|
Post by canadamike on Mar 15, 2011 4:05:48 GMT -5
We,ve all been quite passionate when Kent Whealy was fired, but as usual, it is not a bad thing to let time pass, it gives some time to some thruth to move to the surface. I invite members to read letters from board members and advisor, they are available on the SSE site. I strongl;y recommend reading Glen Drowns letter....and all the others for that matter......
|
|
|
Post by synergy on Mar 15, 2011 15:04:44 GMT -5
SSE may do good works but the contract to submit seeds for storage does grant the right of accession of those genetic deposits to those controling the seed vault in Svalbaard in section 7 . Isn't this point important when some of the parties with controling interests are Syngenta and Monsanto ? It isn't a cut and dry who is right and who is wrong . I am sure there are good things to be said of both parties in the issue.
|
|
|
Post by spacecase0 on Mar 15, 2011 16:04:48 GMT -5
I don't see how keeping seeds at a monsanto controlled place hurts anyone, monsanto could just buy the seeds if they wanted them.... that seed bank is a free service in a good location, I can see why people may wan to use it. but the hate for monsanto means that it was poor judgment to use anything that they are connected to, but I guess that is well known now
|
|
|
Post by synergy on Mar 15, 2011 17:28:05 GMT -5
space, look at the contract the depositors sign, see the wording about in consideration of no fee storage the depositor grants the right of accession (yes there is no fee but that is NOT free ) , well google that word accession, it does not mean access. Someone jump in and correct me if I am wrong but the definition I read it meant a right granted to create a new property by adding to another . I think that implies some legal right of property, if the grantor of the storage were to genetically modify using DNA from the deposit, they create a new property and that implies a right to own and sell it.
Now looking at what happened with wheat , did Monsanto not sue people for crops they grew that were accidently cross pollinated from Monsanto seeded crops and thus had DNA from them? Well where do you think it ends with their ability to litigate if they claim a right to the property whether rational or not ? I caution there could be further implications we are not seeing.
I think Mr. Whealy may have raised a valid concern here that people seem to overlook.
I am not making any comment on the he said/she said aspect, only looking at rights granted under article 7 of the depositors agreement.
Correct me if I am wrong , I am a layperson , not a lawyer nor a plant breeder but there is a difference between access to use a property such as seed and the accession of a right to ownership of a subsequent property . Legally if I take Mikes seed , change the name and market it as my own, he has grounds to sue me. If I was granted a right to create my own seed from it by genetically modifying it and then I market it, well I have every right to do that through a contracted accession do I not?
|
|
|
Post by canadamike on Mar 15, 2011 19:24:21 GMT -5
Forget Svalbard. Everything SSEnhas is public domain and NOBODY OWNS IT.
Svalbard is just a distraction here. It did happen after the incident. »It is like arguing Julius Caesar armies did not really conquer France because Heisenhower freed it....later.
Just read Glen Drowns letter. I do not know him personnaly, I do, though, admire is immense work both with vegetables AND livestock, gosh, the guy runs Noah's arch... and if there was ONE commitment to the cause to chose as magnificent and authentic, it would be found somewhere around Sand Hill farm, or maybe with Will Bonsall etc...
As a man who has dealt with non-profit organizations and boards a huge part of his life, I know any decision can become political, even those taken for absolutely non political reasons, especially painful good ones.
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Mar 15, 2011 23:40:48 GMT -5
Mike,
respectfully I disagree, completely and will not forget about Svalbard. Big things lie in this issue alone and SSE is part of it, whether by ignorance or by intelligence.
Yes, things are in the public domain of course, but it only takes a slight change of the law to turn that around.
It is an issue, even Carolyn Male who I never thought I would agree with on much has her issues with what's happened
|
|
|
Post by synergy on Mar 16, 2011 1:01:14 GMT -5
I am not questioning any other circumstances , or testimonies, I am not questioning anyones integrity . The seeds themselves are in safekeeping. They can be collected back by the party depositing them.
Forget Svalbard. Everything SSE has is public domain and NOBODY OWNS IT.
What I find questionable and of concern is, is the depositor signing that agreement is accepting a term in consideration for a service and that term of accession could be construed to be the legal right of ownership of DNA , once altered , that it would then be 'owned' not by the depositor but by the consortium running the seed vault . The seeds themselves may remain a property of public domain under the stewardship of the SSE.
|
|