The patent as an economic weapon

Thomas Schweiger, Greenpeace European Unit - April 1999

The idea of a patent is to protect one's own economic interests. When Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, he had to prevent others from stealing his idea. By patenting it, he registered his claim to his invention and gained control of any future use of it.

Arguably, this is a fair trade-off for someone who has invented something and a possible incentive for others to invent something even better for the benefit of society. But when it comes to handing over control over our own genes or biodiversity to individual companies, it becomes a totally different matter, with potentially devastating effects for society. What may be economically good for Monsanto and SmithKline Beecham may not be good for society at all.

In the case of human genes being patented by pharmaceutical companies, it will be entirely dependent on the economic rationale of the company and the decisions of its executives whether or not beneficial research and the development of new drugs will ever take place. If the company decides it is not economically feasible - e.g. because not enough people suffer from a certain decease - then there is virtually nothing anyone can do about it. Crucially, the patent holder can also prevent anyone else from carrying out R&D or charge licence fees, thereby increasing the costs of a possible drug. More than a decade of patenting human genes in the USA has shown the devastating effects this has had on the research and development of new therapies and drugs. Patient organisations are vigorously fighting the system (1).

In the area of farming and food production, the strategies of the Life Science industry have been similar, in that they have been trying to gain control over seeds. By doing so, they can force farmers to buy new seeds every year, thereby increasing their own profits at the cost of the farmers. They can also prevent plant breeders from freely using existing plant varieties to breed or develop new ones, which might be even better than existing ones, thereby forcing competitors out of the seed markets. It is no coincidence that chemical companies like Monsanto are buying up numerous seed companies all over the world. By controlling the seed market, they can then easily introduce only their own genetically modified seeds which are of little use to the farmer unless grown in conjunction with chemical products such as herbicides from the very same company. The farmers therefore become totally dependent on the company and, by controlling the seeds - the basics of our food chain - the companies can then exercise control over the very food on our plates.

Genetic engineering is the spearhead of the chemical companies entering and taking over our agrosystems - the patents are the army to drive out any competitors.

References

1. for further information have eg. a look at the homepages of NORD or The Council of Responsible Genetics