From beb@igc.apc.org Sat Jun 28 09:53:55 1997 Received: from mx5.u.washington.edu (mx5.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.6]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.04/8.8.4+UW97.05) with ESMTP id JAA26884 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 09:53:52 -0700 Received: from igcb.igc.org (igcb.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.46]) by mx5.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.04/8.8.4+UW97.04) with ESMTP id JAA16878 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 09:53:49 -0700 Received: from igc3.igc.apc.org (igc3.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.33]) by igcb.igc.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA09894; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 09:52:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.94.6.29] (beb@ppp29.igc.org [198.94.6.29]) by igc3 (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA17885; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 09:42:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 09:42:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: beb@pop.igc.apc.org (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: briant@sun.goddard.sun, jrkloppe@facstaff.wisc.edu, foodandwater@igc.org, indknow@u.washington.edu, rich54@wharton.upenn.edu, From: beb@igc.apc.org (Beth Burrows) Subject: URGENT!!! -- SIGN ON LETTER FOR US ORGANIZATIONS to MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT -- re the terrible proposals of the Legal Affairs Committee Sender: beb@igc.org Dear Friends, Last week we learned of the terrible and urgent situation in Europe.The Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament had voted to allow patents on all forms of life -- "except 'perhaps' whole human clones" and a vote was coming by mid-July in the European Parliament. I wrote many of you suggesting that you write the members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and sign on to the Civil Society Declaration. Subsequently, several of you contacted me and asked if there could be a joint letter from US organizations to the MEPs (the idea being that we come from the place causing all the problems and a letter from us USers per se might be especially helpful). I contacted folks in Europe and they thought such a letter could be useful. We were told that if we sent them the letter, enough copies would be made to fill the letterboxes of all the MEPs. And so Joe Mendelson, Eyvette Flynn and I wrote the letter that appears below. WE INVITE YOU TO SIGN ON. Because the time is short -- a vote is expected in the European Parliament July 16 -- you need to get back with the name and organization name BEFORE midnight Sunday, July 6, 1997. SEND YOUR NAME BY EMAIL TO: beb@igc.apc.org If you have questions, contact me at 425-775-5383. If you think there are other US organizations -- whether environmental, social justice, church groups, or whatever -- that would be interested in signing on, please send them the letter and this message in its entirety. The more US organizations, the better. Thanks for your help. I'll look for your response. --Beth Burrows ---------------------------------referring to: To: The Members of the European Parliament Brussels, Belgium Dear Honorable Members of Parliament: It is with great dismay that we learned of the recent radical action taken by the Legal Affairs Committee in regard to the patenting of life forms. This sweeping attempt by the Rapporteur and the Committee to extend patent protection to plants, animals and human derivative products is an affront to the proper public debate deserved by this most important moral, ethical and legal issue. To extend the patenting of life forms in Europe is to invite into the European Community the myriad of economic, environmental, and ethical problems we already experience in the United States. Instead of celebrating the diversity and vibrancy of life, the Committee's action makes the entire biotic community, including human beings, into nothing more than resources over which pharmaceutical and agricultural corporations may vie for ultimate control. By allowing the patenting of living forms the Committee has reduced life to the status of marketable commodity. We urge you to reject that decision. Before you debate this matter, we hope you will consider the experience in the United States. Once the U.S. Supreme Court decided to allow the patenting of a microorganism (Diamond v. Chakrabarty), other patents for higher life forms followed quickly. Currently, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted approximately 35 patents that actually claim animals, including animals that have NOT been genetically engineered. We are now in the midst of massive attempt by patent seekers to divide up the entire biotic community for private interest. Nowhere are the effects of extensive patenting more profound than in the agricultural industry in the U.S. The explosion of patent litigation that has resulted from major actors violating each other's patents has led to significant concentration of the industry. Add to this the consolidation by way of mergers and acquisitions of seed and agricultural companies by larger agrichemical companies and the result is an oligopoly in the agricultural production industry. While industry leaders may argue that this oligopoly has improved the "health" of the industry and offered the chance to stabilize world food security, others note that this consolidation does not serve the health and safety of our food supply but is rather a precursor to profound economic and social disaster. A few industry leaders have gained an unhealthy position of power over the prices of food and new and small businesses and farmers now find it increasingly difficult to enter the business of farming or agricultural production markets because they face an assembly of patent rights and a host of contract restrictions on access to genetic materials that once were easily available for breeding and innovation. Contrary to the belief expressed by the biotechnology industry, the extension of patent rights to living organisms has not resulted in the massive stimulation of inventions for the common good. Alex McCalla of the World Bank recently warned a Canadian audience that biotechnology might start avoiding research of public value but of little private profit. "Who," he asked, "who is going to make the public good investments in fundamental research to agriculture?" All this has transpired in a place where patent laws were not created to subjugate plants, animals and humans to private interests. Examining the history of U.S. patent law, many have found it easy to argue that the so-called "inventions" of genetic engineering are not properly deemed patentable inventions at all but are rather discoveries and recombinations or purifications of genetic material already found in nature. In most instances, as already noted of the agricultural industry, patents are used for the anti-competitive goal of blocking the entrance of other firms into particular markets. In the United States we have seen a dramatic rise in the area of patent infringement litigation in all areas related to genetic engineering. One small example is the effort by several large companies to create an monopoly in the market for genetically engineered human growth hormone (hGH). As this product has entered the marketplace, one U.S. company filed at least four separate patent infringement actions against other hGH manufacturers. These actions have caused substantial unease in the medical research communities analyzing the potential uses of hGH. The adverse effects of patenting life daily become more and more apparent (and burdensome) here. Several years ago the California State Supreme Court effectively sacrificed individual civil and property rights for the good of an industry (Moore v. Regents of the University of California). Later our leaders thought it wise to pursue patents on the cells of far-off indigenous peoples; when that proved the source of international embarrassment, the patent claims were dropped but the precedent was established. In the meantime we passed technology transfer laws that resulted in great universities corrupting themselves by the pursuit of patents and profits and becoming indentured to industry. Increasingly, we found that patents constricted innovation and distorted the pursuit of knowledge itself: our peer (expert) review system has been put at risk by fear of theft of patentable ideas; universities have sued graduate students over patents resulting from ideas they had while students; graduate students have organized to prevent theft of their intellectual property by their universities and professors; our researchers have postponed publication of medical breakthroughs while they and their corporate sponsors await issuance of patents; and fruitful lines of research have been abandoned altogether to avoid the expense of licensing, the possibility of patent litigation, and the limitations of doing research on the terms of licensing agreements. In the United States researchers boycotted the use of the Oncomouse (the first patented animal), for example, because of the patent holder's licensing agreement sought rights to derivative inventions. Similarly, farmers have balked at taking up new innovations that carry the burden of licensing agreements that specify in exact and sometimes onerous terms the method of farming that must be used with the patented product. Finally, those who looked on the mire of our patenting regime and despaired of its ability to offer them protection sought to expand our trade secrets law and find solace there. In doing so, they in some cases foreclosed the sharing of innovation altogether. Thus, instead of being a stimulus to creativity, patents on life became the catalyst that narrowed and discouraged research in all directions. Is this situation what you wish for Europe? The decision of the Legal Affairs Committee is unwise for more ethical, environmental, economic, and legal reasons than we can possibly outline in this one short letter. Neither can these matters be adequately discussed in a limited two-week Parliamentary discussion. We therefore urge you to take the prudent and reasonable step of voting against the Legal Affairs Committee's patent extension proposal. The implications of the proposal are far too significant to be considered in haste. We hope that you will bring this matter into the proper public fora for continued debate and wide discussion prior to action. Sincerely, Joseph Mendelson, III, Esq. Legal Director International Center for Technology Assessment (USA) Beth Burrows Director The Edmonds Institute (USA) Eyvette Flynn Senior Policy Analyst Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (USA) (YOUR NAME AND ORGANIZATION) --------------------------- REMINDER: DEADLINE FOR SENDING IN SIGN-ON IS MIDNIGHT, SUNDAY, JULY 6. SEND TO: beb@igc.apc.org ---------------------------- Beth Burrows President/Director The Edmonds Institute 20319-92nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98020 USA phone: 425-775-5383 email: beb@igc.apc.org fax: 425-670-8410 PLEASE NOTE CHANGE IN AREA CODE. OUR NEW AREA CODE IS 425. .