Statement by the Permanent Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)- Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC)
Geneva, 17 February 2012
Mr. President,I join previous speakers and congratulate you on your election.
The patenting of life forms could sometimes serve as a tool to support biotechnologies that are problematic both from an ethical point of view and from the perspective of a “development-friendly” intellectual property system.
In relation to human life, Article 4 of the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights states that “The human genome in its natural state shall not give rise to financial gains[1],”while Article 21 of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being With Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine, states that: “The human body and its parts shall not, as such, give rise to financial gains.[2]” In the same regard, the United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning acknowledges the ethical concerns that certain applications of rapidly developing life sciences may raise with regard to human dignity, human rights and the fundamental freedoms of individuals, and calls States to adopt all measures necessary to protect adequately human life in the application of life sciences[3]. Therefore, the TRIPS agreement, other WTO rules, and all other international, regional and bilateral trade and IPR agreements should not reduce the ability of States to govern the aspects of IPR related to human life and dignity.
Mere commercial control of production and distribution of new life forms could affect both food security and development prospects of developing and underdeveloped countries. Private monopolistic rights should not be imposed over those biological resources, from which the basic food and medicine requirements of human life are derived. An inclusive approach to IPR should not ignore the major economic, environmental, and ethical concerns about the patenting of life, since such action would exert a negative impact on consumer rights, biodiversity conservation, environmental protection, indigenous rights, scientific and academic freedom, and, ultimately, the economic development of many developing countries insofar as it depends on new technologies.
For these reasons We support objective 2 option 2.
[1] United Nations, A/53/152 of 9 December 1998; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Records of the General Conference, 29th Session, Paris, 21 October-12 November 1997, Resolution 6.
[2] Council of Europe, ETS N. 164, Oviedo, 4 April 1967.
[3] A/RES/59/280 of 8 March 2005..