Question

It was unethical of the US company RiceTec to claim the patent for their 'new variety of Basmati' because

• A. the new variety of rice was developed by Indian scientists.
• B. the new variety of rice developed by them was derived from Indian farmer's variety.
• C. the new variety of rice developed by them was not a variety of Basmati rice.
• D. their invention was an accidental event and they cannot take credit for the same.

Answer 1

The correct option is B the new variety of rice developed by them was derived from Indian farmer's variety.

Biopatents are the exclusive rights granted to the inventor or their assignee for the modification or usage of living organisms, their products as well as the technologies that make use of the genetic material, for public services.

In 1997, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted a biopatent on ‘Basmati Rice Lines and Grains’ to an American company named RiceTec. This patent was claimed after the company created a new variety of Basmati rice by crossing Indian Basmati with semi-dwarf rice varieties.

The patent provided the company with the rights to use all varieties of Indian Basmati rice for breeding and to sell the new variety of rice in the US and abroad. Simultaneously it also restricted any other individual or country from selling Basmati Rice.

This was gravely unethical and a clear case of biopiracy because the new variety of rice developed by RiceTec was actually derived from a Basmati variety available in India and used by Indian farmers.

27 documented varieties of Basmati rice are found in India and it is also the only country with the richest biodiversity of rice (2,00,000 varieties). Indian Basmati is known to have a unique aroma which has been documented in ancient texts and folklore. Thus Basmati is an Indian bioresource and RiceTec had pirated the patent rights for an invention which was not their to claim.

A brief diplomatic crisis developed between the US and India and the company was alleged of biopiracy. Finally, the US Patent and Trademark Office had to withdraw the patent rights given to RiceTec.