Kia ora,
I received the following bulletin dated 15 August, through Nga
Kaiwhakanekeneke News Service, originating from the PNG National Niuswire
service. As I have not noticed any media surrounding this outrageous
development, and given the testimony of indigenous representatives last
week at the US National Academy of Sciences Committee to try and dissuade
the US government from funding the HGDP, I thought it timely to re-post
it. Feel free to issue press releases in your own communities, nations.
PNG PRESS RELEASE - Status: Unabridged
PORT MORSEBY: The United States Congress has passed a law allowing the
Papua New Guinea Government to claim patent rights on behalf of the
Hagahai people over the controversial Hagahai cell line. The enabling
legislation is called the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1996 passed in March of this year and communicated to the PNG
Government in May by the US Embassy.
The Congress' directive has given the US National Institute of Health,
the premier medical body that coordinates such research of its scientific
outfits and research personnel working worldwide, new flexibility to
effectively deal with the Hagahai saga. The Congress also urged the PNG
Institute of Medicl Research (IMR) to work closely with the PNG government
to set up an appropriate trust or other body in PNG to take charge of
those responsibilities.
Both the IMR Director, Dr Michael Alpers, and his senior research fellow
Jenkins, have been informed of the Congressional directive. It is
understood that PNG Attorney-General Sao Gabi and Foreign Affairs & Trade
Secretary, Gabriell Dusava, have also been notified.
Inter-departmental arrangements are being implemented immediately to
incorporate a Trustee to assume the Hagahai right of the cell line.
However one consequence of the Congressional directive is that the PNG
government is expected to pay out nearly $US6,000 (K7,790) between
September 1998 and September 2006 for demanding the reassigning of the
cell line rights for its Hagahai citizens.
This fee is a maintenance fee and is payable to the US Patent and
Trademarks Office (USPTO) for their safe-keeping of the cell line.
This new development surrounding the Hagahai controversy comes amidst a
mountain of domestic, regional and international publicity and debate
critical of the medical and scientific practices of the US government.
Already the European parliament has outlawed the patenting of bio-medical
discovereies through genetic engineering.
ENDS
Aroha Te Pareake Mead
Foreign Policy Convenor, Maori Congress
P.O. Box 13-177
Johnsonville, Wellington
AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND
Aroha-Tel: +64-4-479-7781 Fax: +64-4-494-7106
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 96 09:03 NZST
From: Aroha Mead <nzonline.ac.nz!aroham>
To: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Cc: bionet@igc.org
Cc: pdh@u.washington.edu
Subject: The truth emerges -PNG posting
Kia ora koutou,
On 22 September I re-posted a bulletin I had received through the
PNG National Niuswire service entitled 'PNG FORCED TO BUY BACK
HAGAHAI PATENT.' On receiving a tip-off that the story may not
be correct I sought further clarification on elements of the
story, in particular the status of the US National Technology
Transfer & Advancement Act and whether it makes specific mention
of the Hagahai Patent, and/or whether the Act was designed to
accommodate international technology transfer.
I have since been advised: (1) that the Act makes no mention of
the Hagahai patent, or PNG, or the Institute of Medical Research,
and (2) it does not appear to mention the word 'international'
within the text.
An Associated Press article which was forwarded to me through
INDKNOW by Prof.of Law, Bill Hennessey, Concord NH, 'US ENDS
EFFORT TO PATENT BOOD CELLS OF NEW GUINEA TRIBESMAN' suggests
that an offer was made to reassign the cell line to a Trust but
cites Carol Jenkins and her Legal Advisor, Henry Greely, advising
against the transfer "citing the legal expense and $6000 in fees
the US Patent & Trademark Office asks to maintain the patent."
For the full text of the AP article contact <bhennessey@fplc.edu>
So it appears that elements of the original PNG story were
correct, but when assembled into one article the order
misconstrued the chronological sequence of events. What remains
disturbing however is the un-neccessary trauma that is caused
when a patent of this nature emerges. It isn't only the US
government that has experienced the "transoceanic storm of
controversy." The Hagahai patent has caused unmeasureable damage
here in the South Pacific bringing a stigma to rural health
practitioners and researches that will be hard for them to shake.
Whether the patent remains or is abandoned, what is clear is
that patents on human DNA materials should not be allowed. The
ethical, human rights and sovereignty issues inherent in the US
NIH taking out a patent on genetic materials of an indigenous
Hagahai tribesman from a developing country were always and
continue to be outrageous and unacceptable.
Thanks to those who offered clarification on the facts of the
posting.
Aroha Te Pareake Mead
Foreign Policy Convenor, Maori Congress
P.O. Box 13-177
Johnsonville, Wellington
AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND
NO PATENTS ON LIFE FORMS
Aroha-Tel: +64-4-479-7781 Fax: +64-4-494-7106