Like President Bush, the US biotechnology industry remains out of step
with the rest of the world in its hostility towards the Biodiversity Convention
signed at the Earth Summit in Rio. The convention is intended to preserve
the Earth鈥檚 great variety of species, but it also has provisions for transferring
technology from rich to poor countries.
America鈥檚 biotechnology companies claim that the convention will undermine
the patents and licences which give them intellectual property rights over
products and processes. They also fear that approval of the convention would
have undermined their government鈥檚 tough stance on intellectual property
rights in the latest round of negotiations for the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
Biotechnology companies in Britain have a different interpretation of
the convention. They see it as recognising that intellectual property rights
must be respected. In the rest of Europe, the industry is undecided.
Advertisement
Dick Godown, the president of the Industrial Biotechnology Association
in Washington DC, applauded Bush鈥檚 decision not to sign the convention.
鈥榃e stood up and said it was a lousy deal.鈥� The convention will force companies
to license technology and products to developing countries on concessionary
or 鈥榤ost favourable鈥� terms, he says.
鈥業t seems to us highway robbery that a Third World country should have
the right to a protected invention simply because it supplied a bug, or
a plant or an animal in the first place,鈥� Godown said. 鈥業t鈥檚 been weighted
in favour of developing nations.鈥�
He also acknowledged fears about GATT. 鈥業t鈥檚 a fair conclusion that
if the US was willing to accept some of the language in the convention,
it would have softened our position in the GATT talks on intellectual property,鈥�
he said. The US has pushed particularly hard at these talks for 鈥榓 level
playing field鈥� in which all countries enact and respect intellectual property
law. It fears that by accepting the concessionary terms for transferring
technology hinted at in the convention, the US would weaken its strong posture
at GATT.
The BioIndustry Association, which represents 160 British biotechnology
companies, is calling on Bush to back the convention. 鈥楬aving reviewed the
convention, we do not share the concerns expressed by the US government,鈥�
says Louis Da Gama, executive director of the BIA.
Ian Cubitt, the chairman of the BIA鈥檚 working party on public awareness,
accused the Americans of being oversensitive. 鈥榃e think it鈥檚 quite right
morally to let (developing countries) have the technology . . . We don鈥檛
feel that it鈥檚 interfering with our profitability, and it鈥檚 helping people,
so what鈥檚 wrong with it?鈥�
Brian Ager of the Senior Advisory Group Biotechnology, a lobby group
in Brussels representing the interests of 30 chemicals companies including
Monsanto, the biggest biotechnology company in the US, gave a more guarded
response. 鈥榃e are a bit more sceptical than the BIA. The wording is so vague
that no one actually knows what it means.鈥�
