Q&A with Gary K. Ostrander:
The taro patent controversy and
what it means for research at UH
In May 2006, Native Hawaiian groups mounted vocal protests against UH policy involving plant patents on hybridized strains of disease-resistant taro. In Hawai‘i, taro, a tuber, plays a key role in Native Hawaiian creation stories. In the wake of the protests, UH has closely studied the implications of patenting – and profiting from – inventions derived from culturally significant plant and animal matter. Kaunānā editor Alex Salkever spoke to Gary K. Ostrander, the vice chancellor for research at UH Mānoa, about what the taro controversy means for UH research.
Kaunānā: Could you provide background on the taro issue?
Ostrander: In the 1990s, nearly all the taro in Samoa died out due to leaf blight. The Samoan people came to a UH faculty member for help. This researcher collected taro from other places, including Palau. He had all the appropriate permits and had the permission of the Palauan taro growers. He used traditional breeding techniques, not genetic modification, to generate three new strains of taro derived from Hawaiian and Palauan taros. A Palauan graduate student participated in the research and Native Hawaiians worked with him to name the three strains. UH filed for a plant patent on the three taro strains to prevent other people from reproducing them without permission. We offered what we thought was a generous licensing agreement. Taro growers would pay $2 per seedling to cover our costs. They could use the strains for up to three years gratis. After that period, they would pay 3% of their profit (i.e. if they sold them commercially) to UH. There was no charge for private use. The patents were approved by the U.S. Patent Office in 2001. Five years later opposition arose. Demonstrators said these strains would go out and selectively kill Hawaiian taro. This was simply untrue. No taro plant that we know of can kill another taro plant. They also objected to UH “owning” taro. They viewed it as tantamount to owing an ancestor.
K: But you aren’t enforcing patents on those three strains?
O: Yes, that’s correct. I have to balance the right of our faculty members to do research and protect their findings with the reality that we live in a Hawaiian place. It is very important to show sensitivity to the Hawaiian culture. In reaching this decision, I talked to the taro growers, activists, and Hawaiian elders. I learned that, of all the things Hawaiians consider to be sacred, taro is among the most sacred. In June 2006 we filed a “terminal disclaimer” for the three patents. This means we were no longer going to make claims on these patents and the taros are now free for anyone to use. We are no longer collecting licensing revenue. However, this was a special case. It’s not a precedent for any future objections to patents filed by UH researchers.
K: But there are other culturally sensitive flora and fauna in the islands. Couldn’t a similar situation arise again?
O: We are watching very carefully the whole issue of law, indigenous peoples and natural products. It’s very quickly evolving. What was appropriate for UH and other institutions years ago on taro is not appropriate today. However, if a researcher locates a strain of bacteria on an obscure reef of a Pacific Island that has anti-cancer properties and there’s no record that native people even know of it, we will proceed with that patent and defend the claim. We need to defend the right of researchers to protect their discoveries.