Intellectual Property Rights Challenges and International Research Collaborations in Agricultural Biotechnology

  • Brian D. Wright


The international strengthening of intellectual property rights (IPRs) has stimulated many private and public research organizations to develop new agricultural biotechnology applications. The scope for further innovation is huge. But there is also a downside to the escalation of IPRs: access to important research tools becomes increasingly restricted and the costs of consummating licensing deals may become prohibitive. As patenting activity progresses, the number of separate rights needed to produce a new innovation proliferates. Due to the lack of resources, specific expertise and clear strategies the international agricultural research centers (IARCs) are placed at a particular disadvantage in bargaining over proprietary rights. Different options are discussed that could help to turn the contracting disadvantages of IARCs into new opportunities for technology transfer. Many of the transaction problems are shared by the large human health research complex, so contractual innovations in that area should be followed closely.


Intellectual Property Plant Genetic Resource International Rice Research Institute Agricultural Biotechnology Intellectual Property Protection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alston, J.M., P.G. Pardey, and V.H. Smith (eds.) (1999): Paying for Agricultural Productivity. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  2. Barton, J.H. (1998): The Impact of Contemporary Patent Law on Plant Biotechnology Research. In: S.A. Eberhard, H.L. Shands, W. Collins, and R.L. Lower (eds.). Intellectual Property Rights III; Global Genetic Resources: Access and Property Rights. Crop Science Society of America, Madison, pp. 85–97.Google Scholar
  3. Barton, J.H., and W.E. Siebeck (1994): Material Transfer Agreements in Genetic Resources Exchange—The Case of the International Agricultural Research Centres. Issues in Genetic Resources, No. 1, International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome.Google Scholar
  4. Binenbaum, E., and B.D. Wright (1998): On the Significance of South-North Trade in IARC Crops. A report prepared for the Expert Panel on Proprietary Science and Technology of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  5. Buller, C., and W. Taylor (1999): Partnerships Between Public and Private: The Experience of the Cooperative Research Center for Plant Science in Australia. AgBioForum 2 (1), pp. 17–23.Google Scholar
  6. CGIAR (1998): Shaping the CGIAR’s Future: Summary of Proceedings and Decisions. International Centers Week, 26–30 October, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Washington, D.C. pp. 52–53.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, J.I., C. Falconi, J. Komen, and M. Blakeney (1998): Proprietary Biotechnology Inputs and International Agricultural Research. ISNAR Briefing Paper, No. 39, International Service for National Agricultural Research, The Hague.Google Scholar
  8. Contracting Parties to the GATT Uruguay Round (1994): Annex IC: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Including Trade in Counterfeit Goods. World Trade Agreement, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Marrakesh.Google Scholar
  9. Enriquez, J. (1998): Genomics and the World’s Economy. Science 281, pp. 925926.Google Scholar
  10. FAO (1983): International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. 22nd Conference, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
  11. Finkel, E. (1999): Australian Center Develops Tools for Developing World. Science 285, pp. 1481–1483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischer, K.S., and J.H. Barton (1999): Gene Discovery in Rice: The Exchange of IRRI’s Biological Assets. Draft of a discussion paper, Stanford Law School, Stanford.Google Scholar
  13. Ghijsen, H. (1998): Plant Variety Protection in a Developing and Demanding World. Biotechnology and Development Monitor 36, pp. 3–5.Google Scholar
  14. Grindley, P.C., and D.J. Teece (1997): Managing Intellectual Capital: Licensing and Cross-Licensing in Semiconductors and Electronics. California Management Review 39 (2), pp. 8–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall, B.H., and R.M. Ham (1999): The Patent Paradox Revisited: Determinants of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1980–94. Mimeo., Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  16. Heller, M.A., and R.S. Eisenberg (1998): Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. Science 280, pp. 698–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huffman, W.E., and R.E. Evenson (1993): Science for Agriculture: A Long-Term Perspective. Iowa State University Press, Ames.Google Scholar
  18. Juma, C. (1989): The Gene Hunters: Biotechnology and the Scramble for Seeds. Research Series No. 1, African Centre for Technology Studies, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  19. Kaiser, E. (1999): Monsanto Vows not to Develop ‘Terminator’ Gene. Reuters, 4 October, Chicago.Google Scholar
  20. Kate, K. (1995): Biodiversity Prospecting Partnerships: The Role of Providers, Collectors and Users. Biotechnology and Development Monitor 25, pp. 16–21.Google Scholar
  21. Koo, B. (1998): The Economics of Plant Genetic Resources: The Effects of Alternative Intellectual Property Protection Systems and Advances in Biotechnology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  22. Lehne, R., and G. van Roozendaal (1995): U.S. Government Role in Biotechnology. Biotechnology and Development Monitor 24, pp. 6–8.Google Scholar
  23. Lerner, J. (1995): Patenting in the Shadow of Competitors. Journal of Law and Economics 38 (October), pp. 463–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leskien, D. (1998): The European Directive on Biotechnology. Biotechnology and Development Monitor 36, pp. 16–19.Google Scholar
  25. Lesser, W. (1999): ‘Holding Up’ the Public Agbiotech Research Sector Over Component Technologies. Presentation at the conference “Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy”, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  26. Lianchamroon, W. (1998): Community Rights and Farmers’ Rights in Thailand. Biotechnology and Development Monitor 36, pp. 9–11.Google Scholar
  27. Lindner, R. (1999): Prospects for Public Plant Breeding in a Small Country. Paper presented at the conference “The Shape of the Coming Agricultural Biotechnology Transformation”, 17–19 June, Tor Vergata University, Rome.Google Scholar
  28. Marshall, E. (1998a): Private Help for a Public Database? Science 280, pp. 667–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marshall, E. (1998b): NIH, DuPont Declare Truce in Mouse War. Science 281, pp. 1261–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mena, J., and R. Sanders (1998): Swiss Pharmaceutical Company Novartis Commits $25 million to Support Biotechnology Research at UC Berkeley. Public Affairs News Release, 11/23/98, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  31. Mittal, A., and P. Rosset (1999): Seeds Sow Controversy. San Francisco Chronicle, 1 March, p. A21.Google Scholar
  32. National Research Council, Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (1999): Excerpt from Summary Sheet (dated 8/16/99). Conference “Intellectual Property in the Knowledge-Based Economy” held 19 October, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  33. NIH (1998): Report of the National Institutes of Health Working Group on Research Tools. Draft presented to the Advisory Committee to the Director, 4 June, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.Google Scholar
  34. NIH (1999): Memorandum of Understanding: DuPont Pharmaceuticals Company and Public Health Service, United States Depaitinent of Heath and Human Services, July 1998. National Institutes of Health, retrieved from the internet: www nih gov/od/ott/cre-lox.htm.Google Scholar
  35. Nijar, G.S. (1998): Community Intellectual Rights Protect Indigenous Knowledge. Biotechnology and Development Monitor 36, pp. 11–12.Google Scholar
  36. Pardey, P.G., J.M. Alston, J.E. Christian, and S. Fan (1996): Hidden Harvest: U.S. Benefits from International Research Aid. Food Policy Report (September), International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  37. Powledge, F. (1995): Who Owns Rice and Beans? Patents on Plant Germplasm. Bioscience 45 (7), pp. 440–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Price, S.C. (1999): Public and Private Plant Breeding. Nature Biotechnology 17 (10), p. 938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Qaim, M. (1999): Modern Biotechnology for Small-Scale Farmers in Developing Countries: Contradiction or Promising Option? Paper presented at the conference “The Shape of the Coming Agricultural Biotechnology Transformation”, 17–19 June, Tor Vergata University, Rome.Google Scholar
  40. RAFI (1998): Plant Breeders’ Wrongs Righted in Australia? RAFI News Release, 10 November, Rural Advancement Foundation International, Winnipeg.Google Scholar
  41. RAFI (1994): Conserving Indigenous Knowledge. Rural Advancement Foundation International, United Nations Development Program, New York.Google Scholar
  42. RAFI/HSCA (1998): Plant Breeders Wrongs: An Inquiry into the Potential for Plant Piracy through International Intellectual Property Conventions. Rural Advancement Foundation International, Heritage Seed Curators Australia, Winnipeg.Google Scholar
  43. Rausser, G. (1999): Public/Private Alliances. AgBioForum 2 (1), pp. 5–10.Google Scholar
  44. Ronald, P.C. (1998): Genetic Resource Recognition Fund. AgBiotech News and Information 10 (1), pp. 19N - 21N.Google Scholar
  45. Simpson, R.D., R. Sedjo, and J. Reid (1996): Valuing Biodiversity for Use in Pharmaceutical Research. Journal of Political Economy 104, pp. 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swaminathan, M.S. (1998): Farmers’ Rights and Plant Genetic Resources. Biotechnology and Development Monitor 36, pp. 6–9.Google Scholar
  47. Weiss, R. (1999): Seeds of Discord. Monsanto’s Gene Police Raise Alarm on Farmers’ Rights, Rural Tradition. Washington Post, 3 February, p. A01.Google Scholar
  48. van Wijk, J. (1995): Plant Breeders’ Rights Create Winners and Losers. Biotechnology and Development Monitor 23, pp. 15–19.Google Scholar
  49. Wright, B.D. (1999): Challenges for Public Agricultural Research and Extension in a World of Proprietary Science and Technology. Mimeo., Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  50. Wright, B.D. (1998a): Valuing Farmers’ Rights. In: R.E. Evenson, D. Gollin and V. Santaniello (eds.). Agricultural Values of Plant Genetic Resources. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 219–232.Google Scholar
  51. Wright, B.D. (1998b): Public Germplasm Development at a Crossroads: Biotechnology and Intellectual Property. California Agriculture 52 (6), pp. 8–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wright, B.D. (1997): Crop Genetic Resource Policy: The Role of Ex Situ Genebanks. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 41 (1), pp. 81–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian D. Wright

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations