1. No category

STSE Case study-Plants: Anatomy,
Growth and Function
Expectation to be covered
-Research the way plants are
fundamental to Canadian Society
based on the needs of society and
the development of plant science
and technology
Objectives
• To have students understand and analyze the
different advantages and disadvantages for
genetically modified plants vs. organic plants
• To have students think about and discuss bioethical
and biopolitical topics by viewing legal, social and
economic issues around genetic agriculture in
Canada and abroad
• To think about the multiple ways in which
environmental sustainability is viewed
Who Said Plants don’t get interesting?
• It’s time we take what we have learned so far
and discuss some real life controversial
stories of genetic engineering in plants
We will look at:
Genetic patents-What are they?
Case study: Schmeiser Vs. Monsanto
PRO
What is a Patent?
• Patents are an ownership given for an invention
for a period of time (about 20 years).
e.g.)
• Each invention must be:
- Novel (new)
- Non-obvious
- industrially useful
• "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,
or any new and useful improvement thereof.“
- U.S. Patent Law
What Patents Do
• Provides the right to stop others from:
– Making
– Using
– Selling
– Importing
Canadian Patent Law
• Matters that cannot be patented:
– Certain new plant matters
– Computer programs
– Medical treatments
What is a Biological Entity?
• Genes (or parts of genes)
• Proteins
• Stem cells
-ELSI (Ethical Legal and Social issues)
Patenting Biological Entities
• Raw products of nature cannot be patented
• They have to be genetically engineered
• Must be a unique form not found in nature.
• The protein from the DNA sequence must show
some practical use such as:
– Drug discovery
– Therapy
– Diagnosis
-Resnik 2001, Science and Engineering Ethics
Example of a patent:
What was Ghandi’s favourite tree?
Neem tree (Azadirachta indica)
• Translates to “free tree”
• Used for is healing properties
• Was accessible to all people of India
•BUT now Indian citizens might be required
to pay royalties on neem products
•WHY?
• A U.S. company W.R. Grace has a patent on a
compound in the tree for the production of a
biopesticide.
Monsanto VS Schmeiser
(Roundup Ready Canola)
Background-the players
The Case-What is the issue?
The trials
Supreme Court Decision
Our discussion
11
Genetic patents: Does someone own seeds?
THE PLAYERS
Schmeiser Vs. Monsanto
Percy Schmeiser
A long time farmer and farm equipment dealer from the small rural community of
Bruno in Saskatchewan. He served as Mayor of the Town of Bruno from 19661983
•
“Percy Schmeiser has been growing canola -- the yellow-blossomed oilseed that
used to be known as rapeseed -- for 40 years, and he knows his stuff. He's been
experimenting, developing his own varieties, using his own seed and generally
prospering with canola. reaping the benefits derived from growing an increasingly
popular crop.”
Questions:
• In what ways can Schmeiser benefit with from naturally growing plants?
•
In what ways might Schmeiser benefit from a genetically modified plant?
Genetic patents: Does someone own seeds?
THE PLAYERS
Schmeiser Vs. Monsanto
Monsanto
-An biotechnology/agricultural corporation (company) based out of America which has many
international connections (multinational company)
•
The company created a Canola seed completely immune to herbicide (kills weeds) by Genetic
engineering . That means a farmer can spray the herbicide over a planted field, kill all the
weeds growing there, but not hurt the crop (canola). On February 23rd,1993 
Monsanto got 17 years patent of genetically modified canola  resistant to
the herbicide  Roundup Ready Canola.
•
About half the canola planted in Saskatchewan (in Canada) come from this company.
Questions:
Define genetic engineering?
Why would weeds be a bad thing on a farm? Why would you want to get rid of them?
What are the issues continued…
• The conflict: Percy’s fields had round up ready canola plants growing on
them. Percy never paid for these seeds and said that he never planted
these seeds.
• Percy claimed that: the seeds spread through the natural process of seed
dispersal and pollination which brings seeds into his field from his
neighbors fields who were growing the Monsanto seeds.
• Monsanto claimed that: the seeds were being illegally used because Percy
was not paying for the use of their technology. This is known as a patent
infringement
• Question: How do you think Monsanto found out about Percy’s fields? Do
you think companies should have the right to make sure that people are
not illegally using their products? Think about other examples of patents
or copyrights and how they are enforced (e.g. music and movie copyrights)
So what’s the
issue?
Monsanto sells their modified canola
seeds to farmers under the impression
they are going to be the only ones using
it.
THE TRIALS
1.
Monsanto VS Schmeiser (1998)
 Monsanto found illegal seeds growing in
Schmeiser’s field
2.
Schmeiser VS Monsanto (1999)
 Monsanto has contaminated his field.
3.
Mediation Talks
 To settle the dispute without going to trial
ended in failure.
Lawsuit Schmeiser VS Monsanto
4.

Monsanto’s investigators trespassed on
his land without permission.

Libeling him by publicly accusing him of
committing illegal acts

Contaminate his land with Roundup
Ready Canola.

There was no decision.
What do you think?-Courtroom drama
• Jury- members to overlook the case
and make a decision (choose judge to
announce it and keep it all in order)
• Ethicists- members to introduce some
of the ethical issues that have arisen in
this case
• Farmer- Percy and maybe members of
the farming community
• Monsanto Representatives- members
of the company
Supreme Court of Canada
• Scientists-members to discuss how
genetic engineering, patents, and plant
pollination work impartially.
Time:
Each group is given
7 mins to present their
case leaving 3 minutes for
questions and rebuttals
from other groups (total
10 minus)
Order of presentations
1) Jury-pick a judge to
present case to case
(5 mins)
2) Farmers
3) Monsanto reps
4) Scientists
5) Ethicists
6) Jury-Summarize and
make decision about case
(5 mins)
THE TRIAL-The
results
In 2004, Supreme Court decided:
Monsanto’s patent is valid
Schmeiser USED the seed ILEGALLY, but the
origin of the GM canola seed is still unclear
 because there was no proof/ evidence,
Schmeiser does not have to pay
Final Settlement Out of Court
On March 19th, 2008  Schmeiser pleased
with victory over Monsanto  Monsanto has
agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of the
Roundup Ready Canola
References and Resources
Websites
Overview of the case:
http://axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=165&num=26304
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224490.600-monsanto-vs-schmeiser.html
Teacher synopsis and about Case studies:
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~ethics/HeuerCH1.pdf
Videos
Monsanto Documentary (Con monsanto-109 minutes)-Examines the global problems
that Monsanto has caused
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6262083407501596844
Monsanto mission statement (Pro)-Examines the ways in which Monsanto aims to
help agricultural progress
http://www.monsanto.com/responsibility/our_pledge.asp