The Network of the Indigenous Peoples-Solomons (NIPS) welcomes the abandonment of a US patent application that uses genetic samples from Solomon Islanders, in a case that raises major ethical questions.
According to the USPTO’s Patent Application Information Retrieval system, US based lawyers representing Taiwanese scientist, Dr. Ko Ying-Chin filed an express abandonment application on April 01st, 2011 at 2:53pm EDT for the patent application number US20100248253.
The express abandonment was subsequently processed by the USPTO on April 4th, 2011 and now the status of the US patent application is listed as “expressly abandoned (during examination).”
Effectively, the patent application is now stopped. This patent application entitled “Method and Kit for Assessing Risk of Gout and Hyperuricemia,” uses samples from 192 Solomon Islanders,
collected at the National Referral Hospital and two clinics in Guadalcanal Province during a research trip led by Dr. Ko in September 2006.
Dr. Ko and his colleagues only abandoned the patent application after NIPS, along with other non-governmental organizations in the Solomon Islands, began to publicly challenge it. The basis of this challenge was Dr. Ko’s failure to obtain proper informed consent from the blood donors for such commercialization.
The informed consent given by blood donors in September 2006 was limited to medical research uses, and contained no mention of using the samples for patenting and other commercial purposes.
NIPS emphasizes the patent application which used the blood samples from unknowing indigenous Solomon Islanders clearly involved serious ethicalbreaches on the part of the Taiwanese medical researcher and three of his colleagues who were listed as patent applicants.
This Non-Government Organization says whilst it welcomes the abandonment, it is still eager to receive a reply from Dr. Ko on questions that need be answered including whether any cell lines of the Solomon Islanders were immortalized, and if any samples were shared with
other researchers or institutions in Taiwan and abroad.
The NIPS adds that it further welcomes Dr Ko’s response in mid-March – communicated through the Embassy of Taiwan in Honiara - where he states, he samples will be repatriated to the Solomon Islands.
The NIPS also hopes all the samples will be repatriated soon, including any immortalized cell lines. Furthermore, given the severity of the ethical breeches and violations of Solomon Islanders’ rights, the NIPS considers it critical that Ko respect a ban on any further publications and patent applications that use data from the indigenous blood samples from Solomon Islanders.
The NIPS states it gave a letter to Taiwanese officials during a March 31 2011 meeting at the Taiwanese Embassy in Honiara. This letter discussed pressing issues related to the patent application, including the abandonment of the application.
NIPS President, Mr Donald Marahare, Coordinator Graham Vahia and officer Meffrey Poenjili look forward to cooperating with the ROC Embassy’s First Secretary Mr Thomas Tsai, who will be mediating between responsible authorities in Taiwan and Honiara on this matter.
NIPS reiterate that the Solomon Islands Government must recognise the significance of this case and come up with legal instruments to safeguard its own indigenous citizens from any future biopiracy of human genetic materials and biological resources.
“The 1995 successful blocking of a patent application using genetic materials from Indigenous Solomon Islanders filed for patent application by the US Government’s National Institute of Health coupled with this episode involving Taiwanese researchers acquiring genetic materials from
Solomon Islanders, are timely wake-up call to take effective measures to protect Indigenous Solomon Islanders from any future repeat of genetic materials biopiracy.”
NIPS also acknowledges the cooperation it received from the Solomon Islands Research and Ethical Committee, the Ministry of Health and Medical Services, Mark Munsterhjelm from the University of Windsor in Canada, Ms Neth Dano of the ETC Group, Mr Fiu Elisara of Samoa and all the other resourceful individuals who have assisted with this matter.
ENDS////
Pacific Islanders are demanding the power to restrict patenting of their human, plant and animal genes, even if they run foul of international patent laws.
A new book documents 16 'acrimonious' encounters between scientific researchers and indigenous communities and calls for Pacific states to take a united approach to gaining control over such patents in the region.
"Researchers are harvesting and patenting the Pacific region's genetic resources by simply gathering and taking ownership over almost everything in their path," says co-editor of the book, Aroha Mead of the Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand.
She says lack of regulation and a lack of knowledge about the latest genetic technologies and intellectual patent law has made the region a major target for commercial gene hunters.
The book, Pacific Genes & Life Patents, is published by international indigenous activist group Call of the Earth and the United Nations University in Tokyo.
The book says a major problem is that communities involved in research often don't give informed consent.
It documents an early example in which the US government filed patents on material taken from the Hagahai tribe in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands in the early 1990s.
As a result, says the book, Hagahai immune cells can be bought today from the American Type Culture Collection for U$216, despite subsequent objections from those involved that they had not been informed.
The book documents other cases in which researchers gained consent from people who were not representative of their community. This resulted in conflicts within the community and the community's eventual withdrawal from the research.
Culture clash
Scientific research and patenting can often offend deeply held cultural values, says co-editor Dr Steven Ratuva, of the University of the South Pacific in Fiji.
He says patents on genes in medicinal plants conflict with the traditional view that such plants are common property, available for everyone.
While fair compensation for exploiting indigenous knowledge can be important, there are other issues at stake, says Ratuva.
"It's not only a matter of money," he says. "There are certain aspects of the culture which a lot of communities think cannot be bought or sold.
"Plants and animals are not seen as mere physical or biological entities but also as embodiment of ancestral spirits," says Ratuva.
He says recognition of local people's world view, even if it appears absurd to outsiders, must be part of the process in working out any patent or bioprospecting agreements.
Vetting patents
The book renews calls for a Regional Pacific Intellectual Property Office to vet patent applications and make sure they conform with Pacific Island cultural values.
Leaders at the intergovernmental Pacific Islands Forum say they also want such a regional office.
Mead says Pacific states should also pass laws to either prevent or significantly reduce patents on life.
But Professor Brad Sherman, director of the Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture, says such laws would contravene current World Trade Organization (WTO) rules on intellectual property relating to plants and animals.
"It's at odds with the trend on intellectual property across the world over the last decade which has seen any prohibitions on patenting of life being removed from the laws," he says.
Economic sanctions?
Any countries that contravene the WTO rules would run the risk of economic sanctions, says Sherman, based at the University of Queensland.
He says in his experience bioprospectors are often public sector researchers, who are under pressure to generate income from patenting.
And he says tough gene patent laws would not stop such researchers from taking material out of the Pacific region and patenting it elsewhere.
Mead is aware going against the tide won't be easy but is committed.
"Patents are out of control and a growing number of sectors of society are indicating that limits do need to be drawn," she says.
The book Pacific Genes & Life Patents is freely available online.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1872885.htm