42 



external funds are available. Availability of external funds often depends on the 

 ability of the institution to provide access to appropriately protected intellectual 

 property. The opportunity for public institutions to receive income independently 

 from royalty bearing licenses can also influence the choice of problems researchers 

 undertake. Conferees agreed that adequate funding for high priority research from 

 public sources would minimize the impact of IPR on the public sector research 

 agenda. 



As with the work group on exchanges, there was concern on the part of some 

 work group members that property protection might restrict the exchange of germ- 

 plasm and information. Other members believed that protection of intellectual prop- 

 erty would encourage exchanges that might not otherwise occur. Some suggested 

 that a research exemption in patent law similar to that in the PVPA would dimin- 

 ish the negative impact of protection on research agendas. 



Work group members encouraged the development of concise educational and in- 

 formational packages on intellectual property issues that could be used in discus- 

 sions with policymakers and administrators. They also suggested that the PVPA be 

 revised to conform to the 1991 UPOV Convention. Finally, work group members en- 

 couraged organizing forums to encourage public debate on the effects of patents, of 

 State and Federal funding, and of teaching demands on the research agenda. 



OVERALL WORKSHOP RECOMMENDATIONS 



A workshop synthesis group, consisting of work group chairs and rapporteurs, re- 

 viewed each work group's findings. The following are the five highest priority issues 

 and recommended actions to address each of these issues. 



Research funding and agenda setting. Concerns about the impact of IPR on re- 

 search agendas emanate primarily from the public sector. Continued erosion in 

 State and Federal funds for research has created pressures for university research- 

 ers to seek funds from other sources. Other sources include the private sector, from 

 which funds can normally be secured much more readily if universities are willing 

 to protect intellectual property and to grant licenses to sponsors of the research. 

 Thus, the goals of long-term, university-funded specific projects or programs may be 

 redirected (agenda modified) by the provider of the marginal funds needed to contin- 

 ue the program. This redirection of the research agenda is more directly related to 

 funding than to intellectual property rights per se and is present regardless of 

 whether the marginal funds are provided by a private sector entity or by a Federal 

 granting agency. The provider of the marginal funds has a very significant impact 

 on the direction of the research program. 



The prospect of direct royalty income from the licensing of intellectual property 

 may also affect the research priorities at some institutions and with some individual 

 researchers. 



Recommendations. Decisionmakers should be better informed on the impact of in- 

 tellectual 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 agri- 

 cultural research in the public sector. Better public funding would mitigate the neg- 

 ative impact of IPR on public research agendas by removing much of the pressure 

 to acquire marginal research money from the private sector where IPR must, by 

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



Public institutions should improve their ability and capacity to manage intellectu- 

 al property to encourage rapid commercial development while at the same time pro- 

 tecting the public interest. 



Education and Communication. Decisionmakers and researchers generally lack 

 adequate information about IPR and appropriate institutional procedures and poli- 

 cies for exercising these rights without compromising public interests. 



Recommendations. Information about intellectual property issues should be pub- 

 lished more widely, especially within the public agricultural research system. 



Society's role and support for public sector agricultural research needs to be reas- 

 sessed. Scientific literacy and recognition of the importance of science as part of ag- 

 riculture need to be improved. 



Model license and material transfer agreements should be developed and copies 

 should be made available to intellectual property managers. 



Farmer Exemptions. The farmer exemption of the PVPA, as it currently exists, 

 weakens this form of protection to the point that it is of little value in many situa- 

 tions. Thus, utility patents are 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 Convention. 



