There hasn't been much debate on the effects of IPR protection for genetic manipulation. Of course, there has been a lot of discussion about "terminator" gene, and the dramatic effects on farming due to its introduction. But it now seems there are reasons for broader concerns about the effect of IPR protection in agriculture. Monsanto is taking a farmer to court in Canada after he was found raising a variety of Monsanto's rapeseed without the company's consent.

The farmer claims that the wind blew Monsanto seeds into his farm, and there is no way of knowing, without sophisticated analysis, whether the seeds areMonsanto's or not. The US life sciences giant has also been pilloried because of its rule that farmers cannot save seed to plant next year's crop, and on its right to audit fields for three years after its seeds are bought.

The company says that these measures are necessary if it is to recoup its huge R&D outlays. That is no doubt correct, but the whole affair raises basic questions. For instance, how is it that the entire "green revolution" was successful without any IPR protection? Even if public funding of such research is ruled out for ideological reasons, what options do small farmers have against the might of multinational agribusiness? If the benefits from the revolution in genetics are not to become a monopoly of a few large corporations, these questions need to be asked urgently.