 |
|
ETHICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT PATENTS FOR LIVING ORGANISMS
There has been substantial debate over the past months on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). The discussion has been mainly on the health and agricultural production issues. We will examine here some of the ethical considerations involved with GMOs. Food is about life. Agriculture therefore necessarily calls for ethical reflections. It is not simply a matter of business, commerce and profit-making. To deal with the controversial issue of the introduction of GMOs into Zambia in a complete fashion necessarily require serious ethical considerations. Genetically modified crops are patented. This is the first time in history that living organisms are patented. Until recently, living organisms which are basis of life have been held in common for the benefit of all humankind. A patent is a legal claim over an idea for an invention that gives the holder exclusive rights to profit from it over a set number of years. Permission for public use of the invention is granted by paying the patent holder licence or royalty fees. To be granted a patent, an applicant must be able to prove: · Novelty: it must be a new idea, not known or used by anyone before. · Use: the patent application must explain what the invention is to be used for and why. · Inventiveness: it must involve an inventive step that is “non-obvious”. HISTORY AND REASONS FOR PATENTING The patent system was originally organised over 500 years ago to reward industrial inventors, protect their inventions from theft, and stimulate innovation. Perhaps a fair idea, but not abuse-proof. Patent laws have frequently been manipulated to become instruments of monopolists and their inventors rather than as incentives to creativity. This has been particularly apparent over recent decades. Since 1980, the system has been gradually extended to patenting existing or genetically “improved” life forms. This has largely been due to: (a) The rapid development of genetic engineering and, (b) The surge of interest in the commercial use of genetic resources and wild species. As the patent laws require a product to be a new discovery and involve a degree of inventiveness, companies or individuals get round this by extracting and/or manipulating the chemical or genetic material of interest. This makes the organism different from its original form, allowing companies to claim ownership and intellectual property rights. “Products” that have been patented include micro-organisms, staple crop species, genetically modified organisms, cloned animals and human genes. This has raised serious concerns over the ethical, economic and political consequences surrounding a key question: should private individuals and multinational corporations own the fundamental biological components of life? IMPLICATIONS OF PATENTING Patenting has direct bearings on the poor people and on poor countries. Plants that have been used by indigenous people for generations as medicinal plants might now be owned by a multinational corporation. Farmers who have saved seed for generations might lose their rights over those seeds and have to purchase them every year. As genetically modified genetic material cross-pollinates with local seed, the local seed automatically become the Intellectual Property Rights of the multinational corporations. How are the farmers’ property rights balanced in relation to the Intellectual Property Rights of multinational corporations? Why should Zambian farmers now lose this fundamental right as a consequence of the actions of profit seeking companies? The food system is being controlled more and more by a few multinational corporations based in the rich countries of the north. These multinational corporations own the seed, the pesticides, and even the crop. For Zambia, a fundamental set of ethical issues arise when we ask: Who benefits from this global food system? Who suffers? When the governments of the northern countries go on a trade mission, whom do they bring with them? Are ordinary American farmers of small family farms part of the routine or are the trade officials, government personnel and chief executives of multinational corporations? Have we had American family farmers come to Zambia to sell us genetically modified maize? GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS AND ZAMBIA Genetically modified crops will favour an industrialised agriculture. An industrialised agriculture will favour large farms and mechanisation at the expense of smaller family farms. This will further increase unemployment in Zambia and deepen the serious problem of widespread poverty. The ethical question in fostering industrialised agriculture over small family farms is: Does Zambia want to increase unemployment among its population? Multinational corporations have the economic resources to add value to Zambia’s raw genetic resources. Should they be allowed to do this without an effective regulatory structure put in place, especially one that protects the rights of small-scale farmers and local communities? These and other ethical considerations must enter into the discussion of GMOs in Zambia if we are to build a future that is respectful of human rights, community development, poverty eradication and protection of the environment. Government officials, political leaders, civil society, church leaders, private sector business people and ordinary citizens must be vigilant in putting these points of ethics at the top of any agenda relating to genetically modified crops in this country. Paul
Desmarais, S.J. |