38 



patents, and this has been exemplified as creating an array of 

 issues and questions that must be answered. 



The primary goal of the 1993 conference was to aid in the devel- 

 opment of policies and procedures associated with plant-derived in- 

 tellectual property which are publicly responsible and can provide 

 the incentives needed to assure commercialization of new inven- 

 tions. 



I would like to share a summary of the overall workshop recom- 

 mendations excerpted from pages eight and nine of this executive 

 summary. There are five major topics. I would like to go through 

 each one very briefly. 



In terms of research funding and agenda setting, administrators 

 should be better informed of the impact of intellectual property 

 protection on shifts in the direction. of research programs and the 

 impact of such directional shifts on the ability of these programs to 

 meet the public's expectations. 



Effective efforts are needed to counteract the serious erosion of 

 support for agricultural research in the public sector. Better public 

 funding would mitigate the negative impact of IPR on public re- 

 search agendas by removing much of the pressure to acquire mar- 

 ginal research money from the private sector where IPR must, by 

 business necessity, be an important part of the funding mechanism. 



Public institutions should improve their ability and capacity to 

 manage intellectual property to encourage rapid commercial devel- 

 opment while at the same time protecting the public interest. 



In education and communication, I would summarize in saying 

 that the recommendations specify that information about intellec- 

 tual property issues, such as model license or material transfer 

 agreements, should be published more widely, especially within the 

 public agricultural research system. 



Society's recognition of the importance of science as a part of ag- 

 riculture needs to be improved. Likewise, society's role in support 

 of public sector agricultural research should be reemphasized. 



In terms of germplasm exchanges and research exemptions, a 

 major workshop topic, the recommendations are that an explicit re- 

 search exemption should be provided with utility patents on plants, 

 and in the absence of such an exemption, public institutions should 

 be encouraged to grant a research exemption as an integral part of 

 their institutional licensing policy. Further, deposits of all biologi- 

 cal materials protected by IPR should become a part of the nation- 

 al germplasm system. 



Fourthly, international considerations, developing countries 

 should be encouraged to adopt effective plant breeders' rights and 

 intellectual property laws. Country-to-country plant germplasm ex- 

 changes should be encouraged by whatever means appropriate, and 

 equity issues in germplasm exchanges need to be addressed to 

 assure continuation of such exchanges. 



And lastly, but not least, farmer exemptions, the farmer exemp- 

 tion provision of the PVPA affords only a weak protection as envi- 

 sioned by the workgroup participants and is of little value in many 

 situations. Thus, utility patents are becoming more widely sought 

 than would be the case with a stronger variety protection law. 

 Also, the current U.S. act is inconsistent with the 1991 UPOV Con- 

 vention. 



