# E-DRUG: Letter to Madeleine Albright on Intellectual Property Rights **URL:** \ **Category:** e-drug\ **Created:** [June 19, 1997, 8:17pm UTC](https://talk.edrugplus.org/t/e-drug-letter-to-madeleine-albright-on-intellectual-property-rights/982 "1997-06-19T20:17:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Kristin\_Dawkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bb73d2/32.png) [@Kristin\_Dawkins](https://talk.edrugplus.org/u/Kristin_Dawkins)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 1997, 8:17pm UTC](https://talk.edrugplus.org/t/e-drug-letter-to-madeleine-albright-on-intellectual-property-rights/982/1 "1997-06-19T20:17:00Z")
E-drug: Letter to Madeleine Albright on Intellectual Property Rights -------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Friends, Following is a revised draft of the letter to Madeleine Albright of the U= S Department of State. Many thanks to everyone who has expressed interest, made suggestions, and offered their signature to date. It is no longer open for revisions, but we hope you will help to circulat= e it far and wide amongst your colleagues to strengthen the list of sign-on= s. Please feel free to have your colleagues forward their endorsements (organizational is stronger than individual, but all are welcome) to me b= y email to \ or by fax to (612)870-4846 by Friday June 30= =2E We will send it to Secretary Albright on Monday, June 30. Thanks again! --Kristin ----------\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ REVISED DRAFT (FINAL) PLEASE CIRCULATE FOR ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES RETURN SIGN-ONS TO \ BY FRIDAY, JUNE 20 XX June 1997 Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State United States Department of State Washington, D.C. 20520 Dear Secretary Albright, We the undersigned, from all over the world, are writing to express our concern at the manner in which the United States government is intervenin= g in the domestic affairs of numerous other nations regarding their intellectual property laws. The ability of a nation to develop its laws i= s a sovereign and inalienable right; indeed, it is one which the United States Congress absolutely defends for itself. Whereas it is true that many nations are presently adopting new legislati= on to develop their intellectual property laws in ways consistent with vario= us international agreements to which they subscribe, it is not true that it = is the United States=3D92 responsibility nor its right to interfere with the= ir national democratic processes for doing so. Furthermore, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is not the only international agreement with which nations may wish to conform. The Convention on Biological Diversity, which the U.S. has yet to ratify,= stipulates that parties cooperate to ensure that intellectual property rights "are supportive of and do not run counter to" the objectives of th= e convention: namely, the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity,= and the equitable sharing of its benefits. This Convention also obligates= the parties, subject to their national law, to "respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities." The International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) provides for "Farmers Rights." It recognizes farmers as innovators entitled to intellectual integrity and access to the germplasm and technologies they have develope= d collectively over many generations. Each of these is an international agreement in which negotiators have balanced the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights of the= WTO with the community-related aspects of humanity=3D92s intellectual her= itage. Please note, also, that the TRIPs Agreement allows each WTO member much discretion in formulating its domestic law to best serve the public interest. It allows members to exclude from patentability "diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans and animals"= and it allows them to exclude inventions which, if commercially exploited=