|
|
 
|
Ontario government supports Schmeiser by Paul Beingessner
(Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2004 -- CropChoice guest commentary) -- What does Percy Schmeiser have in common with a test for breast cancer? The answer? Tony Clement. Yes, I realize none of that makes any sense, but read on and all will be explained.
Percy Schmeiser, of course, is the Saskatchewan farmer locked in a
battle with Monsanto over its patent on Roundup Ready canola. Tony
Clement is the former Ontario Minister of Health, now taking a run for
the leadership of the new federal Conservative party. The breast cancer
test, the link that brought together unlikely bedfellows Schmeiser and Clement, is one owned by a company called Myriad Genetics, based in Salt
Lake City, Utah.
In late 2000, Myriad Genetics received U.S. patents on mutated parts, or
sequences, of two human genes called BRCA1 and BRCA2 and on a test to
detect those genes. Women who have the BRCA genes have a significant
chance of developing breast and ovarian cancer. Several types of early
intervention of can reduce that risk greatly.
Myriad's patent is very broad. It claims ownership of the whole BRCA1
and 2 genes, any information relating to or derived from them, and all
methods developed to diagnose and treat hereditary breast and ovarian
cancer. If anyone develops another test for the BRCA genes, Myriad
claims to own that as well.
Canada has a habit of following the lead of the U.S. patent office in
granting patents like these. Thus, Myriad was given essentially the same
patent in Canada as it has in the U.S.
Myriad has threatened to sue anyone using any test but its own to detect
the genes. (There are other tests, which some claim are more effective.)
Myriad also demands that all tests be sent to its lab in Utah for
analysis, for a fee of $2300. Canadian provinces, including Ontario have
been using a far cheaper test to detect the gene - one costing less than
$800. Myriad has ordered Canadian provinces to stop using other tests.
Some have given in to Myriad's threats, but not Ontario. In refusing,
Tony Clement called gene patenting "abhorrent".
The breadth of patents on living organisms, human genes and the like is
often alarming. Take the case of Larry Proctor. Proctor got some yellow
beans from Mexico, grew them for a few years, then applied for a patent
on them. The U.S. patent office ignored the fact that yellow beans have
been grown in Mexico for thousands of years. They rewarded Proctor's
biopiracy with a patent not just on his variety of yellow bean, but on
all beans with a yellow seed coat. American companies that were
importing yellow beans from Mexico were faced with a demand from Proctor
for royalties.
An even more extreme example is found in Monsanto's European patent over
all genetically modified soybeans. This resulted from a patent given to
a company that Monsanto later bought out. Monsanto now owns a patent on
all existing genetically modified soybeans, no matter how they were
developed, and on all future soybean varieties that might be developed
by genetic modification, no matter what technique might be used. It is
an unbelievably comprehensive patent. Monsanto controls, in effect, half
of the soybeans grown worldwide.
Patents such as these, and the patent on the breast cancer gene have a
chilling effect on further research. Anyone wanting to do further work
on inherited breast cancer would be forced to purchase the right to do
so from Myriad. Anyone wanting to genetically modify soybeans would have
to pay Monsanto for the privilege.
It was the fear of such patents on living organisms that brought the
government of Ontario, via Tony Clement, to the Supreme Court of Canada
on January 20, to intervene on the side of Percy Schmeiser. Clement was
adamant that genes and all living organisms should be excluded from
patenting. Clement was ousted along with the Conservative government in
Ontario, but the new Liberal administration is carrying on the fight.
Some farm groups have defended Monsanto's Roundup Ready patent and its
prosecution of Schmeiser in simplistic terms, claiming that if the
patent is revoked, research in Canada will end. This is simply untrue,
because plant breeders have other ways to profit from the distribution
of their progeny. It is also unfortunate, because the issue being
decided by the Supreme Court has implications far beyond the canola
fields of western Canada. The existence of patents may be a stimulus to
research, but it can also be a barrier to research. Adding to this,
there is much wrong with the way our patent office grants broad patents.
Farm groups and their leaders should become better informed on these
complex issues, rather than follow Monsanto's self-serving lead.
(c) Paul Beingessner, (306) 868-4734 phone 868-2009 fax | |
