| versión para imprimir - envía este articulo por e-mail |
Criminal acts against argentine science - Patent theft
Por Eduardo R. Saguier -
Thursday, Oct. 14, 2010 at 8:56 PM
saguiere@ssdnet.com.ar (Casilla de correo válida)
Below the letter to President Kirchner I reproduce several messages I have received through the postal office and by email from different British offices (Serious Fraud Office, Companies Investigation Branch, and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills). I do believe that these messages should be publicly known, because of the role that the British Company PBL Technology had eventually played in this international scandal. Moreover, I wonder whether any British institution that cares about science and research worldwide could help us in solving this scandal.
Moral emptiness at Argentine scientific institutions
Por Eduardo R. Saguier
Buenos Aires, Tuesday September 21st, 2010.-
To the President of the Argentine Republic
Dr. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.
By hand: Moral emptiness at Argentine scientific institutions
Dear Madam,
CONICET Professional Researcher Eduardo R. Saguier, ID 4394928, sponsored by Dr. Jorge E. Marenco, with place of residence and address at Juan F. Segui 3955-2 Apartment E -1425-City of Buenos Aires, hereby expresses the following to Your Excellency:
I. SUBJECT MATTER.-
1.- To perform a comprehensive investigation or as Your Excellence may deem fit in order to cast light on the facts that might prove an actual correlation of criminal unlawful acts of jeopardy, which would be added to the report already made on August 26th, 2010, (Proceeding No. 96496-10-1-5), with respect to USD 1 billion borrowed from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) so as to be distributed as research subsidies by the National Agency for Scientific and Technological Promotion (ANPCYT, acronym in Spanish – Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica) between 1997 and 2010 artículo es: http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2010/09/751156.php
II.-FACTS.-
1.- On Thursday September 26th, 2010, journalist Silvia Paglioni posted a story entitled “Transgénicos y glifosato: ¡El pueblo quiere saber de qué se trata!” [GMOs and Glyphosate: People Want to Know What This Is All About!] on Bahía Noticias e-forum http://bahianoticias.com/29286/29286/ whereby she publicized a report that in practice would involve the Boards of Directors of CONICET, the Agency or ANPCYT and CONEAU, to the newly organized Ministry of Science, Technology and Productive Innovation, and the Science and Technology Committees with the Congress.
2.- As to CONICET, it is its Board (even though the Boards of the Agency and CONEAU might necessarily be accessories thereto) that would be involved in these alleged unlawful acts as it has failed to duly check the proper use of its funds and to control its human resources over the terms of office of Chairman Eduardo Charreau (2002-2008) and Chairwoman Marta G. Rovira (2008-2010), for they should have reported such alleged unlawful acts to the former Secretariat of Science and Technology and the newly organized Ministry of Science and/or otherwise to the controlling agencies and/or Criminal Justice, respectively. The alleged unlawful acts would relate to the management and/or use of patents on products or scientific procedures Argentine researchers would have registered abroad in their own name, which patents, however, would result from discoveries made mainly in our country and funded by IDB Agency subsidies, CONICET fellowships and wages, CONEAU evaluations and accreditation, and facilities, labs, and work sites made available by Universidad Nacional de Rosario [a Rosario City-based public university].
3.- Upon presentation of the findings from the research conducted by molecular biologist and CONICET Principal Investigator Dr. Néstor José Carrillo and his scientific team over 2001, 2002, and 2004, at Instituto de Biología Molecular y Celular de Rosario [Rosario’s Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology] or IBR (reporting to both CONICET and Universidad Nacional de Rosario since 1999), http://www.ibr.gov.ar/ibr/investigacion/investigacion_ind.php?linea=12, it was shown that the outcomes proved “a breakthrough in (soy, wheat, linseed, corn, etc.) seed growing, as flavodoxine helped seeds grow in high water stress environments; that is to say, places with very low or very high degree of water availability plants grow incredibly well,” and that the corresponding scientific trials proved successful in several US states.
4.- The IBR Researchers who registered such patents failed to abide by Decree-Law 20464/73 and the Regulations thereon, and would have assigned the rights to the discoveries as if they were theirs on October 24th, 2001 (as evidenced by the résumé of Spanish researcher María Francisca Fillat Castejón) for a merely symbolic amount (USD 1) to a British biotechnology company called Plant Bioscience Limited or PBL TECHNOLOGY (Reg. No. 02896390), which serves as an intermediary in project funding and discovery acquisition from formally patentable, scientifically validated, and regionally comparative filings. http://www.pbltechnology.com/cms.php?pageid=348#RootHair
5.- Dr. Carrillo first took out a patent in the European Union on October 24th, 2001, during the so-called “corralito bancario” (bank deposit freezing) and socio-economic crisis in Argentina. While the patent date is evidenced in the résumé of researcher Fillat Castejón (Biochemistry Department of Saragossa University), Dr. Carrillo's résumé shows a later date of such patent, under the same code number, in 2002.
6.- In turn, company PBL TECHNOLOGY, which had patent priority since 10/24/2001, would have resold such patent at an unknown date, in an amount of several millions Euros, to a German chemical company called BASF http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/en/, by means of a transaction in the form of triangulation of interests, where the role played by the Argentine researchers would have been that of “blood donors,” as Argentine people would have paid USD1 for their primary, secondary and university education. However, as a paradox, over the years, what was once sold at USD1 by Argentine researchers as property of theirs is currently bringing about profit to foreign laboratories at the rest of the world’s expense, including ours. Efficient and decent management of intellectual resources would benefit us as it means transfer of technology abroad, within the lawfulness and protection assurance framework of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) administered in Geneva by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which Argentina, bribed by the pharmaceutical mafia, unfortunately refuses to ratify.
7.- Dr. Carrillo and his IBR assistants (Adriana R. Krapp and Anabella F. Lodeyro), judging by the contents of his résumé, have – besides being granted several subsidies by the Agency and multiple accreditations by CONEAU – taken out subsequent patents on their discoveries abroad without the institutional participation of the Argentine federal administration, or CONICET, or the Agency or CONEAU or, obviously, WIPO. With no reference to CONICET as the relevant owner having been entered on the patent registration certificates, Carrillo and co. would have patented their findings together with IBR Researchers Javier F. Palatnik, Estela Marta Valle, Vanesa B. Tognetti (resident at Bielefeld University, Germany, since 2006), and María Fillat Castejón, who jointly made the following two discoveries entitled: “Stress-tolerant Plants”, under EU code No. 02801941.2-2405-GB0204612, in 2002; and another one under identical title, under US patent code No. 6,781,034 B2, in 2004 (See Exhibit-I). Dr. Carrillo has also been involved in a series of three (3) patent applications whose outcomes are unknown and whose codes are as follows: AU 20022334130 (Australia); EP 1442127 (European Parliament); and GB 20010025522 (Great Britain).
8.- Before enforcement of Resolution (D) No. 3249, dated December 26th, 2007, CONICET abided by Resolution (D) No. 243/89. If enforced at IBR, collection of any revenues deriving from patents would have excluded the following CONICET researchers and Agency subsidy beneficiaries: post-doctoral fellows Mariana Giró and Matías Zurbriggen; doctoral fellows Licenciados Romina Ceccoli, María Lauray Delprato and Juan José Pierella Karlusich; thesis students Martín Leonardo Mayta, María Betina Comba, and Luisina Palos Mangione; and technician or aide Hugo Poli.
9.- Upon issue of such Resolution (D) No. 3249/07, from Sections 7 and 8 thereof, it is possible to infer the pattern of intent, confidence and determination driving CONICET Board members. The patents taken out by Dr. Carrillo and his team in the European Union and USA from 2001 to 2007 show that on at least three (3) occasions they appropriated the results of patent developments, for a) CONICET Board neither had authorized, with retroactive effect to the then current year 2001 nor was in a position to authorize the agreements Dr. Carrillo might have entered into with PBL Technology; b) CONICET had not been granted the intellectual property rights to its outcomes; and c) neither fellows nor aid personnel or CONICET itself had been paid any additional amount in consideration of the transfer they/it would have actually made.
10.- Following the chronological sequence of events, five (5) months after Resolution (D) No. 3249/07, in May 2008, CONICET carried out a summary proceeding on the report about the transfer made by Dr. Carrillo to PBL Technology (File 1894/08), which was recently disclosed by journalist Silvia Paglioni (see above), and the Board resolved to dismiss the report and filed the case with restricted access, which would show the involvement of CONICET Board in the events.
11.- CONICET also filed the minutes of such Board of Directors’ meetings and the summary proceedings resulting from the report were marked “reserved”, for over 2008 and 2009 the right to see them would have been refused to any requester.
12.- Over a year later, in 2009, and having almost eight (8) years elapsed since Dr. Carrillo got first involved with PBL Technology, CONICET Board of Directors started negotiations in order to enter into an agreement with the same British company, but this time with Universidad Nacional del Litoral (UNL), in a belatedly attempt to set itself apart from IBR and to put the past misconducts (if not concurrence of actual crimes) in order, which agreement would have been entered into on July 31st, 2010 http://infoalternativa.com.ar/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1899:avance-cientifico-de-la-unl-y-el-conicet-beneficia-a-los-productores-rur ales&catid=37:argentina&Itemid=57
By virtue of such an agreement, CONICET allowed PBL to use and exploit technology owned by the former (whether registered or not). In consideration thereof CONICET is to be paid a fixed sum or royalty in an amount which is unknown. In turn, this agency, by virtue of Section 9 of Resolution (D) 3249 dated December 26th, 2007, has to share up to 50% of the revenues deriving from the patent with the personnel of the Argentine institutes involved in the authorized scientific developments (Universidad de Rosario’s IBR, founded in 1999 by virtue of a resolution issued by CONICET Board of Directors over the term of office of Eng. Armando Bertranou and followed by Charreau’s administration; and Universidad del Litoral’s IAL, founded by virtue of an agreement with CONICET in 2008, over the term of office of Marta G. Rovira, former Agency Coordinator). These attempts proved unsuccessful, for they are still in violation of CONICET By-laws.
13.- However, this concurrence of unlawful acts would not have been unique within CONICET as – for illustration purposes – on April 10th, 2004, a report would have been filed with this institution against the behavior evidenced by geologists from Universidad Nacional del Sur and Universidad Nacional de la Plata, members of CONICET (one of such geologists was Dr. Carlos Rapela, an eminent member of the then Board of Directors) http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3554, who would have traded the prospecting conducted thereby with tools lent by the institutes from such national universities and purchased with funds provided by CONICET, to the benefit of private mining companies.
The summons required to hear the relevant summary proceeding and ratify the report was issued not until five (5) months later, on September 10th, 2004; and the signed statement was taken not until September 17th, 2004; and the relevant elaboration thereon was made not until October 9th, 2004. It is quite surprising that by 2005, almost a year after the report filing, this matter kept featuring outrageous administrative delay and the suspicious idleness that neither the then National Secretariat of Science and Technology, the Prosecution Service in Administrative Investigation Matters and/or the Federal Criminal Justice had not been made aware thereof yet.
III.-RIGHT.-
Section 10 of Decree Law 20464/73 (Statute of CONICET Scientific and Technological Researcher’s Career) provides that scientific inventions made throughout the labor relationship belong to the employer; and Section 19 of the aforementioned Decree sets forth that “they shall be jointly owned by the personnel, the Committee [CONICET], and the Institution such personnel works for.”
Section 8 of Exhibit I to Resolution 3249 dated December 26th, 2007, issued by the CONICET Board of Directors provides as follows: “— BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ APPROVAL: CONICET Board of Directors shall approve any agreements regarding trading of research findings and technological developments.”
IV.- EVENTUAL CONSEQUENCES AND FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION’S DUTIES.-
It is worth mentioning that it is totally unknown whether these acts – except for geological prospecting – have recurred or not within our academic environment, corrupting scientist’s responsibility ethics, spreading like the plague, and accentuating the brain drain, which affects Argentina the most compared to the rest of the continent.
The facts stated hereinabove are of jeopardy in their entirety, since corruption would bring no sense to investments, borrowings, public budgets and the evaluation and accreditation system, in terms of research and development, as performed by the Agency-ANPCYT using USD 1 billion from IDB, spent over thirteen (13) years, which could be translated into about USD 100 million yearly; or by CONICET through several universities and research institutes over the country and the world, with a yearly budget amounting to USD 200 million; or by CONEAU through multiple evaluations and accreditations for an unknown amount. This asset stripping has evidenced a touch of growing darkness if we consider that there would be a close link between a climate of growing criminality against intellectual property worldwide and the stubborn resistance, on the part of some countries such as Argentina and its legislative branch, to ratify the aforementioned Patent Cooperation Treaty (1970).
V.-REQUEST.-
Now therefore, based on my prerogatives as a citizen and pursuant to the provisions of Public Ethics Law, I hereby respectfully request from Your Excellency:
5.1.- That a detailed and comprehensive investigation into the series of events reported herein be ordered by instituting or reopening the relevant summary proceeding (File CONICET 1894/08);
5.2.- That a detailed and comprehensive investigation be ordered as to the way the Agency or ANPCYT invested an international loan amounting to USD 1 billion without arranging for the ratification by the Science and Technology Commissions with the Congress of an unavoidable international treaty protecting the outcome deriving from the expenses and investments made using such loan.
5.3.- That the Ombudsman, the National Inter-University Committee (CIN, acronym in Spanish – Consejo Interuniveristario Nacional), the Federal Administration controlling agencies (General Prosecution Service, Auditing Agency, Attorney General's Office), the National Congress, the National Committee on Science and Technology Ethics (CECTE, acronym in Spanish – Consejo Nacional de Ética en la Ciencia y Tecnología), CONEAU, the Secretariat of University Policies (SPU, acronym in Spanish – Secretaría de Políticas Universitarias), and the Argentine Foreign Office be ordered to become aware of and take a stance on the aforementioned file; and that the Argentine Foreign Office inform thereof the WIPO based in Geneva.
May Your Excellency grant what is herein requested, for in doing so, JUSTICE SHALL BE DONE.
Eduardo R. Saguier
ID 4394928
Exhibit I
b. Patents and Invention Models
V. B. Tognetti, J. F. Palatnik, M. F. Fillat, E. M. Valle, N. Carrillo
(2002) Stress tolerant plants. EU patent No 02801941.2-2405-GB0204612.
J. F. Palatnik, M. F. Fillat, N. Carrillo, E. M. Valle, V. B. Tognetti
(2004) Stress tolerant plants. US patent No 6,781,034 B2.
(Source: Résumé of Dr. Néstor José Carrillo)
Role that the British Company PBL Technology had played in this scandal
Por Eduardo R. Saguier
SFO – Serious Fraud Office
Elm House 10-16 Elm Street London WC1X OBJ
Director: Richard Alderman
Eduardo R. Saguier
ID 4394928
Juan F. Seguí 3955-2nd floor-dpt.E
1425 Buenos Aires
Argentina
27 September 2010
Dear Mr. Saguier
Thank you for contacting the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and for informing us that you suspect you have been the victim of fraud.
After consideration of the information you have provided to us, we have concluded that this is not a matter which is appropriate for investigation by the SFO. Accordingly, no further action will be taken by us and I hope the following will help explain why this is so.
The SFO is a relatively small, highly specialised government department that is permitted bt law to investigate only those cases where there are reasonable grounds to suspect serious or complex fraud. For this reason, we take on only a small number of new cases each year and almost all of these are referred to us by the police or other law enforcement agencies.
That is not to say that the matter you have reported is any less important or any less distressing for you as a victim. It is essential that suspected offenses are investigated expeditiously and our intention in informing you that this is not a matter for the SFO is to reduce the delay in it being brought to the attention of the appropriate organisation.
If you relieve you are the victim of anything other than the most serious or complex fraud, you should normally pursue the matter through your local police force. The police have primary responsibility within the UK for investigating all types of criminality including fraud and other offenses of dishonesty.
Contact details for your local constabulary can be found in your telephone directory or online at http://www.police.uk/forces.htm
Alternatively, you may wish to pursue the matter through one of the following organisations who have responsibility for handling specific types of complaints.
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)
One of the stated organisational objectives of BIS is ensuring markets work to the benefit of business, investors, employees and consumers. It also works to deter fraud by enforcing the relevant law. This includes dealing with misconduct or unscrupulous practices, whether or not this amounts to fraud. The Companies Investigation Branch (CIB) of BIS is responsible for investigating companies under the relevant company
legislation. Where CIB uncovers evidence of criminal conduct the facts are generally referred to the police for investigation or to its own prosecution lawyers.
You can contact CIB on 0207 596 5100 or report a matter online at:
http://insolvency.gov.uk/complaintformcib.htm
In addition, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) maintains a list of useful links to organisations that may be appropriate for your concerns. This list can be found online at:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/oft at work/partnership working/consumer-alliance/useful-links/
In certain situations the information you have provided may be retained on our intelligence database for future reference. Information which includes any personal data (such as your contact details) will only be processed, retained or disclosed in accordance with the principles laid down in the Data Protection Act 1998. Please be assured that all information you have provided will be handled professionally and with the utmost sensitivity.
Once again, thank you for contacting the SFO and for bringing your concerns to our attention.
Yours sincerely,
Nigel John
Intelligence Officer
Response of the Companies Investigation Branch (CIB) to the investigation request
Dear Mr Saguier,
Thank you for your email.
Corporate Complaints Team has powers under the Companies Acts to consider misconduct in the affairs of live, currently registered UK companies. The matters referred to in your email fall outside of CIB's remit - including as they do, a request to investigate the National Council of Scientific & Technical Research (CONICET) and the National Agency for Promotion of Science & Technology (ANPCYT) - both of which appear to be Argentinean bodies, which I assure you, are well outside of CCT's remit. I realise you have also cited PBL Ltd, which is a UK-Registered company - however, it would appear that you wish for CCT to become involved in what is essentially a contractual/patent ownership dispute, which is not within CCT's remit.
I suggest that you may wish to refer the issues relating to the two Argentinean scientific bodies to the appropriate authorities in Argentina. As to your dispute with PBL, I would suggest you seek independent legal advice, from a Solicitor in the appropriate jurisdiction, who will be able to advise you on patent laws and the appropriate avenues open to you at this time.
I am sorry that I cannot assist further in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Rachel Lindly
Vetting Support Unit
Conduct & Complaints Directorate
* Enquiries 020 7596 6100
* enquiry@cib.gsi.gov.uk
Dear Eduardo Saguier
Thank you for your e-mail.
Most of the issues you raise do not fall under the remit of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, I would suggest that investigations need to be undertaken in Argentina by the appropriate body.
The only issue which is patent related would appear to relate to a European Patent which has been granted and which designates the UK - EP1442127. This was filed by Plant Bioscience Limited, the company detailed in your email and it names many of the people you discuss in your email as inventors. If you feel that this company is not entitled to own this patent, then you can ask the Comptroller to consider this question under entitlement proceedings. These are initiated using a Form 2 and a fee of £50. Further details can be found on our website at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-dispute/p-hearing/p-interpartes/p-proceedings.htm .
If you feel that this is an option you would like to pursue then I would strongly recommend that you seek legal advice first.
Unfortunately, we aren't able to assist you further with this query.
Many Thanks
Leon Walder
Communications Manager
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Scholars at Risk will forward your email to colleagues who might be able to help
Por Eduardo R. Saguier -
Monday, Oct. 18, 2010 at 9:45 PM
saguiere@ssdnet.com.ar
Dear Dr. Saguier,
Our apologies for the delayed reply to your email, and thank you for being in touch.
By way of this response, we are confirming receipt of your message. As you know, Scholars at Risk is an international network of universities dedicated to promoting academic freedom and defending the human rights of scholars worldwide. Unfortunately, due to our limited resources and high case volume, we must prioritize the most urgent, life-threatening cases that come to our attention. Although Scholars at Risk is unable to offer direct assistance to you at this time, please note that we will forward your email to colleagues who might have an interest in your situation or who might be able to help.
Kind regards,
Scholars at Risk