Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition and the World Forum for Ethics in Business, in partnership with the German Patent & Trade Mark Office, the Peter Löscher Chair of Business Ethics at the Technical University of Munich, and the European Patent Office, are organizing a series of conferences titled the ‘Munich Conference Series on Ethics in Innovation.’ The 1st Conference Series on Ethics in Innovation comprises two segments:
1. The World Youth Forum for Ethics in Innovation (WYF 2017) from 23-25 June 2017 (hosted by the Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition, Munich); and
2. The multi-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder conference on Ethics in Innovation (EII Conference) from 26-27 June 2017 (hosted by the German Patent and Trade Mark Office, Munich)
We invite the readers of Spicy IP, including students and young IP professionals from around the globe to apply for and participate in either or both of these events. An overview of the conference concept and all relevant links are provided below.
Introduction & Concept
What is considered ‘ethical’ and ‘innovative’ varies from person to person, culture to culture, and even from industry to industry. This difference in perception may, at first glance, seem to be of interest only from a purely academic perspective. In reality, however, it plays a crucial and practical role in ensuring a healthy and balanced public debate, which, in the end, can influence all segments of human life, including the approach to education, the focus of scientific research efforts, the framework of laws and policies, and even the flow of capital at the level of societies, communities, countries and regions.
It is perhaps no wonder, therefore, that despite widespread globalization, even in the 21st century, it is not corporate profits alone that drive the direction and success of an innovation. Diverse ethical views, including socio-cultural norms, social or individual history and the historical evolution of world views predominant in various regions of the world, all play a significant role in determining the direction and goals of innovation in various societies or communities on the one hand, and the manner in which these innovations are viewed, disseminated and used around the globe, on the other.
Ethical issues and dominant world views emerging therefrom, broadly speaking, may often also guide the adoption of laws and regulations associated, inter alia, with testing, adopting, disseminating, using and even patenting of certain types of innovations, to the exclusion of others. Yet, in the 21st century global village, with the confluence of diverse cultures through immigration, job hunts and growing frequency of inter-cultural marriages, it is necessary to re-think the fundamental understanding that we as a human society have of the terms ‘innovation’ and ‘ethics’ as such, and of their relationship with one another in narratives employed at national and international debates linked with innovation.
Structure & Topics
The first Munich Conference on Ethics in Innovation therefore asks several fundamental questions that cut across traditional disciplinary boundaries and calls for an open, multi-disciplinary, and multi-stakeholder discussion of these fundamental questions. Day 1 of the conference outlines the most fundamental questions of ethics and innovation from the perspective of disciplines and discourses that affects all segments of human life. The questions considered on Day 1 of the conference include, but are not limited to, the following: ‘Is there a ‘common minimum’ ethical value system that binds us as a human society? What are the socio-cultural and economic consequences, if any, of labelling certain material and immaterial creations as ‘innovations’ and not others? What role do ethical concerns play in the life and work of those engaged in some of the most groundbreaking innovations? What approaches to education can help nurture both ethical and innovative outlooks in individuals from diverse cultures? In what circumstances can people of one culture accept and embrace innovations from other cultures? Can such acceptance lead to greater communal harmony and secular yet economically prosperous living? Can innovations in the digital age serve to bring diverse cultures closer together in a democratic and secular framework? Is there a need to regulate innovations that might have an opposite effect?
Day 2 focuses on issues of ethics and innovation in a specific field, namely, information and communication technologies, including means of promoting equitable and inclusive innovations in the ICT sector globally. The discussions will look into diverse issues from a multi-disciplinary perspective and consider how ethics in innovation can be promoted by, inter alia, providing equitable access to venture and seed capital funding, promoting innovations in the digital field that are supportive of larger societal goals (such as democracy, peace, sustainability and inter-cultural harmony), determining the means/need of regulating content in online media, discussing issues of ethics linked to the cutting edge innovations in the field of artificial intelligence and the internet of thigs, and re-assessing means inclusive and exclusive of traditional intellectual property protection regimes to promote, recognize and disseminate innovations emerging from diverse socio-cultural and economic contexts.
To ensure a rich multi-cultural and multi-stakeholder discussion of these issues, engaging experts as well as students and young professionals from diverse disciplinary fields from across the globe, the first Munich Conference Series on Ethics in Innovation is split into two segments:
• The World Youth Forum for Ethics in Innovation (WYF 2017) from 23-25 June 2017, at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition, Munich. For more information on the concept and program of WYF 2017, please visit www.wfeb.org.
• The multi-stakeholder conference on Ethics in Innovation (EII Conference) from 26-27 June 2017, at the German Patent and Trade Mark Office, Munich.
The deadline to apply for the World Youth Forum for Ethics in Innovation is 10th May 2017. The top 5 applicants will receive a scholarship from the Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition, covering flight and accommodation expenses for the duration of the forum and conference.
For more information, email Camille Abgrall at WYF2017_Munich@wfeb.org
For more information on the Ethics in Innovation Conference Series and its research goals, contact Dr. Mrinalini Kochupillai: Mrinalini.firstname.lastname@example.org
Friday, 14 April 2017
Tuesday, 30 October 2012
Way back in 1983, Dadaji Ramji Khobragade noticed an unusual rice seed in the paddy field. He collected these seeds, kept them aside and replanted them season after season till he developed what went on to be the most popular rice variety in his village in Maharshtra - the HMT rice variety. In 1994, the Sindewahi Rice Station, (a part of Dr.Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapith University, Maharashtra) took five kgs of the HMT seeds from Khobragade to conduct "experiments" on it. 4 years later, the University released a new variety named PKV HMT. All these developments were extensively reported in the press as well as by the National Innovation Foundation - see here and here.
Today, while looking through the latest Plant Variety Journal (October 2012), I came across Registration number 106 of 2012 for Rice variety PKV HMT. The registration is in the name of Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth and the variety is disclosed as being a selection from local variety HMT Sona.
The Plant Variety Journal has published these registrations for "inviting claims of benefit sharing under sub-section 1 of section 26 of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights (PPV&FR) Act, 2001 read with rule 40 of the PPV&FR Rules 2003."
I wonder if the National Innovation Foundation plans to claim benefits on behalf of Mr. Khobragade for this registration! I am still to look at the provisions of the PPV&FR Act in more detail, but given that Khobragade is well known to be the original developer of the HMT variety (thanks to press publicity including by the Forbes magazine, and awards given by the local village panchayat), would he be entitled to claim a share of profits? If so, from which year onwards? Can he claim benefits retrospectively?
The registration is under the category of "extant variety," but interestingly, the date of commercialization has been disclosed in the Plant Variety Journal as 2008. This seems contrary to earlier news reports that suggest that the PKV HMT was developed by 1998. Surely it didn't take 10 years for the variety to be commercialized by the University? Also, given that news articles already were talking about the PKV HMT variety at least as early as 2001, the reason for disclosing the commercialization date of the variety as 2008 is not clear at all.
For the sake of all developing countries that look towards India's PPV&FR Act as a model law that can potentially benefit not just private and public sector breeders but also farmers, I really hope that the case of HMT rice becomes the first major success story for farmer innovations and resulting economic benefits to the rural poor. Or are there catches and loopholes in the legislation that will prevent this? All comments and clarification welcome while I continue to dig into the black letter of the law!
See Khobragade's interview in the local TV channel here.
Thursday, 7 July 2011
This blog is partially an excerpt from a recently published article of mine, titled "India's Plant Variety Protection Law: Historical and Implementation Perspectives."
India today is self-sufficient in most of its food requirements. However, it suffered from major famines and severe shortage of food until the mid 1960s.(1) In the decades following the Green Revolution, (coupled, to a smaller extent with increase in cropped and irrigated areas) India became increasingly self-sufficient in agricultural produce. Today, Indian agricultural produce, particularly in relation to important staple foods, is sufficient to feed the entire population of India, while also contributing 15 to 20% of the total value of India’s exports. (2) India was (and is) also an active participant and contributor to international agricultural R&D efforts, including international research efforts in wheat, maize and rice. (For example, Indian scientists have recently created a drought resistant variety of rice called Sahbhagi Dhan that can survive 12 days without rain)(3)
India has witnessed an increase in its agricultural production by >350% from 50.82 million tonnes in 1950-51 to 230.67 million tonnes in 2007-08. (4) While the increase in the land area under cultivation was mere 27.87%, (5) the increase in yield per hectare of land was 255%; from 522Kg/hectare in 1950-51, to 1854 Kg/hectare in 2007-08. (6) This increase in production is largely attributed to improved production technologies, particularly high yielding varieties (HYV) of seeds introduced under the Green Revolution.
In a world that considers intellectual property rights as inevitable and indespensible, Lost Clauses fondly reminds itself and its readers that these HYV seeds and the related technology were acquired and successfully disseminated in India in the absence of an intellectual property protection regime: Green revolution in India resulted from an initial transfer of large quantities of high yielding varieties of rice and wheat seeds from Mexico under the initiative of Norman E Borlaugh. (7) Thereafter, the appropriate technology and know-how, including the best manner of cultivating, the quantity of pesticides and fertilizers to be used etc. was innovated and recommended by the Indian National Agricultural Research System (NARS). (8) Once the dissemination of HYV seeds to Indian farmers commenced, the Green Revolution spread rapidly to most farming communities because of the traditional practice of saving, resowing and exchanging seeds, and because of the absence of IP laws preventing these practices. Experts opine that in the absence of this tradition, such a rapid spread would not be possible.(9)
Recently, Lost Clauses read an interesting article by Christine Godt titled “Regulatory Paradoxes – The Case of Agricultural Innovation.” Ms. Godt notes:
“Traditionally, ‘access’ was conceived as the central component of agricultural innovation, as distinct from industrial patent driven innovation. It rested on two pillars: the former plant breeders' rights system provided privileges for both farmers and breeders: Complementarily, public agricultural research institutions granted open access to its collections.” (10)
She further notes:
"Historically, the agricultural innovation system was firmly rooted in open access to genetic resources as public domain.... The inherent reason being self-replication. This feature does not only limit proprietary control along distribution lines. The improvement of seeds is necessarily built on the stock of already existing ones." (11)
If the above are facts, which indeed they are, I wonder about 2 things:
1. What prompted and sustained robust private sector participation in seed production and distribution in India (and elsewhere) during the absence of a strong IP protection regime for seeds?
2. Why is a need felt now for strong(er) IP protection in the seed sector despite the glowing growth rates of agricultural productivity around the globe witnessed in 2nd half of the 20th century without such protection?
We invite thoughts on these from our readers and promise to provide our own inputs on them soon!
Sources and Citations
(1) For E.g. the great famines in Bengal 1943-44, in Orissa in 1866 and Bihar in 1873. Greenough, Paul R., Prosperity and Misery in Modern Bengal: The Famine of 1943-1944, (New York, Oxford University Press), I982.
(2) Sahay BR and Shrivastava MP, National Agricultural Policy in the New Millennium, (Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi), 2001, p. 31.
(3) According to news reports, “Sahbhagi Dhan, which means rice developed through collaboration, is the result of 15 years of joint effort by scientists at the Manila-based IRRI and Central Rainfed Upland Rice Research Station (CRURRS) in Hazaribag town [Jharkhand, India].” Pandey Geeta, India’s drought resistant rice, BBC News, 5 August 2009.
(4) Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, (Government of India) 2008, (20 February 2011). See also Ray Shovan, Economic Policy and Agriculture, In Handbook of India Agriculture, edited by Shovan Ray (Oxford University Press, New Delhi), 2007, p. 37.
(5) Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, (Government of India) 2008.
(6) Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, (Government of India) 2008. The total food-grain stocks of the government have shot up from 20.8 million tones in 1995-96, to 42.3 million tons in 2000-2001. However, this increase may be a result of the Minimum Support Price Scheme of the government of India whereunder, the government guarantees that it will buy all the quantities of grain that the farmer offers to sell. Ray Shovan, Economic Policy and Agriculture, In Handbook of India Agriculture, edited by Shovan Ray (Oxford University Press, New Delhi), 2007, p. 40
(7) The recommended seed replacement rate for self-pollinating crops is 25%. National Seed Plan of India (Government of India), 2005. Also see, Lesser William H, An Economic Approach to Identifying an ‘Effective Sui Generis System’ for Plant Variety Protection Under TRIPs, In Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy, (Proceedings of NE-165 Conference, Washington DC), June 24-25 1999, p. 324.
(8) Inputs provided by Dr. Sudhir Kochhar during the review of the article by this LCD.
(9) Experts also opine however that India’s agricultural policies have catered more to the large landowners and has neglected the needs of the poorer and small farmers. Demangue Sabine, Intellectual Property Protection for Crop Genetic Resources: A Suitable System for India (Herbert Utz Verlag Publishers, Munich), 2005, p. 243 and 257.
(10) Godt, Christine (2009) Regulatory Paradoxes – The case of agricultural innovation, in: J. Drexl, C. Godt, R. Hilty, B. Remiche & L. Boy (Eds.), Technology and Competition – Technologie et Concurrence, Brussels: Larcier (De Boek), 99-118, at 78.
(11) Godt, Christine (2009), ibid., at 82.
The Lost Clauses Blog aims to bring information on agriculture (particularly intellectual property associated with agriculture) from the most respected reliable sources to students, professionals, the media and the proverbial "common man." Court decisions, journal articles, newspaper articles, policy documents and legal provisions from around the world (with special focus on India) are summarised, discussed or commented on with a view to unearthing/highlighting important thoughts or laws that are "lost" or have not received the attention that in the view of the bloggers, they deserve. Public comment and critique is invited and welcomed! Happy reading and happy commenting!