Q.Give any two reasons why the patent on Basmati should not have gone to an American Company.

The patent on Basmati rice should not have gone to an American company for the following reasons:

• Basmati is an indigenous Indian rice variety, cultivated in India for centuries, and represents a significant part of India's traditional knowledge and agricultural heritage. The American company essentially patented an existing Indian variety or a minor modification of it. …

The issue of patents on biological resources, especially those with a long history of cultivation and development in specific regions, brings to the forefront complex questions of intellectual property rights and traditional knowledge. While the term "Genetically Modified Organisms" (GMOs) often refers to organisms whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques, the broader context here involves the ownership and commercial exploitation of genetic resources, whether naturally occurring or traditionally bred, and the ethical implications of such claims. The Basmati rice case is a prime example of "biopiracy," where biological resources and associated traditional knowledge are exploited without proper authorisation or compensation.

Basmati rice holds immense cultural and economic significance in India. It is renowned globally for its unique aroma and distinct flavour, characteristics that have been developed and maintained over centuries through the dedicated efforts of Indian farmers. India boasts a rich diversity of Basmati varieties, with NCERT textbooks documenting at least 27 distinct types cultivated across the subcontinent. This long history of cultivation and the specific agro-climatic conditions of the region have contributed to Basmati's unparalleled qualities, making it an integral part of India's agricultural heritage.

In 1997, an American company was granted a patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for "Basmati rice lines and grains." This patent essentially allowed the company to market a "new" variety of Basmati in the U.S. and internationally, claiming it as their invention. This move sparked significant controversy and opposition, particularly from India, which viewed it as an unjust appropriation of its indigenous genetic resources and traditional knowledge.

There are two primary reasons why this patent should not have been granted to an American company:

• Exploitation of Traditional Indian Knowledge and Heritage: Basmati rice is not a recent invention but a product of centuries of traditional farming practices and selective breeding by Indian farmers. Its unique characteristics, including its aroma and grain length, are a result of generations of collective effort and knowledge passed down through communities. Granting a patent to a foreign company effectively ignored this invaluable traditional knowledge and the intellectual contributions of Indian farmers, attempting to privatise a shared heritage that belongs to the people of India. This act constituted biopiracy, which is the unethical and unauthorised appropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge from indigenous communities or nations. …

Method — check the patent's own 3 requirements against Basmati

A valid patent needs: novelty, non-obviousness, and genuine invention.

• Novelty? No — Basmati is centuries-old, documented in Indian folklore/agriculture.
• Non-obviousness? No — it was derived by ordinary crossing with semi-dwarf varieties. …