STSE Case study-Plants: Anatomy, Growth and Function Expectation to be covered -Research the way plants are fundamental to Canadian Society based on the needs of society and the development of plant science and technology

Objectives To have students understand and analyze the different advantages and disadvantages for genetically modified plants vs. organic plants To have students think about and discuss bioethical and biopolitical topics by viewing legal, social and economic issues around genetic agriculture in Canada and abroad To think about the multiple ways in which environmental sustainability is viewed

Who Said Plants don’t get interesting? It’s time we take what we have learned so far and discuss some real life controversial stories of genetic engineering in plants We will look at: Genetic patents-What are they? Case study: Schmeiser Vs. Monsanto

PRO

What is a Patent? Patents are an ownership given for an invention for a period of time (about 20 years). e.g.) Each invention must be: - Novel (new) - Non-obvious - industrially useful "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.“ - U.S. Patent Law

What Patents Do Provides the right to stop others from: – Making – Using – Selling – Importing

Canadian Patent Law Matters that cannot be patented: – Certain new plant matters – Computer programs – Medical treatments

What is a Biological Entity? Genes (or parts of genes) Proteins Stem cells -ELSI (Ethical Legal and Social issues)

Patenting Biological Entities Raw products of nature cannot be patented They have to be genetically engineered Must be a unique form not found in nature. The protein from the DNA sequence must show some practical use such as: – Drug discovery – Therapy – Diagnosis -Resnik 2001, Science and Engineering Ethics

Example of a patent: What was Ghandi’s favourite tree? Neem tree (Azadirachta indica) Translates to “free tree” Used for is healing properties Was accessible to all people of India BUT now Indian citizens might be required to pay royalties on neem products WHY? A U.S. company W.R. Grace has a patent on a compound in the tree for the production of a biopesticide.

11 Monsanto VS Schmeiser (Roundup Ready Canola) Background-the players The Case-What is the issue? The trials Supreme Court Decision Our discussion

Genetic patents: Does someone own seeds? THE PLAYERS Schmeiser Vs. Monsanto Percy Schmeiser A long time farmer and farm equipment dealer from the small rural community of Bruno in Saskatchewan. He served as Mayor of the Town of Bruno from “Percy Schmeiser has been growing canola -- the yellow-blossomed oilseed that used to be known as rapeseed -- for 40 years, and he knows his stuff. He's been experimenting, developing his own varieties, using his own seed and generally prospering with canola. reaping the benefits derived from growing an increasingly popular crop.” Questions: In what ways can Schmeiser benefit with from naturally growing plants? In what ways might Schmeiser benefit from a genetically modified plant?

Genetic patents: Does someone own seeds? THE PLAYERS Schmeiser Vs. Monsanto Monsanto -An biotechnology/agricultural corporation (company) based out of America which has many international connections (multinational company) The company created a Canola seed completely immune to herbicide (kills weeds) by Genetic engineering. That means a farmer can spray the herbicide over a planted field, kill all the weeds growing there, but not hurt the crop (canola). On February 23 rd,1993  Monsanto got 17 years patent of genetically modified canola  resistant to the herbicide  Roundup Ready Canola. About half the canola planted in Saskatchewan (in Canada) come from this company. Questions: Define genetic engineering? Why would weeds be a bad thing on a farm? Why would you want to get rid of them?

What are the issues continued… The conflict: Percy’s fields had round up ready canola plants growing on them. Percy never paid for these seeds and said that he never planted these seeds. Percy claimed that: the seeds spread through the natural process of seed dispersal and pollination which brings seeds into his field from his neighbors fields who were growing the Monsanto seeds. Monsanto claimed that: the seeds were being illegally used because Percy was not paying for the use of their technology. This is known as a patent infringement Question: How do you think Monsanto found out about Percy’s fields? Do you think companies should have the right to make sure that people are not illegally using their products? Think about other examples of patents or copyrights and how they are enforced (e.g. music and movie copyrights)

So what’s the issue? Monsanto sells their modified canola seeds to farmers under the impression they are going to be the only ones using it..

THE TRIALS 1.Monsanto VS Schmeiser (1998)  Monsanto found illegal seeds growing in Schmeiser’s field 2.Schmeiser VS Monsanto (1999)  Monsanto has contaminated his field. 3.Mediation Talks  To settle the dispute without going to trial ended in failure. 4.Lawsuit Schmeiser VS Monsanto  Monsanto’s investigators trespassed on his land without permission.  Libeling him by publicly accusing him of committing illegal acts  Contaminate his land with Roundup Ready Canola.  There was no decision.

What do you think?-Courtroom drama Jury- members to overlook the case and make a decision (choose judge to announce it and keep it all in order) Ethicists- members to introduce some of the ethical issues that have arisen in this case Farmer- Percy and maybe members of the farming community Monsanto Representatives- members of the company Scientists-members to discuss how genetic engineering, patents, and plant pollination work impartially. Supreme Court of Canada

Time: Each group is given 7 mins to present their case leaving 3 minutes for questions and rebuttals from other groups (total 10 minus) Order of presentations 1)Jury-pick a judge to present case to case (5 mins) 2) Farmers 3) Monsanto reps 4) Scientists 5) Ethicists 6) Jury-Summarize and make decision about case (5 mins)

THE TRIAL-The results In 2004, Supreme Court decided:  Monsanto’s patent is valid  Schmeiser USED the seed ILEGALLY, but the origin of the GM canola seed is still unclear  because there was no proof/ evidence, Schmeiser does not have to pay  Final Settlement Out of Court On March 19 th, 2008  Schmeiser pleased with victory over Monsanto  Monsanto has agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of the Roundup Ready Canola

References and resources Websites Overview of the case: Teacher synopsis and about Case studies: Videos Monsanto Documentary (Con monsanto-109 minutes)-Examines the global problems that Monsanto has caused Monsanto mission statement (Pro)-Examines the ways in which Monsanto aims to help agricultural progress