Are intellectual property policies for gene‐edited crops fit for purpose? The perspectives of German scientists

Abstract

Societal Impact StatementA growing body of research indicates that intellectual property policies for agricultural biotechnologies are hindering research and limiting the use of the technologies. Research also indicates that public resistance to agricultural biotechnologies, including transgenic and gene‐edited crops, is at least in part motivated by concerns about intellectual property restrictions. Therefore, changing the policies governing agricultural biotechnologies promises to reduce public resistance and to enhance the diffusion of research outputs. Because so many patents related to gene editing are held by universities and because so much cutting‐edge research is conducted by public scientists, exploring the scientists' perspectives on these policies offers insights into possibilities for policy changes.Summary After the European Court of Justice's ruling that gene‐edited crops would be regulated the way transgenic crops are regulated, the European Commission consulted with stakeholders and concluded that policies governing gene‐edited crops are not fit for purpose. This research explores whether public scientists in Germany also consider intellectual property policies not fit for purpose. The data come from intensive interviews with 10 scientists working at German universities and research institutes. The interviewed scientists describe how intellectual property policies limited the use of transgenic breeding techniques and how they now limit applications of gene‐editing techniques. They overwhelmingly support policy changes that facilitate the use of their scientific breakthroughs to solve problems in the world, and they do not want to see large companies use the technologies to consolidate economic power or to profit at the expense of solving problems. Because intellectual property policies are often cited as a key reason for the resistance to agricultural biotechnologies and because research indicates that current policies are not enhancing crop innovations or social welfare, a change in intellectual property policies is likely to reduce resistance to the new crop breeding technologies and yield more social benefits.

Structured analysis of broader GMO impacts inspired by technology assessment to inform policy decisions

“…In a broader assessment, potentially adverse effects on the societal and environmental status quo can include a variety of impacts beyond those covered by statutory RA, e.g., on the use of natural resources, animal welfare, freedom of choice and additional costs for consumers, threats or benefits to established farming practices, path dependencies within production systems, and the limitations for research and saving of seeds by intellectual property rights (de Graeff et al 2019;Lindberg et al 2023;Helliwell et al 2019;Glenna 2023). Not to be neglected are the effects in the country of cultivation (in the case of imports) or by the release of gene drives, e.g., if the rights of the local population are violated, or environmental protection standards are not met (Hartley et al 2023;Myskja and Myhr 2020).…”