The Mars candy company, IBM, and a host of researchers recently completed a project completely mapping the genomic sequence of the cocoa plant. They put out a press release this week saying that they had made the genome available in the public domain, ostensibly for the benefit of millions of poor farmers around the world who could make their businesses more productive and robust with healthier and more robust cocoa plants. But there's a catch. To use the information, you first have to agree to a license. The uses of the information that are allowed under the agreement are listed, but that list does not include commercial use. This means that farmers can't sell the crops they grow using the information.
This topic immediately brings to mind the subversive practices of Monsanto and its use of patents and licensing to force farmers to buy its seeds. Is Mars trying to run good PR while still screwing farmers? What do you think about patenting genetic info anyway? Is it fair for a company to be able to copyright something that occurs naturally?
BBC - Cocoa genome 'will save chocolate industry'
Blog questioning whether the info is really in public domain
Another blog with bad writing, but good quotes & links
Info from Mars' website
Wow, this is kind of upsetting. I want to believe the first bloggers' hope that maybe they through that part about not commercializing the information of the license in as kind of a stock disclaimer without really understanding what is "public domain." The PR and coverage so clearly focus on how this could benefit small scale farmers that I find it difficult to believe they understood their own license! Sadly, only further clarification and corrections from Mars could prove this error. :(
ReplyDeleteIt does seem to be another scary Monsanto situation if the patent is not public domain, although I do believe patents for scientific breakthroughs are acceptable if it is for, say, a specific strain of plants that the school/company/etc. invested a great deal of money and research in discovering and developing. The problem is not patenting, then, but in patenting things that re too general. If they just said they had patented a specific, productive strain of plants that would be different, but in this case I think what's alarming is that they keep talking about "the cacao plant" in general, which could lead to some really sticky situations.
Good find, and worth following.