60 



The public, as well as university governing bodies, expects prod- 

 ucts of tax-dollar-supported research to be protected. After all, com- 

 pensation for research accomplishments is one way to support fu- 

 ture endeavors. 



Until the 1980's, public universities and agricultural experiment 

 stations usually gave germplasm away. It was available as public 

 domain. Today, the motivation to protect germplasm has increased. 

 Tighter university budgets and escalating research costs have 

 caused administrators and researchers to think more carefully 

 about cost containment and cost recovery. Germplasm exchanges 

 are still taking place but are frequently accompanied by material 

 transfer agreements that may place limits or restrictions on the 

 usage of the germplasm and may generate revenues. 



Hopefully, germplasm research programs are not directed with 

 the sole intent of making dollars or generating support via royalty 

 from releases. This is a treadmill we must avoid. Remember that 

 our biggest contribution and primary mission is that of training 

 students or human resource development. 



In addition to developing policies that assure widespread and 

 rapid use of new technology, public institutions must also assure 

 that protection of intellectual property does not, in any way, im- 

 pede further research. Scientists in both public and private institu- 

 tions should be able to use information and research materials, 

 whether protected or not, to further their investigations and to 

 speed the acquisition of new knowledge and new discovery. 



The new molecular technologies that are an important part of the 

 plant genome projects are also important tools in plant breeding 

 and related plant germplasm programs. These technologies contrib- 

 ute to the mapping, sequencing, and identification of new genes 

 that will contribute to both biology and agriculture. This informa- 

 tion could serve to increase genetic diversity, to reduce genetic vul- 

 nerability and to broaden the genetic base of important cultivated 

 crops. 



The advancing molecular technologies also will enhance our abili- 

 ties to fingerprint, to measure genetic distance and to take part in 

 international discussions on the concept of essentially derived vari- 

 eties. 



One of the recommendations of the 1993 Workshop on Intellec- 

 tual Property Rights for Plants was that the Plant Variety Protec- 

 tion Act be revised to conform with the 1991 revision of UPOV. 

 ESCOP supports this action. 



Additionally, we support the provisions on essentially derived va- 

 rieties. They provide protection for developers of important basic 

 genetic materials. 



We also support the amendment that brings potatoes and tubers 

 under the Plant Variety Protection Act. 



I have submitted a complete statement and would be pleased to 

 have that shown as part of the record and to address your ques- 

 tions. 



On behalf of ESCOP and NASULGC and the American Society 

 for Horticultural Science, thank you for this opportunity. 



[The prepared statement of Mr. Lower appears at the conclusion 

 of the hearing.] 



Mr. Stenholm. Thank you. 



