13 Biotechnology Law Report 272 (Number 3, May-June 1994)

ADR is here to stay and will be particularly important when the parties will continue to beinvolved in a business relationship.

# # #

{BLR 1673} Developing Countries-

Environment-

Intellectual Property.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SPECIALISTS,ENVIRONMENTALISTS HOLD JOINT CONFERENCE—

Several Cooperative Efforts BegunCONCORD, NH 4/9/94

—

Intellectual property rights experts and environmentalists came

together here on April 8 and 9 for a conference designed to help the two groups build bridgesbetween their distinct communities. The main topics were transferring environmentally forwardtechnology from wealthy to developing nations and transferring biologically diverse resourcesfrom poor nations to rich ones.

The theme of the conference, which was by invitation only and was sponsored by theFranklin Pierce Law Center in conjunction with the Center for International environmental Law(Washington, DC), was "The Greening of Technology Transfer: Protection of the Environmentand of Intellectual Property."

Concrete Proposals Put Forward

Several tangible proposals arose from the meeting, setting the stage for further cooperativeefforts. William Keefauver, President of the International Intellectual Property Association

—

U.S.Group, offered to establish a committee to provide legal help to environmental groups anddeveloping countries grappling with intellectual property problems. Faculty members from thehost Law Center offered to represent pro bono persons from developing countries who wish topatent their inventions and protect their intellectual property. By the end of 1994, the Law Centerwill be maintaining a computer bulletin board to allow intellectual property and environmentalworkers to share expertise.

Criteria and Incentives

The morning discussion at the conference centered on four questions:• What criteria should be used to define "environmentally superior" and "seriously

prejudicial" technology?• Should there be special intellectual property or technology transfer incentives for

environmentally superior technology?• Should there be special disincentives for technologies that seriously prejudice the

environment?• What might be the best incentives for the creation and diffusion of technologies that benefit

the environment?

Some presenters offered a market-based perspective on the issues, whereas other participants madea case for developing an alternative value system that incorporates a consensus between indigenouspeoples, intellectual property experts, environmentalists, and academic institutions. One proponentof the latter approach was Dr. James Buchanan, a professor at the Hong Kong University ofScience and Technology who specializes in comparative ethics with a focus on the social andenvironmental impacts of science and technology.

13 Biotechnology Law Report 273 (Number 3, May-June 1994)

Point-of-departure papers were given by Jeffrey Kushan (U.S. Patent & TrademarkOffice, International Affairs Division), Alan Miller (Executive Director, Center for GlobalChange), patent attorney Michael Gollin (Keck, Mahin & Cate, Washington, DC), and ProfessorsKarl Jorda and William Hennessey (Franklin Pierce Law Center).

Biodiversity Issues

The afternoon session covered the subject of biodiversity. The focus was on mechanismsfor giving countries or communities incentives to conserve biologically diverse materials and howto ensure that the benefits of biodiversity are shared equitably with source countries orcommunities. Participants discussed the appropriateness of owning biological resources and thephilosophy and ethics of property ownership in a global context.

Point-of-departure papers were presented by Walter Haeussler (Cornell ResearchFouncation), Kate Murashige (Chair, Biodiversity Subcommittee, American Intellectual PropertyLaw Association), Dr. James Buchanan, David Downes (Center for International EnvironmentalLaw), and Charles Zerner (Rainforest Alliance).

Next StepsThe conference ended with a general discussion of ways to strengthen cooperation between

intellectual property experts and environmentalists. Some environmentalists suggested that a"how-to" manual on the licensing of intellectual property would be helpful. Suzanne Watson, whoorganized the conference, suggested that the same participants meet next year and proposed a seriesof workshops to investigate results-oriented working models.

A full transcript of the conference is to be published in the fall.

# # #

LEGISLATION AND EXECUTIVE ACTIONS

{BLR 1674} Dr. David A. Kessler-

FDA-

Greenwich Pharmaceuticals-

Rep. Thomas J. Bliley-

Rep. James C.Greenwood

-

Rep. Joseph McDade-

Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky-

Rep. Dan Schaffer-

Rep. Robert S.Walker

-

Therafectin.

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WANT FDA TO RE-EXAMINEDENIAL OF MARKETING APPROVAL FOR THERAFECTIN—

Greenwich Pharmaceuticals Believes Regulatory Procedures Violated

WASHINGTON, DC 3/9/94-

Six members of Congress-

James C. Greenwood, JosephMcDade, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, and Robert S. Walker, all of Pennsylvania; Thomas J.Bliley of Virginia; and Dan Schaffer of Colorado

—

have written to Dr. David A. Kessler,Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, asking for a re-examination of the proceduresused to deny marketing approval to Therafectin. That drug, which was developed to treatrheumatoid arthritis, is a product of Greenwich Pharmaceuticals Inc. of Fort Washington, Penn.The company has filed an application for administrative review of the rejection.