate (FTO). To facilitate a PC analysis, the following points are important: (1) knowing what one has and where it's from, (2) organizing material transfer agreements and licences, (3) researching scienti®c and patent databases and relevant literature, (4) instituting a laboratory notebook policy, (5) keeping track of ownership of germplasm and plant genetic resources, and (6) promoting ongoing IP/TP management, awareness and training. However, a FTO opinion does not solve the IP/TP issues of releasing a transgenic plant or ag-biotech product; rather, it is a management tool for assessing the risks of litigation. When transferring transgenic plants or ag-biotech to developing nations, scientists from industrialized countries have the heightened responsibility of verifying that IP/TP issues are fully addressed and documented. Successful technology transfer goes beyond research, development and licensing; it is an holistic package leading to long-term partnerships in international development. Managing IP/TP requires capacity-building in scientists and technology transfer of®ces, in both industrialized and developing countries.

show abstract

A balancing act: IPRs and public agriculture research

Muraguri

2012

IJTTC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent intellectual property rights controversies and issues at the CGIAR.

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Review: intellectual property aspects of plant transformation

Review: intellectual property aspects of plant transformation

Transgenic crops, biotechnology and ownership rights: what scientists need to know

A balancing act: IPRs and public agriculture research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About