Communiqué

March/April 2002 Issue # 75

Captain Hook Awards - 2002

Issue: On the 10th anniversary of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), ETC group concludes that theCBD has failed to establish meaningful regulations to stop biopiracy. Biopiracy refers to the appropriation of theknowledge and genetic resources of farming and indigenous communities by individuals or institutions seekingexclusive monopoly control (usually patents or plant breeders’ rights) over these resources and knowledge. On11 April 2002 the Coalition Against Biopiracy1 presented its highly un-coveted Captain Hook Awards – forinfamous and outstanding achievements in biopiracy – at the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the Conventionon Biological Diversity (COP6) in The Hague, April 8-19. This issue of ETC Communiqué provides backgroundinformation on the award winners, and additional nominees.

Impact: There are scores of civil society and peoples’ organizations around the globe that are activelymonitoring and resisting biopiracy. To honour and recognize their efforts, the Coalition Against Biopiracy alsopresents “Cog Awards” (so-named because Cogs were ships designed to repel pirate attacks) to thoseinstitutions, peoples’ organizations, and governments that have opposed egregious cases of biopiracy, defeatedpredatory patents, or defended the intellectual integrity of farmers and indigenous peoples.

Policy: Intellectual property regimes sanction monopoly controls that are predatory on the traditional knowledgeand genetic resources of farmers and indigenous people. Despite the efforts of WIPO (World IntellectualProperty Organization), UPOV (Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants), CBD (The Convention onBiological Diversity), and WTO (World Trade Organization) to disguise and promote intellectual property as“benefit sharing,” history shows that intellectual property regimes have no capacity to address biopiracy, andthey are not benefit sharing agreements. Proposals for access and benefit sharing in the CBD, The BonnGuidelines (still being negotiated as we go to press), may actually create incentives for biopiracy because theyfail to fully recognize Farmers’ Rights and collective indigenous rights. Equitable benefit sharing is notachievable in the context of predatory patent regimes.

NOTE: The Captain Hook Awards are made possible by the work and activities of many civil society and peoples’organizations around the globe that actively monitor and oppose biopiracy. The cases cited and the analysis used inselecting the 2002 award winners are by no means limited to the work of ETC group or the Coalition AgainstBiopiracy. Among many who contributed, ETC group wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the following:SEARICE (Southeast Asia Regional Institute for Community Education), IPBN (Indigenous Peoples BiodiversityNetwork), BioThai, GRAIN, ActionAid, BioWatch, Greenpeace, COMPITCH, Tonga Human Rights and DemocracyMovement, Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism, Northern Feed & Bean Co., and the Research Foundationfor Science, Technology and Ecology, Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security.

1 The Coalition Against Biopiracy is a group of civil society and peoples’ organizations that first came together at the 1995Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting in Jakarta.

To view the Captain Hook Awards posters, featuring graphics by Eric Drooker, please go to:http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/captain_hook_awards.pdfhttp://www.etcgroup.org/documents/cog_awards.pdf

For allowing the most offensive plant patent – not once,but twice! The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO)has the disgraceful distinction of allowing Loren Millerof California to win a US plant patent on the Ayahuascavine (Banisteriopsis caapi; patent #5751), which henamed "Da Vine." After the patent was legallychallenged and cancelled, the US PTO re-instated thepatent on appeal. Ayahuasca, known for its medicinaland hallucinogenic properties, is native to the Amazonrainforest where it is used in sacred indigenousceremonies.

Biopiracy opponents worldwide celebrated inNovember 1999 when the US PTO initially overturnedthe ayahuasca patent. The decision came in response toa request for re-examination of the patent by theWashington DC-based Center for InternationalEnvironmental Law (CIEL), on behalf of theCoordinating Body of Indigenous Organizations of theAmazon Basin (COICA) and the Amazon Coalition.The groups requested that the patent be cancelled

because the claimed patent lacks novelty anddistinctiveness, is found in an uncultivated state, and asa sacred element of many indigenous cultures of theAmazon should not be subject to private appropriation.1

Under US law, those who initially (and successfully)challenged the patent were precluded from counteringor responding to any of Loren Miller's legal argumentsmade under appeal. The case illustrates the un-democratic, non-transparent process of the US patentsystem, which overwhelmingly favors holders ofmonopoly patents. The system sends a clear message tobiopirates that they can lay legal claim to the traditionalknowledge and resources of indigenous peoples.

For its monopoly patent on Ethiopia’s endod, and fordemanding royalty payments from the Ethiopian peoplewho wish to use it. Endod has been cultivated and usedby African people for centuries, especially in Ethiopiawhere it is used as a soap and shampoo as well as apoison to stun fish. Ethiopian scientists first discoveredthat endod is lethal to snails and may be effective incontrolling schistosomiasis, a water-borne diseasecaused by parasites living in host snails. After an

ETC CommuniquéMarch/April 2002

3

Ethiopian scientist demonstrated endod’s potency to killzebra mussels to the University of Toledo (Ohio, USA)scientists, they applied for and won US patents5,252,330 and 5,334,386. When Ethiopian researchersrequested access, the University of Toledo advised thattheir two patents were available for a license fee of$50,000 (plus 2.5% royalty charges and legal fees) orfor outright purchase of $125,000 plus legal costs.2 Theendod patents are not new, but these monopoly claimscontinue to create problems for Ethiopian researchers.

For causing economic hardship for Mexican farmersand bean exporters, claiming that yellow beans grownfor generations in Mexico infringe the company’smonopoly patent and plant breeders’ rights claim. InNovember 2001 Pod-Ners filed lawsuits against 16small bean seed companies and farmers in the US.Fortunately, the yellow bean patent is being challengedby CIAT the (International Center for TropicalAgriculture), with support from FAO. The patentchallenge has been stalled and a decision is longoverdue because Pod-Ners’ lawyer amended theoriginal patent by filing 43 new claims!

For background information on the yellow bean patent andCIAT’s legal challenge, see: Proctor’s Gamble, 17 Dec. 2001http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=282Enola Bean Patent Challengedhttp://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=96Mexican Bean Biopiracy – 17 Jan. 2000http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=31

For seeking to privatize the rice genome and usingintellectual property claims to deny full public access toits rice genome data. Rice is a staple food crop for halfthe world’s population and the primary source ofcalories for more than a third of the earth's population.

In January 2001 Syngenta, the world’s largestagrochemical corporation, announced that it hadcompleted the Rice Genome Map – the geneticblueprint for the world’s most important food crop.3

Given that rice is the primary staple crop, the questionof who will own and control rice genome data isparamount to food security. When Syngenta pledged tomake its rice sequencing data available to the academic

community through “collaboration agreements,” publicsector researchers feared the worst, and farmers andcivil society organizations warned that privatization ofthe rice genome was well underway.

In March 2002 twenty genome researchers signed ajoint letter protesting the decision of the journal Scienceto allow Syngenta to publish its genome map withproprietary rights attached – rather than following thestandard procedure of making all new genomesequences publicly available in public-domaindatabases.4 While Syngenta claims that its genomedatabase will be available to public sector researchers,proprietary rights and contracts will give Syngenta thelegal right to determine the terms and conditions foruse. For example, researchers who use Syngenta’s ricegenome data could be bound by contracts that giveSyngenta first rights to any commercial results and/orprohibit the sharing of resulting materials with thirdparties.

For more information:http://www.grain.org/publications/rice-no-patents-en.cfm

For setting the precedent of granting sweepingmonopoly patents on elements. The nanotechnologyindustry is positioned to control the building blocks ofall living and non-living matter.

What is nanotechnology? A nano is a measurementequaling one-billionth of a meter. Nanotechnology is avery broad term referring to an array of technologiesencompassing everything from the manufacture ofnano-scale materials (the commercial manufacture ofbulk sprays, powders, and coatings is already bigbusiness), to the fabrication of structures utilizing thequantum physics of nano-scale materials, to thefuturistic and hotly debated goal of creating self-replicating nano-robots. Some argue that self-replicating nano-machinery is beyond the realm ofpossibility while others, including ETC group, believethat the real question is not if, but when. ETC groupbelieves that the impact of nanotechnology willaugment or exceed that of biotechnology.

Of the roughly 112 elements known so far (a handfulcome and go or are in dispute), 22 are human-made.There will be more. Are they patentable? Glenn

ETC CommuniquéMarch/April 2002

4

Seaborg, the American who won a Nobel Prize forPhysics in 1951, couldn’t see why not. He “invented”Americium #95 and acquired US patent #3,156,523 onNovember 10th, 1964. Today, with the world’s largestcorporations gearing up to work down at the nano-level,it is only a matter of time before industry convincespatent examiners that the genetically-engineeredmicrobe of twenty-two years ago is no different fromthe atomically-engineered elements of today. Thedanger is that nanotech will follow biotech’s passion forsweeping product and process patent claims that couldtie up the technologies involved and give a handful ofcorporate giants monopoly over the tools that will beused to manufacture everything. Everything includesthe raw materials essential to life.

For more information: “Patenting Elements of Nature,” ETCGenotypes, 25 March 2002.http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=308

For failure to amend the Agreement on Trade-RelatedAspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). Despitethe demands of South nations, there has been nosubstantive review of Article 27.3(b), nor hasconsideration been given to the option of excluding allbiological materials from patentability.

In August 2000 the United Nations Sub-Commissionfor the Protection of Human Rights recognized thatWTO/TRIPs could infringe on the rights of poor peopleand their access to both seeds and pharmaceuticals.5

Last year, the 53rd session of the same sub-commissionconsidered two reports related to intellectual property:one on the relationship between intellectual propertyand human rights, and the other on the human rightsdimensions of the WTO TRIPs Agreement. The sub-commission reaffirmed the conflict between TRIPs andbasic human rights, stressed the need for adequateprotection against biopiracy, and called for more seriousattention to human rights in both the implementationand review of TRIPs. The Human Rights Sub-Commission also requested a special study on theimpact of TRIPs on the rights of indigenous peoples.6

For thousands of years the San aboriginal people ofsouthern Africa have chewed on stems from the Hoodiaplant to suppress hunger and thirst on hunting trips inthe Kalahari Desert. In April 2001 a UK-based biotechcompany, Phytopharm, announced that it was using theappetite-suppressing ingredient derived from theHoodia plants, P57, to develop a powerful new drug fortreating obesity. South Africa’s Council for ScientificResearch (CSIR) first isolated and patented Hoodia’sactive ingredient, P57, which it licensed to Phytopharmin 1997.7 The following year Phytopharm announced a$32 million licensing agreement with pharma giantPfizer for the commercial development of P57.8 Basedon early clinical trials, analysts predict that P57 couldbecome a blockbuster anti-obesity drug worth US$2billion per year.9

But what about the 100,000+ San people from theKalahari who first discovered the plant and whosetraditional knowledge has been usurped by the patent?Phytopharm’s chief executive, Richard Dixey, told theFinancial Times, “We’re doing what we can to payback, but it’s a really fraught problem…especially asthe people who discovered the plant havedisappeared.”10

The San people filed legal demands for compensation in2001, and a benefit-sharing agreement is in the processof being negotiated through South Africa’s Council forScientific & Industrial Research, the institute that firstpatented P57 and licensed it to Phytopharm. Royaltypayments to the San will not come from Phytopharm.Late last year, Phytopharm’s Dixey told the Guardian,“These bushmen are wonderful people and I'mdelighted they've got themselves organized.”11

For further background information on Phytopharm and theHoodia biopiracy case:http://www.actionaid.org/ourpriorities/foodrights/car/robbed.shtml

ETC CommuniquéMarch/April 2002

5

In 1995 the International Rice Research Institute (LosBanos, Philippines) failed to obtain a signed MaterialTransfer Agreement (MTA) before transferring ThaiJasmine rice germplasm to a US researcher. The MTAobliges the recipient not to patent or otherwisemonopolize the donated seed. In 2001, controversy overthe transfer of Thai rice germplasm to the US erupted inthe streets of Bangkok and beyond when researchers atthe University of Florida announced their goal ofdeveloping Thai jasmine rice for US growingconditions.12 Farmers’ and peoples’ organizations,NGOs and the Thai government actively protested thetransfer of Thai germplasm and took action to thwartany future efforts to claim intellectual property on Thaijasmine rice.

If commercially successful, US-bred Jasmine couldsupplant much of Thailand's $1 billion export marketnot only to US gourmets but elsewhere in the world.Thailand is the world's leading rice exporter and itsJasmine aromatic rice commands a premium price.Jasmine was bred and nurtured by Thai farmers fromgeneration to generation and its market has becomevital to the well being of many farming communities inthat country.

IRRI's failure to obtain signatory agreement not topatent was unintentional, and IRRI has since takencorrective action to make the MTA retroactive.Ultimately however, signing the MTA and agreeing notto patent does not solve the problem. IRRI and USresearchers must also explore tougher moral questionsabout the social and economic impacts of research thatthreatens to endanger the livelihoods of poor farmers.

For more information:“US acquisition of aromatic Thai rice breaks trust, tramplesfarmers, threatens trade and seed treaty talks” 30 October2001, http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=257The Thai Network on Community Rights & Biodiversity(BioThai): tel: 6622952-7953 fax: 6622952-7371biothai@pacific.net.th

For Monsanto’s most recent attempt to gain a sweepingpatent on soybeans. According to Greenpeace,Monsanto’s WIPO application (WO/0018963) claimsgene sequences associated with high yielding soybeans,all soybean plants (both wild and domesticated) inwhich these sequences are found, and the screeningmethods to identify the marker. If granted the patent,could severely restrict molecular marker-assistedbreeding in soybeans for enhanced yield, and restrict theability of farmers to use, save, and exchange soybeanseeds containing the proprietary gene sequences. To addinsult to injury, the naturally occurring gene sequenceclaimed by Monsanto originated from a wild Chinesespecies of soybean. Monsanto claims that it isolated thesequence from a wild soya plant that it obtained from aUS gene bank. China is the genetic homeland ofsoybeans, and free exchanges of Chinese soyagermplasm have enabled plant breeders worldwide todevelop one of the world’s most commercially valuablefood/feed and oilseed crops.

Monsanto’s dominance over the soybean cropworldwide is astonishing. The company’s GM(genetically modified) seed technology accounted forover 91% of all GM seeds planted worldwide in 2001 –and Monsanto’s herbicide tolerant soybean seedsaccount for the largest share of GM seeds. According toISAAA (International Service for the Acquisition ofAgri-biotech Applications), 33 million hectares plantedin GM herbicide tolerant soybeans in 2001,approximately 46% of the total world area devoted tosoybeans.13

For more information, see:Greenpeace Backgrounder: “Monsanto’s Biopiracy of theSoybean,” October, 2001.http://www.greenpeace.org/~geneng

For ETC background on Monsanto’s first species-wide patenton soybeans:“RAFI challenges Agracetus’ Species-Wide patent onsoybeans at EPO,” December, 1994. (Note: Monsantoacquired Agracetus in 1996.)http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/occ_vol1_5.pdf

In November 2001 the FAO approved anInternational Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources forFood and Agriculture, a legally-binding, multilateralagreement to govern access to and exchange of vitalcrop germplasm. The treaty covers 64 food cropsaccounting for about 85% of global human nutrition.Some constraints are placed on intellectual propertyover the seeds in the multilateral system andobligations are imposed for benefit sharing whenaccessed seed is commercialized. Farmers’ Rights areencouraged, though not guaranteed. Thoughprovisions for equity and benefit sharing must bestrengthened and improved, the treaty offers aplatform for building food sovereignty and improvingseed conservation. ETC group and other civil societyorganizations are promoting ratification of the Treatyprior to the World Food Summit Five Years Latermeeting in June, 2002.

ETC group’s in-depth analysis of the Treaty is available at:http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=276

Graphic by Eric Drooker, www.drooker.com

ETC CommuniquéMarch/April 2002

7

For legally challenging US patent 5,894,079 on ayellow bean of Mexican origin, and for upholding theFAO/CGIAR Trust Agreement on behalf of theworld’s farmers. Under the terms of the 1994agreement between the Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research and the UN Foodand Agriculture Organization, “in trust” germplasm ismaintained in the public domain and is not allowed tobe included in any intellectual property claim.CIAT’s gene bank holds more than 27,000 samplesof Phaseolus (dry bean) seeds, and some 260 samplesof yellow bean seeds. Although Larry Proctor, theso-called “inventor” of the Enola yellow bean did notobtain bean seed from the Colombian gene bank,CIAT’s legal challenge notes that six bean accessionsfound in its gene bank are “substantially identical” toclaims made in Proctor’s patent. CIAT and FAO areconcerned that the Enola bean patent could obstructCIAT’s mission to freely distribute yellow beans andto keep these seeds in the public domain.

For background information on the patent and legalchallenge:Proctor’s Gamble, 17 Dec. 2001http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=282Enola Bean Patent Challengedhttp://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=96

Human rightsorganizations and churches in Tonga

& the South Pacific

For excellence in opposing Autogen’s plans to profitfrom the genetic information of the Tongan people.

Autogen Ltd., a genomics company based inAustralia, announced in November 2000 that it hadsigned an agreement with the Tongan Ministry ofHealth that would give the company exclusive accessto a genetic database of the Tongan people. With apopulation of approximately 110,000 people, Tongaspans 170 tiny islands in the South Pacific.

Autogen’s negotiations with the Tongan Ministry ofHealth were not made public before theannouncement, nor were the Tongan people given anopportunity to comment. Under the terms of theagreement, Tonga would retain property rights overthe DNA samples collected, but Autogen would begiven exclusive access to the genetic database.According to Autogen, “…any serum or DNAsamples collected in Tonga shall remain the propertyof Tonga and Autogen will provide the resources toestablish a health database and create a majorresearch facility in Tonga…in return for access tothese samples and data, Autogen will provide annualresearch funding to Tonga's Ministry of Health inaddition to paying net royalties on revenuesgenerated from any discoveries that arecommercialised.” 14

As of February 2002 Autogen held patents on 41human genes related to obesity and diabetes that thecompany’s chief officer refers to as “ the pick of thecrop.” 15Autogen’s interest in disease-causing genesstems from its alliance with Merck Lipha, asubsidiary of pharma giant Merck KgaA. (Merckowns a 15% stake in Autogen, and has a US$13.5million strategic alliance with the Australiancompany until 2005.)

The Tonga Human Rights & Democracy Movement(THRDM) condemned the Autogen agreementshortly after learning about it from press reports.According to Lopeti Senituli, director of THRDM,"The Minister of Health's intentions may be noble,but the main reason for our condemnation is the factthat the implications of the agreement have neverbeen discussed publicly either in the media or inTonga's Legislative Assembly… What is involved isthe sanctified blood of human beings and…so thereshould have been prior public discussions before theMinister signed."16

In March 2001, the Tongan National Council ofChurches, supported by the Geneva-based WorldCouncil of Churches, convened a meeting of churchand community leaders from throughout the Pacificregion to discuss the social and ethical implicationsof genomics research. A statement released followingthe consultation included the following statements:

• The peoples of the Pacific are the guardiansof their heritage and have the right to protectand control dissemination of the heritage;

ETC CommuniquéMarch/April 2002

8

• The peoples of the Pacific have the right tomanage their own biological resources, topreserve their traditional knowledge and toprotect these from expropriation andexploitation by scientific, corporate, orgovernmental interests;

• The conversion of lifeforms, their moleculesor parts, into corporate property throughpatent monopolies is counter-productive tothe interests of the Pacific.17

Autogen’s plan to gain exclusive access to TonganDNA may have been squelched by local opposition,but the company is now prospecting for humandisease genes on islands closer to home. The ChiefScientific Officer of Autogen, Greg Collier, told InterPress Service in February 2002: ''We are not actuallydoing anything in Tonga. What we have decided todo…is to concentrate our resources into investigatingmore into the Tasmanian population (in Australia).''18

For successfully defeating the US-government’s $2.5million bioprospecting project. After two years ofintense local opposition from indigenous peoples'organizations in Chiapas, Mexico, the USgovernment-funded ICBG-Maya project aimed at thebioprospecting of Mayan medicinal plants andtraditional knowledge was cancelled in November,2001. According to Antonio Perez Mendez,indigenous doctor and secretary of the Council ofTraditional Indigenous Doctors and Midwives fromChiapas (Consejo de Médicos y Parteras IndígenasTradicionales de Chiapas - COMPITCH):

"The definitive cancellation of the ICBG-Mayaproject is important for all indigenous peoples inMexico. Indigenous communities are asking for amoratorium on all biopiracy projects in Mexico, sothat we can discuss, understand and propose our ownalternative approaches to using our resources andknowledge. We want to insure that no one can patentthese resources and that the benefits are shared byall."

For more background:“Mexican Biopiracy Project Cancelled,” 9 Nov 2001http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=279“Call to Dialogue, or Call to 911?” 2 Nov. 2000http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=17Stop Biopiracy in Mexico! 23 October 2000http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=17Biopiracy Project in Chiapas, Mexico Denounced byMayan Indigenous Groups 1 Dec 1999http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=110

For challenging the Basmati patent at the US Patent& Trademark Office. As a result of popular protestsworldwide and legal action by the Indiangovernment, the US PTO ultimately struck down 15of the 20 original claims made in RiceTec’smonopoly patent.

Readers of ETC/RAFI Communique will recall theaudacious US patent on Basmati rice given to aTexas-based firm, RiceTec, Inc. (headed by PrinceHans Adam II of Liechtenstein) in 1997. The patentblatantly usurped the Basmati name and farmers’traditional varieties from India and Pakistan.

For advocates of Farmers’ Rights and biodiversity,the Basmati patent battle is a partial and bittersweetvictory. As a result of the challenge, RiceTec wasforced to drop its offensive title “Basmati rice linesand grains,” and only three of the company’s originalclaims survived intact under scrutiny (15 werethrown out, two were amended). But Indian activistshave criticized the Government of India forchallenging only three of RiceTec’s claims (thoserelated to Basmati grain that most threatened Indianexports) rather than demanding a rejection of theentire patent and the most egregious claims onfarmers’ traditional knowledge and germplasm. Itwas the work of Indian activists and popularcampaigns against biopiracy that ultimately pressuredthe US PTO to conduct a more thorough re-examination of the Basmati patent. Thoughsubstantially pruned, the surviving claims allowRiceTec to monopolize “novel rice lines” derivedfrom Basmati varieties developed by Indian andPakistani farmers.

For further analysis of the Basmati patent challenge:

ETC CommuniquéMarch/April 2002

9

Vandana Shiva, “The Basmati Battle and its Implicationsfor Biopiracy and TRIPs,“August 2001.Devinder Sharma, “Let Us Accept It, India has Lost theBattle” Deccan Herald, Bangalore, India, Sept 1, 2001.

Background materials from ETC group:“The Basmati Patent: The (Merchant) Prince and the(Punjabi) Paupers,” 1 April 1998,http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=62“RAFI launches postcard campaign to oppose Basmatipatent,” 22 May 1998,http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=60“Controversy Still Steaming Over Basmati Patent,” 4January 2000.http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=34

For filing an official complaint that led the US Officefor Human Research Protection to issue a “stingingrebuke” of Harvard University for improper geneticresearch involving collection of DNA from poorpeople in rural China.19 Harvard has been forced tosuspend its genetic research in China.

In September 1999 epidemiologist GwendolynZahner filed a complaint requesting that the USgovernment’s Office for Human Research Protections(OHRP) launch a formal investigation of HarvardUniversity’s genetics studies involving rural peoplein some of China’s poorest communities. Harvard’sChina-based genetic studies are funded by USgovernment grants and by the pharmaceuticalindustry, principally Millennium Pharmaceuticals.

In March, 2002 the US Office for Human ResearchProtection (OHRP) concluded that 15 Harvard-affiliated genetic studies in China were not properlymonitored to ensure the safety of the Chinese peoplewho participated and who may have been put at risk.Among 38 specific problems, the OHRP found thatHarvard’s China-based research did not havenecessary ethics review, used misleading consentforms, and failed to inform participants of thepossible risks and drawbacks of their participation.Harvard’s genetic research in China included studiesof obesity, asthma, pulmonary disease, colon cancer,atherosclerosis and schizophrenia, but offered notreatment to impoverished participants. In manycases, China was selected as the research site

specifically because the population lacks access tomodern medicine and because “China offers a low-cost research venue.”20

In response to the OHRP rebuke, the Harvard Schoolof Public Health has reprimanded two researchers,suspended its China studies and is changing itsprocedures for reviewing research. The OHRPinvestigation is ongoing, but it has not gone farenough. Drug companies like Millennium and manyothers collecting human DNA in China (involving asmany as 200 million Chinese citizens) are notdirectly affected by the OHRP review. GwendolynZahner told the Boston Globe that much more needsto be done to protect the rural population of Chinafrom the threat of unethical genetic research andexploitation: “With no independent monitoring ofwhat is happening on the ground in China, it’sreckless endangerment.”21

For more information:

http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/detrm_letrs/YR02/mar02b.pdf(Harvard School of Public Health)

http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/detrm_letrs/YR02/mar02a.pdf(Brigham & Women's Hospital)*

http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/detrm_letrs/YR02/mar02c.pdf(Mass. Mental Health Center)*

*Harvard-affiliating teaching hospitals.

ETC group, “The New Genomics Agenda” ETCCommuniqué, September/October 2001,http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=250

1 Letter from David R. Downes, Senior Attorney, Center for International Environmental Law, to Todd Dickinson, ActingAssistant Secretary of Commerce and Acting Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, March 30, 1999.2 Letter from John M. Kane, Technology Transfer Specialist, University of Toledo, to Dr. Aklilu Lemma, President, EndodProducts, Inc., 9 March 1995.3 Syngenta News Release, “Researchers complete rice genome map,” January 26, 2001.http://www.syngenta.com/en/media/article.asp?article_id=1264 Butler, Declan. “Geneticists get steamed up over public access to rice genome.” Nature, Vol. 416, pp. 111-112. 5 Sub-Commission on Intellectual Property Rights and Human Rights, Commission on Human Rights, United Nations,“Resolution on Intellectual Property Rights and Human Rights,” E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/7, 17 August 2000.6United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, “Intellectual Property Rights andHuman Rights,” E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/21.http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.SUB.2.RES.2001.21.En?Opendocument7 Madeley, John. “Living off the fat of the land,” Financial Times, December 1, 2001.8 Phytopharm website, http://www.phytopharm.co.uk/9 Jenkins, Patrick. “Phytopharm hails trial success of obesity drug pharmaceuticals groupin licensing talks with Pfizer,” Financial Times, December 6, 2001, p. 27.10 Firn, David. “African cactus could help fight obesity,” Financial Times, April 11, 2001, p. 2.11 Clark, Andrew. Phytopharm hails bushmen's fatbuster The Guardian, December 6, 2001, p. 26.12 Kimpel, P. “Gourmet-Style Jasmine Rice may be Future US Crop,” University of Florida News, Belle Glade, Florida,September 11, 2001. http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2001news/jasmine.htm13 Statistics on area devoted to GM soybean crop comes from: James, C. 2001. Global Review of Commercial TransgenicCrops: 2001. ISAAA Briefs No. 24: Preview. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.14J.I. Gutnick, Chairman & Managing Director, Manager Announcements, “Autogen Announces new gene discoveryinitiative in the South Pacific islands of Tonga,” 17 November 2000, available on the company website:http://www.autogenlimited.com.au/f_ir_announcements.html15 Manager Announcements, “Autogen files a patent application in the USA for five new genes,” 22 February 2002, on thecompany’s website: http://www.autogenlimited.com.au/f_ir_announcements.html16 The Tonga Human Rights & Democracy Movement, Media Release, “THRDM Condemns Agreement for GeneticResearch on Tongans,” 24 November 2000, available on the International Public Health Watch site,http://www.ldb.org/iphw/index.htm17 Statement of bio-ethics consultation, Tonga National Council of Churches' Center Nuku'alofa, Tonga 12-14 Marc 2001.18 Burton, Bob. Inter Press Service, “Opposition Stalls Genetic Profiling Plan for Tonga,” 18 Feb. 2002.19 Zitner, A. “Harvard Gene Study in China is Questioned,” Los Angeles Times, 30 March 2002 http://www.latimes.com/la-033002harvard.story20 “Harvard and China Probe Disease Genes,” Science. Vol. 273, 19 July 1996, p. 315.21 Dembner, A. “Review cites risks to Chinese studied,” Boston Globe, 30 March 2002, p. A5.

The Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, formerly RAFI, is an internationalcivil society organization headquartered in Canada. The ETC group (pronounced Etcetera) isdedicated to the advancement of cultural and ecological diversity and human rights. All ourpublications are available at: www.etcgroup.org

ETC group International Office, P.O. Box 68016 RPO Osborne, Winnipeg MB R3L 2V9 CANADATel: 204 453-5259 Fax: 204 284-7871 http://www.etcgroup.org