Regulation of the United Kingdom biotechnology industry and global competitiveness.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee.
Date:
[1993]
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Regulation of the United Kingdom biotechnology industry and global competitiveness. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    55/100 (page 49)
    5.84 In the United States the priority date of a patent is based on the date of invention (if necessary, as revealed in notebooks of results) as opposed to the date when the application was filed in the patent office. This difference, as we have already observed, renders any delay in obtaining consent to conduct experiments all the more critical (paragraph 5.36). Witnesses called for early harmonisation of the two systems (British Bio-technology Ltd p 42; Cantab Pharmaceuticals p 53; Zeneca P 59). Only MRC draw attention to another inconsistency between United States and European practice, whereby the United States allowed a grace period in which to file of up to twelve months after publication. This they considered, gave United States-based inventors an advantage (MRC p 124). 5.85 Witnesses were also unhappy with the lack of clarity, as they saw it, in interpreting biotechnology patents within the existing framework of patent law. This had led to uncertainty as to the strength and value of biotechnology patent rights (Wellcome p 205) and unevenness in the scope of granted claims for many inventions, particularly by the European Patent Office (British Bio-technology Ltd p 42; Zeneca P 59). Zeneca wrote, “This means that the rest of industry is held up by those claims unless licenses are granted. Improved training of examiners at the EPO in this fairly new area of technology could help to avoid this problem: though, more fundamentally there is a question of whether the EPO’s approach gives the proper balance between the rights of the patentee and those of the public”. DTI drew our attention to the fact that it is at present not possible to patent plant varieties in the EC and to the conflict between plant breeders’ rights and patentees. A problem also arose over access by third parties to material deposited by applicants for patents in culture collections (DTI p 34). 5.86 Witnesses looked to the EC draft Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions to redress some of these domestic European weaknesses (AFRC pp 9-10; Wellcome p 205; Zeneca P 59). However its efficacy had been so undermined by amendments on farmers’ privilege and compulsory licensing inserted at the behest of special interest groups, that some now felt that the original objective of the Directive had been lost and even that it should not now be enacted (Wellcome p 206; see also BioIndustry Association p 23; ABPI P 203). 5.87 Science base: Witnesses also pointed to what they perceived to be a weakening of the United Kingdom science base. For AFRC “the main requirement [in maintaining competitiveness] is the maintenance and strengthening of the United Kingdom science base in the relevant disciplines underpinning biotechnology. The United Kingdom is strong in these areas, but in some cases the United Kingdom lead is being gradually eroded as other European countries and Japan catch up. More remains to be done, for example on multigene transfer and gene stability as well as on the wider ecological implications. Greater public funding, and incentives for industrial funding of research, would secure the United Kingdom position” (AFRC p 9; see also Kinderlerer p 119; Zeneca P 59; Wellcome p 206; SERC p 170; SmithKline Beecham p 185; Society for General Microbiology p 185; see also IPMS p 111). “Find good people and fund them well” wrote one (Onions p 145). The Royal Academy of Engineering referred also to the importance of the science base. They were particularly concerned with biochemical engineering. “It is not sufficient to expect industry to fund this research. Most of the techniques which now form the cornerstones of industrial biotechnology were originally developed in academic departments with no thought for future commercial uses. Biochemical engineering is concerned with the development and operation of biological production methods, central to translating, in the shortest time possible, the discoveries of biotechnology into commercial products through processes which are safe, reliable, economic and environmentally acceptable” (Royal Academy of Engineering p 160). 5.88 Collaboration with industry and the establishment of SMEs to exploit academic | discoveries were important. Thus Celltech wrote that “A key factor will be the overall level of investment in biology research in universities and research institutes, since this is the foundation of our industry. This investment should have the objectives of fostering creative discovery research and not copying current applied industrial research, of encouraging scientific entrepreneurs to leave universities and found their own businesses and to provide a rewarding career structure that encourages young scientists to take up research” (Celltech p 57; see also Onions p 145; SERC