1. Genomic Research and Intellectual Property: Observations Douglas D. Hedley CFAVM 28 April 2011 Lord Elgin Hotel, Ottawa

2. Background Nearly three decades with AAFC – Policy and programs: retired 2004, ADM Programs Branch Some years overseas: – Rockefeller Foundation Overseas Scholar – Colombia, Africa, South East Asia – The Rockefeller Foundation, Winrock International – International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Nigeria (CGIAR) – Board Member: ISNAR (CGIAR) – President of IAAE and Founding Editor: Journal of the IAAE, Fellow, IAAE Executive Director: Canadian Faculties of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine (8 Ag and 5 Vet faculties) Private consulting and coaching Douglas Hedley2

3. From the Brief: What’s missing? Plant Breeder’s Rights – Established in law in Canada 1991 – International Union for the Protection on New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) First established 1968, last up-dated 1991 – Covers plant varieties, biochemical and molecular techniques, and DNA-Profiling What problem needs to be solved? Douglas Hedley3

4. Problems From a university point of view: – Lots of rules – Public funding agency historically captures any resulting IP Different rules across funding agencies; no common approach A negotiated agreement in many cases, often private AAFC attempting a “common” approach And there are ways around the rules – We seem to know what to do if IP pops up from research But only if the researcher recognizes the IP Douglas Hedley4

5. Problems No apparent “Policy” of whether public research funding has the objective of creating IP – For what purpose? – Or “Policy” on what to do with it if it arises – Owning IP often a net cost to institutions Private sector funded research appears to have a stronger objective to create IP than government – Both internal and university-based research Douglas Hedley5

6. Problems Assembling IP on biological forms relatively new – Fairly straightforward with one or two traits – Exponentially costly in more combinations Societal reactions to GMOs for food – Few examples of consumer benefit from GMOs so far – Benefits lie mainly with input suppliers and producers – Increasing concern with rise of organic, natural, local – Corn, soybeans, cotton, canola Douglas Hedley6

7. Problems Why is a clear policy approach on bio-related IP important? – It’s not just about IP policy – It’s about what problems we need to resolve as a society – And the role IP plays in solving these problems – Lower costs of collaboration among researchers, and mobilizing knowledge, not strong enough drivers Douglas Hedley7

8. The food dilemma: – Population and income growth to 2050 – 70 to 100% increase in food demand at stable prices – More than half of this increase must come by 2030 – Yield growth from traditional plant breeding methods in decline Productivity growth already below sustainable level – Climate change reducing capacity to produce food Need both mitigation and adaptation: changing the genetic foundation in our crops Douglas Hedley8

9. Food and Wellness – Food and diet increasingly seen linked to human health and wellness – Opportunity to increase nutrition of major food groups Health benefits from bio-medical IP Douglas Hedley9

10. How to get policy traction on changes/up-dates to IP policy? What metrics exist to choose among the options? Need to put the IP issues in context of real and perceived economic and societal problems What problems can a Canadian IP policy solve? Douglas Hedley10

11. Thank you Douglas Hedley11