On November 10, President Obama announced his nomination of Dr. Rajiv Shah for Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development. Dr. Shah currently works at the U.S. Department of Agriculture as Chief Scientist and Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics. While at USDA, Dr. Shah has directed the start of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, an organization focused on bioenergy, sustainable food production, and nutrition.

            Dr. Shah previously was the Director of Agricultural Development at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In this role, he oversaw the management of a global vaccination fund. Dr. Shah also was a health care policy advisor for Gore's presidential campaign in 2000.

            Dr. Shah earned his M.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Medical School and a Master of Science in health economics at the Wharton School of Business. He is a graduate of University of Michigan. Several organizations have welcomed President Obama's selection of Dr. Shah and believe that Dr. Shah has the experience and necessary skills to be a great leader in global development.

For further information, please follow this link:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-announces-usaid-administrator

References:

"Ex-Gates Foundation exec named foreign aid chief", Matthew Lee and Julie Pace, The Boston Globe, November 10, 2009, http://tiny.cc/3655E  

"President Obama Announces UASAID Administrator" Office of the Press Secretary, November 10, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-announces-usaid-administrator

1. Instill Technology Transfer knowledge; and
2. Support the set-up of sustainable institutions in developing countries.

The concept behind this "machine" is:

1. Find a developing country that is needs to boost its technology transfer capacity.
2. Identify partners within the country.
3. With their help, identify candidates to be put in the "machine."
4. Pursue discussion with partners regarding their needs, while candidates receive IP/TT education.
5. Address these needs together with the candidates.
6. Upon the candidates return to the home-country, support them with the set-up of the TTO.
7. Quality control - follow-up meetings and conferences.

Putting the moral and social validity of such a model aside, we should pursue it because:

1. It fits with the International Technology Transfer Institute's (ITTI) and Franklin Pierce Law Center's (FPLC) mission.
2. It seems to answer for the current needs of developing countries.
3. It has potential in generating a steady body of students.
4. It promotes a positive U.S. image around the globe and does more to promote our economy and our national security than the use of traditional foreign policy tactics.
5. Whether KITT manages to satisfy any of the above points or all of them, it promotes ITTI's name and credibility, and therefore FPLC's as well.

          The House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs met on March 18, 2009 to examine the appropriate role of the Defense Department in foreign assistance. Committee Chair Howard L. Berman started the meeting by addressing some issues of concern: "And what are the implications of putting a military face on development and humanitarian activities? How does this affect the way we are viewed in the world, and what is the practical impact on USAID's ability to carry out development projects?" [2]

            Testimony from witnesses, including Philip L. Christenson, Former Assistant Administrator of USAID, Nancy Lindborg, President of Mercy Corps, General Michael W. Hagee, Former Commandant of the Marine Corps, suggests an imbalance of funding and support for the State Department and USAID, thereby creating a need for the military to undertake humanitarian programs.

General Michael W. Hagee recommended there to be "the integrated blend of defense, diplomacy, and development. But this strategic approach will only be effective if all three smart power pillars are coherent, coordinated, and adequately resourced." [3]

            While Dr. Reuben E. Brigety, II, Director of the Sustainable Security Program, Center for American Progress Action Fund and Nancy Lindborg conveyed a concern of the Defense Department's impact on humanitarian assistance. Mr. Brigety wrote, "there are a series of disadvantages with the military's involvement in assistance missions. First, the focus on the performance of programs of tactical or strategic value can mean assistance efforts are directed to places of the greatest potential threat rather than places of the greatest human need." [4]

            Furthermore, Dr. Reuben E. Brigety, II wrote in his prepared statement, "the military's growing involvement in this space risks the appearance of 'militarization' of America's foreign assistance. This is a perception which makes many of our partners - governments, NGOs, etc. - extremely uncomfortable ... (and) has real operational consequences in the field when implementing partners refuse to cooperate with the military, ... for fear of being linked to US foreign policy and losing their operational neutrality." [5]

            Ms. Lindborg indicated, "When the lines blur between military and civilian actors, insecurity can increase for civilians." She also noted, "When NGO's are associated with the military, we are more likely to be perceived as a legitimate target, and so have a greater vulnerability. Our value and ability to work in insecure environments is thus further compromised." [6]

            The testimonies and written statements provided a breadth of information, advice, and recommendations on how to address the issue, but there does not seem to be a simple solution.

            For further information, please follow this link: http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/hearing_notice.asp?id=1054

References

[1] Title of the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Hearing on March 18, 2009. http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/hearing_notice.asp?id=1054

[2] Statements made by Committee Chair Howard L. Berman during House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Hearing on March 18, 2009. http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/hearing_notice.asp?id=1054

[3] General Michael W. Hagee's prepared statement for the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Hearing on March 18, 2009. http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/hearing_notice.asp?id=1054

[4] Dr. Reuben E. Brigety II's prepared statement for the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Hearing on March 18, 2009. http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/hearing_notice.asp?id=1054  

[5] Id.

As introduced in the previous entry, some countries in the world have adopted mandatory disclosure requirement for patent applications which involve genetic resources to promote access and benefit sharing (ABS) despite the controversies.  The certificate of origin approach is similar to the mandatory disclosure policy.  However, instead of mandating patent applicants to disclose the origin of genetic resources by themselves, this approach requires a certificate from the relevant authority where the genetic resources (and associated traditional knowledge) are acquired as a proven that they are obtained in compliance with the laws and regulations of the place of origin. Will it work better? That is the question.

To begin with, let's have a look at its bright side. First, this approach requires prior informed consent (PIC) of the genetic resources and traditional knowledge holders. This is better because the mandatory disclosure policy as such cannot stop patent applicants from taking advantage of the genetic resources without the owners' consent as long as the information is disclosed. And therefore, certificates of origin, to some degree, prevent biopiracy. Moreover, compared to the mandatory disclosure approach, certificate of origin concept will significantly reduce the workload of the patent office to verify the reliability and accuracy of the disclosed information. With creditable certificates, the patent office doesn't need to track the information all the way down to the source of origin. Finally, this approach can go even further beyond the governmental authority, and extend the granting power to certain levels of organizations, research institutions, botanical gardens and etc. where the genetic resources are found ex situ. And that will greatly increase the efficiency of the whole procedure, while promoting access of the genetic resources.

Unfortunately, certificate of origin approach has disadvantages as well. First, although it promotes PIC, what if the genetic resources owner is unreasonable? If the local authority asks an unreasonable price in exchange of the certificates for the patent, it will actually deter the access of genetic resources and counteract the concept of ABS. Despite Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recognized countries' sovereign right of ownership of genetic resources, relationship between nations on this issue are complicated. Furthermore, when other issues (i.e. politics, economy and corruption) get involved, certificate of origin approach will become an obstacle to access genetic resources and traditional knowledge. It may prevent biobiracy, on the other hand, it blocks goodwill as well.

Second, although the workload of the patent office will be reduced compare with the mandatory disclosure approach, the credibility of the certificate information might be an issue. In other words, someone has to track down the information, either the patent office or others. This approach shifts this burden from the patent office to someone else such as the local authorities. However, the credibility of the authorities might not be as high as what they are supposed to be. This is a serious problem in many developing countries. And it becomes more problematic when international business is involved. Even worse, when the certificate issuing authorities are granted to different levels of non-governmental organizations, the credibility will unsurprisingly deteriorate. If the certificate becomes unreliable, this approach will be actually void.

Moreover, depending on local situation, applying a certificate may take a long time, which will cause serious issue for modern first filing patent system.

To sum up, like what happened to the mandatory disclosure policy, it appears that the world is just not ready for the certificate of origin concept yet. Until it is ratified by authorities and cooperated by other policies, certificate of origin policy isn't very practical. And ITTI doesn't expect it to be widely adopted by countries in the near future.

Mandatory disclosure of the origin of the genetic resources in patent application is a part of my ITTI project. It aims to comply with Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Article 15 which governs access of genetic resources, and thus to promote access and benefit sharing (ABS). However, mandatory disclosure policy is very controversial around the world and many counties have different opinion on this issue.

In general, many developing countries, which are normally genetic resources owners, favour the mandatory disclosure policy. In contrast, many developed countries are against this approach saying the disadvantages overweigh its benefits. There are also some countries hold a neutral attitude.

According to current conditions of global patent system structure and genetic resources relevant database, it appears that the mandatory disclosure policy isn't very realistic and it can hardly be enforced. First, there isn't a comprehensive genetic resources database to track down and to find if the disclosure of origin is correct and accurate. Second, the policy will certainly increase the workload of patent offices around the world to track down the genetic resources. Moreover, mandatory disclosure requirement as such cannot promote ABS, without the support from other relevant policies such as prior consent and fair contractual relation based system.

Currently, only a few countries around the world apply the mandatory disclosure requirement in their patent system, and China is one of them. The 3^rd revision of Patent Law of China (the new patent law) has become into effect on October 1, 2009. And article 5 and 26 of the new patent law govern the genetic resources and mandate its disclosure. Because it's only been 1 month since the new regulation became into effect, there isn't too much information about the enforcement and detailed situation of it. ITTI will continue to monitor the situation regarding the new patent law of China.

       Many developing countries are reliant upon the performance of their agriculture for economic growth and an increase in employment opportunities. To improve agricultural production, USAID is working with countries in Africa and Asia to utilize agricultural biotechnology as an instrument for agricultural development. USAID's agricultural biotechnology programs are developing new crop varieties that are resistant to insects and plant diseases. USAID also supports the development and integration of biosafety systems in Africa and Asia.

      These programs for biosafety systems work with regional partners to help with creating and implementing biosafety policies and procedures, increase countries' capacity for technology development, and assist local research institutions address regulatory and intellectual property rights issues. 

            USAID's collaborative agricultural biotechnology programs work to improve food security and make farmers' agricultural systems more environmentally sustainable. For further information, please follow this link: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/agriculture/biotechnology/index.html

The USPTO has made a recent announcement that it has signed a Workplan for Bilateral Cooperation on intellectual property issues with the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO).  This workplan, in essence, represents USPTO's very first commitment to helping developed countries and least developed countries in promoting and improving the current existing intellectual property systems in some of the most needed African countries including, for example, Ghana, Botswana, Malawi, Kenya, Sudan, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

There has always been a critical need and demand for a legal framework in these African countries to enable private and public enterprises and companies to address the current food shortage and food crisis.  These needs and demands, however, are often overlooked because of, inter alia, the lack of regulatory structure by which private investment can be protected via IP rights (IPRs).  By signing the cooperative agreement with the USPTO, ARIPO seems to acknowledge the importance of knowledge sharing and technology transfer, and the life-saving effects of IPR protection on the current food production. 

Needless to say, the cooperative agreement is historic because the collaboration signifies Africa's willingness to build capacity programs and its understanding that private companies are less likely to invest in R&D and/or partner with public entities to create a business model that would benefit interest of the public in the absence of IPR protection.  The agreement further shows USPTO's continuous compliance in meeting the technical cooperation obligation under Article 67 of the TRIPS agreement.  

Why do I find the Forum, which focuses on Capacity Building Partnerships for Sustainable Development important?

All over the globe, there are individuals, groups, organizations, institutions, governments, and array of international bodies doing good and important deeds for the developing world. The World Bank's upcoming Forum in December 2009 has the potential of raising the bar, of setting a guiding theme for how to reach this goal, how to help the developing world become developed. Running any project is a multi-faceted task. Taking the lead in orchestrating the global efforts is an admirable agenda.

A major element of Intellectual Property (IP) is an ability to properly manage it. IP management fosters and drives innovation. Innovation drives progress and development. Therefore, for progress and development to occur, capacity to monitor the transfer of innovation must be present.

Why the International Technology Transfer Institute (ITTI) at Franklin Pierce Law Center (FPLC) should take part in this Forum and what ITTI can contribute to the discussion?

ITTI is an IP capacity-building resource. As such, its mission is to help advance developing countries build their technology transfer capacity, capacity to receive, create, hold, and maintain innovation. Participation in such a Forum is a unique and important opportunity for the collaborating parties in ITTI to network, to learn and most importantly to voice their experience in the pursuit of ITTI's mission.

In fulfillment of ITTI's mission, its members recently developed a unique educational model, which through a long-term partnerships and meaningful professional networks equips the agents of the developing countries with the tools needed to monitor innovation. Simultaneously, ITTI's model focuses on setting-up and supporting the countries' institutional technology transfer capacity, for which those trained individuals go back to support and further educate. Gaining the ability to monitor innovation, the developing countries can then move their development forward.

Without discounting the value of the traditional "workshop" or "long distance learning" models, ITTI's education model suggests that a long-term serious commitment from the collaborating parties is key for promoting solid and sustainable institutions, which in turn, will support the countries' IP infrastructure. Such sustainable infrastructure is key for the ability to cope with the needed biotechnology improvements of agricultural productivity, public health, industrial development, economic competitiveness, and environmental sustainability, which The World Bank's Forum and many others so seek to implement.

When you think of the county Poland, does technology transfer come to mind? Or even innovation? Probably not. Poland has gone through many challenges; one of the biggest challenges is the Communist regime, which finally ended in 1989. From 1989 to 1991 Poland was in recession and from 1992 to 1994 it started to recover. Finally from 1995 through 1997 there was a high growth in innovation. However, since then there has been a slowdown period.

Being born in Poland I took being apart of the ITTI Clinic to heart.  My family migrated to the United States in November 1988, when Poland was still under the Communist regime. My family went through many challenges and struggles, however we overcame many of those struggles. Poland as a country has been through a lot of struggles itself, however they somehow are holding on. My goal will be to discover and learned what kind of growth Poland was able to do after the Communist regime and what caused the slowdown period. Also Poland is not a developing country, but a country in transition. What I have discovered is the much of the aid is going towards universities. However there is a disconnect between universities and industry. Another goal of mine is to see how they are transforming and hopefully learn ways that I may be able to provide help. Also Poland joined the EU in 2004 and apart of my research will be how is the EU really aiding Poland, especially in innovation. Poland has the capacity of being an innovating country, it is my desire and passion to hopefully help the progression. 

I am doing a project on biodiversity conservation and related IP issues in China. And my specific research area is Fujian Province which is a southern coast province with a massive amount of biological diversity. My work is mainly to research the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its implementation in China. Also, I am trying to find out the current situation of the conservation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge, because those are highly related to IP. Most importantly, the legislation and implementation of access and benefit-sharing (ABS) step is the core issue of this project.

Hopefully, by doing individual research and being in contact with some people in this field, particularly somebody on site in China, I can have a general prospect one this topic, and be able to give some practical and constructive suggestion on things which have yet to be done or improved, especially in ABS of genetic resources and traditional knowledge.