In Memoriam of Kay Chapman: sustainable development and IP

The IPKat is very much a community that shares both common joys and sorrows. The IPKat was saddened to learn
belatedly from Francesca Re Manning, IP and Legal Manager of ICARDA, that Kay Chapman died of breast cancer in October 2015. Francesca wrote of Kay--
“Born in London, Kay moved to Rome where she started working for the Central Advisory Service on Intellectual Property (CAS-IP) from 2006. She was responsible for the blog and the all communication aspects related to the community of practice that CAS-IP organized. Her role was essential to ensure that readers could understand the impact that IP has on agriculture and food security. Her style was very effective: witty, concise, and well informed. She was also a great person, always positive and encouraging. It was a pleasure working with her. “
The IPKat can think of no better way to commemorate Kay’s memory than to republish the following post about her and her work, first published by Jeremy Phillips on IPKat on November 29, 2010, entitled “Management of IP in sustainable agri-development: essential or irrelevant?”

"IPKat team member Jeremy had a fascinating discussion with Kay Chapman a couple of months ago. Kay is Communications and Information Specialist, CAS-IP (that's the Central Advisory Service on Intellectual Property of CGIAR -- the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. In case you've not come across CGIAR before [and you jolly well ought to have, since it has been mentioned at least twice on this blog before], it's
"a global partnership that unites organizations engaged in research for sustainable development with the funders of this work. ... The work they support is carried out by 15 members of the Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers, in close collaboration with hundreds of partner organizations, including national and regional research institutes, civil society organizations, academia, and the private sector".
The Fund Council includes the World Bank, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and national governments as diverse as the United States, Brazil and Iran. Anyway, CGIAR has been doing some thinking about its attitude to, and relationship with, intellectual property rights. Let Kay explain:
"In a public research environment, IP and IA management can be a tricky subject, sometimes even met with suspicion. There can be little doubt that managing IA effectively is required to fulfil the goals of the institutes within which we work. In the context of agricultural research what do we mean when we talk about IA management? The term IA covers all intellectual assets (results, information, articles, publications, know-how, new plant varieties, etc.) whether or not they are protected by intellectual property rights (by which we mean copyrights, patents, trademarks, plant variety protection, etc.).

Effective IA management is crucial to facilitate the exchange of research outputs as well as to support trust in collaborations. It is also required to deal with issues such as access, ownership and exploitation of the outputs produced.

The message from a recent and comprehensive Review of the CGIAR’s own Intellectual Property unit (CAS-IP) was clear and direct:

'We firmly believe that the management (or mismanagement) of intellectual property will be a primary factor in determining the future of the CGIAR's contributions to agricultural innovation systems that will help ensure global food security, poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability'.

Do you have any thoughts about IA management in the agricultural research for development purposes? What should IA management focus on if you need to ensure benefits are available for the public good? What should or shouldn’t we do with the results of publicly funded research?

The Review mentioned above was commissioned by CAS-IP's main donor, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS), first to evaluate CAS-IP's activities. In light of the CGIAR reform process, DGIS also requested that the Review Team extend the scope to include the broader context of intellectual asset management in the CGIAR. Given the fundamental importance of IP/IA management, it will not be ignored as the new structure of the CGIAR emerges. Details of exactly what form IA management will take have not yet emerged.

Further to the publication of the Review of CAS-IP, a public consultation process has been set up online. Any comments will be compiled and officially added to the report, we hope for use by the agricultural development community at-large, as well as to inform the new Consortium Office".
The IPKat is fascinated by all of this. What should organisations like CGIAR be doing with the results of agricultural research, apart from making sure that everyone who needs to use them can get access to them? Should the organisation's role be confined to describing and databasing research results, or is its money better spent on building up and policing agricultural IP portfolios for the beneficial exploitation and management of those rights for the greater good? Or is the notion of a greater good illusory?"

Blessed be her memory.
In Memoriam of Kay Chapman: sustainable development and IP In Memoriam of Kay Chapman: sustainable development and IP Reviewed by Neil Wilkof on Tuesday, April 12, 2016 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.