Professor

Jean-Yves Le Daut
Member of Parliament, Socialist Party,
Assemble Nationale
21st Century Society: Knowledge Society

Note: The interview was conducted in French.

What would you describe as a historic defining incident or event in

terms of patents one that has been influential in shaping the way
they are perceived and managed?
In the second half of the 20th century, we witnessed the development
of new technologies and new means of transport. A new era began with
the expansion of high-speed means of communication and information
technology allowing the transfer by broadband of data such as sound and
images. All of these advances have changed our way of life.
Todays technological revolution is taking place in the life sciences. In
medicine, new molecules are regularly discovered and therapy is becoming
increasingly innovative. Biotechnology is proving useful and effective in
health, agriculture and energy.
We have now discovered the human gene sequence, we are talking about
predisposition to disease and we are testing the receptiveness of individuals
to certain molecules. This will lead to more personalised and individualised
medical care.

Interview Professor Jean-Yves Le Daut

179

Significant changes are also going to hit the energy sector.

There will be developments in both energy production, which is currently
dependent on oil and coal, and energy consumption. It will be of vital
importance to use energy sensibly and efficiently. Alternative energy
sources, such as solar and biomass energy, will be developed. In the more
distant future, we will undoubtedly be using hydrogen technology, fuel cells
or even energy derived from nuclear fusion. Particularly noteworthy is the
ITER nuclear-fusion research project in Cadarache.
We will continue to make advances in technology and barriers will be
broken down. Even now, we can predict what the special nature of this
development will be: tomorrows society will be a knowledge-based one in
which patents will have an even more important role.
Nevertheless, this development gives rise to two major risks:
The first risk is that the places where knowledge is acquired and transferred,
universities, research institutes and large technological complexes, will be
concentrated in only a few privileged parts of the globe. In the context of
this division into geographical sectors, I would mention two strategic zones:
the United States, which, unless Europe reacts, will dominate life sciences,
and the large emerging countries in Asia. These are the countries that,
thanks to patents in particular, will lead the world.
From 1991 to 2000, the United States filed 42 000 applications for
biotechnology patents, whilst Europe filed only 7 500 during the same
period. Of the 47 000 applications for biotechnology patents filed in Europe,
23 000 originated from the United States. The share of US patents originating
in Europe is just 16%, whilst more than 50% of European patents are of
American origin.
This indicates how far the life sciences and the related technology are
lagging behind in Europe, where the situation is now beginning to cause
concern, except perhaps in the United Kingdom. This slow growth manifests
itself differently in France on the one hand and Germany on the other.
Germany supports innovation and runs numerous projects, but the research
programmes are not always well chosen. In France, the small number of
young innovative businesses being set up has unfortunately not always
enabled them to achieve any significant success. By contrast, it is interesting
to observe that Switzerland has been able to develop its biotechnology
sector. This may be due to its traditionally strong pharmaceutical industry.

180

Interview Professor Jean-Yves Le Daut

We now have to concede that Europe has been unable to establish itself
at the forefront of information and communications technology: the large
information industries are almost all located in the United States. There is
also a risk of missing the boat in new technologies and losing control of
future key areas (nanotechnologies, ecotechnologies, etc.).
The greatest risk posed by all of this is that, in future, Europe will have to
pay a research bill, ie European countries will have to hand over huge
amounts in order to be able to use certain technologies controlled by the
United States or other technologically powerful countries. The Japanese
are beginning to make up ground in biotechnology, whilst growth in China,
which is making rapid progress towards the very top level, even in scientific
terms, is remarkable.
The second risk is that, by favouring certain large industrialised or emerging
countries, the knowledge society may widen the gap between those states
and other countries and regions, particularly in the southern hemisphere.
This could have a dramatic effect because some of these make their living
solely from agriculture.
Let me give you an example: palmitic acid (palm oil). Some southern
countries rely solely on the production of this oil. If we imagine that it will
one day be possible to isolate the genes responsible for producing this
oil and clone them in a plant cultivated in northern countries, the original
producers will face growing difficulties. There is therefore a risk that the
control of technologies and the rigid application of intellectual property
rights will increase inequality between southern and developed countries.
What do you think are the key factors that will influence the way in
which the patent system might develop over the next 20 years?
Obviously, long-running and expensive research must be rewarded with
the right to use the resulting intellectual property. I am therefore in favour
of a system which protects and regulates the transfer of technological
knowledge acquired by research. But on one condition: the patent system
must not be used to create a monopoly on knowledge, and thus intellectual
property, in the patent portfolios of certain large international groups. Nor
may it interfere with the freedom to carry out research on the basis of the
knowledge acquired.
Let me give two examples to illustrate the point:
The first example relates to the patentability of software. IT research must

Interview Professor Jean-Yves Le Daut

181

be rewarded by the protection of inventions, just as in other scientific areas.

However, if almost all patents are held by only a small number of large
companies, they will ultimately block any new research by prohibiting the
use of certain basic knowledge protected by patents.
The patent system in this field must, to my mind, be developed into a
system similar to that for plant variety certificates. The basic rule would be
to grant a patent to the inventor but not prohibit someone else from using
the invention to obtain further knowledge.
There is a lot of foul play in todays software industry: a person with control of
technology may take action to rule out the compatibility or interoperability of
other similar systems. Keeping source codes secret is a serious impediment
to technological development. Free software guarantees the growth of
knowledge more effectively.
The second example relates to life sciences. The situation has evolved
slightly now that the three big offices USPTO, JPO and EPO have begun
to work together. Personally, I am opposed to patenting life. European
Directive 98/44/EC was not implemented by the French parliament until
2004, the procedure having been delayed as a result of heated debate on
the subject.
It should not, of course, be possible to patent genes as such; instead, this
should be allowed only if the gene is linked to a function. This is a different
approach from the one taken before us by the Americans. We take the view
that it should not be possible to patent life and suggest that the genome
should be regarded as part of the common heritage of mankind. Above all,
we want research to remain free, an issue that has not yet been entirely
settled. We hope that, no matter what genes have already been described,
research into applications based on knowledge of the genome may continue
without hindrance.
By these two examples, I hope to show why intellectual property must not
be used in the absence of the necessary safeguards and, in particular, must
prevent the creation of a monopoly on technology by certain multinationals.
To summarise, the two major risks in the future will be: (i) a concentration of
knowledge and intellectual property in the hands of certain multinationals,
with the result that research is concentrated and quickly stagnates; and
(ii) the socio-political and economic effects of such a concentration of
intellectual property and key technologies, which could put the southern

182

Interview Professor Jean-Yves Le Daut

countries in an even more difficult position as regards their development

chances. This would inevitably lead to greater international insecurity.
In terms of patents, what do you think are the most significant
challenges to the formulation or enactment of policy?
The main challenge in the future will be the need to ensure that our planet
evolves along sustainable and reasonable lines. Deforestation, the threats
to biodiversity, global warming and the exhaustion of natural resources such
as water, for example, are very worrying. Those will be the chief concerns
in the 21st century.
If there is a strong concentration of intellectual property rights and financial
means in the field of environment protection technologies but the international
market is not solvent, there will be a loss of interest in environmental
protection and it will never be a priority. This is completely contrary to the
idea of sustainable development.
The immediate benefits of the intellectual property system are not
unfortunately! designed to promote the general interest of all mankind in
preventing the planets decline.
One way of meeting this challenge through patents in adverse situations,
such as those faced by the less advanced countries, would surely be to
transfer certain patents to those countries free of charge. This would be
a gift but would be linked to a global system of rewarding the inventors,
administered by an international body.
I would like to give two examples to illustrate my point:
The first example is the destruction of the ozone layer by CFCs. HCFCs,
which can be used as a substitute for CFCs, were discovered in 1987 to
1988. At that time, the US company Dupont de Nemours and the European
company Atochem, relying on the Montreal Protocol, declared that the use
of HCFCs had to be promoted as they were not harmful to the ozone layer.
Shortly afterwards, at the Earth Summit in Rio, the southern countries were
unanimous in saying: Do you really believe that we are going to refrain
from using technology that allows us to make use of CFC-based cold
chains and buy your patents on HCFC-based technology? This is a typical
example of the concerns of the southern countries, which want access to
the technologies which enabled the northern countries to develop.
The second example is anti-AIDS medicine. The rich countries know how

Interview Professor Jean-Yves Le Daut

183

to keep this disease which kills millions every year stable. If the price of
the patent is included in the price of the medicines, they are too expensive.
Millions of people die each year because they do not have the means to pay
for such treatment. To end this tolerated curse, we must find a system
that gives priority to the general interest of mankind.
There are systems regulating competition in the commercial sector. Why
not try to find a system of regulation for intellectual property? To my mind,
the three big offices, which play an important role in harmonisation, are not
looking far enough ahead.
I see four major sectors of technological development in the future: the
environment, particularly water-related issues (recycling of water, water
technologies, access to drinking water, etc.); health (medicines, food, food
safety, etc.); energy (directly linked to the environment and global warming);
and nanotechnologies, which can be used in a variety of very different
fields.
If I had a crystal ball and you were able to ask one question about the
future, what would your question be?
Is mankind doomed? If so, how long do we have left? How can we find a
means of living together on Earth which also preserves the environment for
future generations? However brilliant it may be, human genius will be of no
use to us if the planet is destroyed.
In the specific field of intellectual property, how can the three big patent
offices and the Indian and Chinese offices regulate and harmonise patentgranting practices whilst also exploring ways of making intellectual property
compatible with harmonious global development? These offices must also
guarantee respect for the freedom of research, monitor relations between
the countries of the north and south and take measures to prevent any
small group of multinational companies from gaining control of certain
technologies.
If there were three people whose opinion you could ask on the subject,
who would they be?
Jeremy Rifkin (who, in particular, developed the concept of a right to
genetic privacy)
Craig Venter (who became famous for acquiring a patent on human genes
for Celera Genomics)

184

Interview Professor Jean-Yves Le Daut

 Rolf Linkohr (former German MEP, former chairman of the Scientific and
Technological Options Assessment unit of the European Parliament)
Bill Clinton (former President of the United States)
Ernesto Bertarelli (CEO of Serono International S.A.)
Recommended reading:
La place des biotechnologies en France et en Europe (The place of
biotechnology in France and in Europe): a report I drew up for the European
Parliaments Scientific and Technological Options Assessment unit (STOA),
filed on 27 January 2005.
See: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/rap-off/i2046.asp
Homepage: www.jyledeaut.com

Jean-Yves Le Daut holds a doctorate in biochemistry and is a former university

professor. He has been member of parliament for the Department of Meurthe-etMoselle since 1986 and has variously served as president and vice-president of the
Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Choices in Science and Technology. As well
as participating in several parliamentary information missions and special committees,
he is the author of numerous reports, in particular on biotechnology (GMOs), asbestos,
nuclear waste management, research, renewable energy sources and industrial risks. He
is currently chairman of the parliamentary information mission on the greenhouse effect.

Interview Professor Jean-Yves Le Daut

185