News 3 of 55

Last March 13, 2008, the Indian newspaper, The Times of India published a note signed by Suman Sahai on the challenges and conflicts posed by new technologies like genetic engineering or nanotechnology, and the role of Intellectual Property Rights in their resolution.

 

The article entitled “It helps to talk” uses the example of the work undertaken by the Crucible Group supported by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). The Group was also supported by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and other international organizations. The Crucible Group included members from private industry, government, advocacy groups, and aboriginal groups — none of whom served as the official representative of any organization. Instead, they all participated in the Group's discussions as individuals with a common interest in preserving and developing the world's genetic heritage.

 

Full text of the article can be accessed on The Times of India site at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/It_helps_to_talk/articleshow/2859500.cms. The full text (available only in English) is reproduced below.

 

To read about some of the Crucible Group work from the IDRC archives, click on the links below:

 

“Balancing Rights, Responsibilities, and Resources: The Crucible Project”

http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-5599-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html (2001-05-03)

 

“Crucible Group Releases Report Outlining Policy Options for Genetic Resources”

http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-5262-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html (2000-03-01)

 

“Crucible Group Launches Seeding Solutions: Policy Options for Genetic Resources”

http://www.crdi.ca/acacia/ev-5302-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html (2000-06-15)

 

People, Plants and Patents: The impact of intellectual property on trade, plant biodiversity, and rural society, by The Crucible Group, was published by the International Development Research Centre (Ottawa) in 1994 (available online at http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9317-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html).

 

 Seeding Solutions, Volume 1: Policy Options for Genetic Resources (People, Plants, and Patents Revisited), by The Crucible II Group, was co-published by the International Development Research Centre, the International Plant Genetic Resource Institute, and the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation in 2000 (Available online at http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9424-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html).

 

Seeding Solutions, Volume 2: Options for National Laws Governing Access To and Control Over Genetic Resources, co-published by IDRC, IPGRI and DHF, was released in 2001 (available online at http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9434-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html).

 

Project Profile - Biodiversity research at IDRC at http://www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/104247559009._crucible.doc

 

 

 

It helps to talk

13 Mar 2008, 0000 hrs IST,Suman Sahai

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/It_helps_to_talk/articleshow/2859500.cms

SMS NEWS to 58888 for latest updates

 

The 21st century is predicted to be the century of biology. Transformative technological research in genetic engineering, nanotechnology, stem cell technology, genomics and proteomics has begun to impact us. New technology is also giving rise to new conflicts associated with knowledge creation, intellectual property rights and access to key resources like genetic resources and bioethics.

 

Part of the problem is the increasing privatisation of science and the fruits of scientific research and information capital remaining in the private rather than public domain. This is at variance - especially in developing countries - with strong traditions of publicly funded, public sector science and technology development that was accessible to all. The green revolution, perhaps India's most visible tech-revolution, was in the public domain, as opposed to today's genetic engineering project, a purely privately owned technology.

 

There are concerns over the safety and ethical dimensions of these technologies and those in the 'omics' range including genomics, proteomics and metabolomics that are set to change the way food production, health care and drug delivery will be managed in the future and the ways in which they will impact the natural and human environment.

 

Most discussions on genetic resources, genetic engineering and other transformative technologies are characterised by a culture of conflict and opposition, discouraging constructive dialogue between opposing viewpoints. At stake is the potential to use genetic resources and new technologies for securing the food and livelihood security of rural and tribal people in a way that is sustainable, with minimum adverse impact on the environment and ecology.

 

In other countries, there have been attempts to scale down differences and find common ground as a prelude to reaching some consensus on controversial issues. Conflict resolution structures have been set up in the past on the issues of Plant Genetic Resources (PGR) and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) with varying degrees of success. In all cases the issue has moved forward from the original stalemate. IPR, however, still remains a contentious issue within the WTO but the concept of farmers' rights has moved forward after the Keystone Dialogues led to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources.

 

The Keystone Dialogues - by the Keystone Center, Colorado, 1988-1991, chaired by M S Swaminathan - fostered consensus among stakeholders with respect to conservation and sharing of benefits and helped to lay the foundation for farmers' rights and the Prior Informed Consent and Benefit Sharing provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

 

Another example is the Crucible Group supported by the International Development Research Center (IDRC) of Canada. This group was active in the field of IPRs associated with PGR. The Crucible Group discussions produced rather divergent points of view but managed to develop consensus on some issues like joint conservation efforts including local communities and private companies as well as sharing of gene bank collections.

 

Smart technology adoption can drive growth. New technologies can be mastered and internalized to adapt them to Indian needs. For this, there has to be consensus on the choice of technology and its use, the nature of a multi-stakeholder approach to decision-making, the kind of IPR regimes we will adopt and conversely, the degree of free access to the technology we wish to provide.

 

A dialogue process has to be sustained to exchange information and build a consensus acceptable to public, private and civil society sectors. The consensus approach should aim to bring diverse interest groups to the table, focus on a policy or implementation issue and seek to highlight practical approaches to complex problems. This can be achieved by bringing together people with different kinds of experience, from different platforms, to make available a large and diversified body of information to the dialogue process towards building consensus rather than looking for stop-gap solutions.

News 3 of 55