Report on the Status of Agricultural Biotechnology, R&D

and Intellectual Property in Malaysia and Thailand 2006

This report was prepared by Gregory C. Ellis1 in August, 2006, as part of an

externship project for the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy (CIPP) at
McGill University in Montreal, Canada. The project was a collaboration
between CIPP and the Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture
(PIPRA), a non-governmental organization located in Davis, California.

Page 1 of 36

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction.3
Malaysia..4
Malaysian Patents.........5
Agriculture and Biotechnology in Malaysia.........9
Research and Development in Malaysia......10
Human Resources for Science and Technology in Malaysia...17
Conclusion for Malaysia......20
Thailand. 22
Thai Patents..23
Agriculture and Biotechnology in Thailand.....26
Research and Development in Thailand......28
Human Resources for Science and Technology in Thailand...29
Conclusion for Thailand..29
Summary31

Page 2 of 36

Introduction
The intent of the non-profit public sector institutions that develop agricultural
biotechnologies for humanitarian purposes in developing countries is to provide crops
with higher productivity, greater nutritional value, and enhanced resistance to diseases.
In order to achieve their goals, these public sector entities must utilize multiple
biotechnologies. However, these biotechnologies are often protected by intellectual
property rights (IPR) owned by multiple for-profit private companies and other public
sector institutions. This phenomenon is referred to as IPR fragmentation, which can
often create challenges to the public sectors freedom to operate.
The Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA) is a nongovernmental organization that functions to provide access to agricultural
biotechnologies desired by the public sector. This access is being accomplished by
PIPRA through efforts to increase the transparency of the IPR fragmentation that exists
among entities that research and develop agricultural biotechnologies. Acquiring
information pertaining to the state of agricultural biotechnology in the public sector of
developing countries will aid PIPRAs efforts by ensuring that their services provide
maximum benefit. Examples of the type of information about biotechnological activities
within a particular developing country might consist of the degree of commitment to
agricultural biotechnology, the protections being sought for successful biotechnological
research and development (i.e. patents), or actual statistics relating to actual production.

Page 3 of 36

Many countries would benefit from public sector contributions to agricultural

biotechnology and would thus be of interest to PIPRAs continued objectives. Two such
countries are Malaysia and Thailand. The purpose of this report is to therefore provide
information pertaining to the status of agricultural biotechnology in these countries. All
data provided was obtained in August of 2006. This report addresses the deficiencies that
exist due to limitations on the type of information obtained, and makes suggestions for
further investigations.

MALAYSIA
Malaysia is a Southeast Asian country with a population of over 24 million
people, and a GDP estimated in 2005 to be US$290B.2 Agriculture is a major industry in
Malaysia. The first part of the Malaysia section will briefly discuss the Malaysian patent
system, and the obstacles that must be overcome to obtain data regarding patents that are
granted for agricultural biotechnologies. Secondly, the status of agricultural
biotechnology in Malaysia will be discussed with respect to existing research programs
and crops that are currently available. Thirdly, the state of technological research and
development with respect to private and public expenditure will be discussed in general,
and in somewhat more detail as it relates to the agriculture sector. Lastly, the
commitment to science and technology research will be presented by examining trends in
dedicated scientific researchers in both the public and private sectors. Researchers
devoted to the field of agriculture in general will also be discussed. In the Malaysian
section, notice should be taken of the fact that some figures express monetary amounts in

Page 4 of 36

RM, the Malaysian currency. However, these numbers have been converted to United
States dollars in the text.

Malaysian Patents
Patents in Malaysia are granted as stipulated by the Patents Act of 1983. Although
foreigners must apply for a patent through a local patent agent, Malaysian citizens may
apply directly to the patent office.3 Malaysia is also a signatory to the Trade Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which is an international treaty
implemented by the World Trade Organization (WTO).4 The purpose of TRIPS is to
provide strong intellectual property rights to WTO member states. Among other
requirements, TRIPS requires patent protection for at least 20 years. Furthermore, the
Act allows for importation of patented products that are already in other countries
markets.5 In addition to TRIPS, Malaysia recently acceded to the Patent Cooperation
Treaty (PCT), which automatically designates Malaysia on international patents granted
in offices of PCT member states. However, international patents did not have the
opportunity to designate Malaysia until very recently (August 16, 2006).6
With respect to the patenting of living organisms, Malaysian patent law permits
the patenting of innovations in a manner similar to the United States Patent & Trademark
Office (USPTO), with the exception that plant patents do not exist. Malaysian patent law
provides for the patenting of man-made living micro-organisms, micro-biological
processes and the products of such micro-organisms.7
Relative to most developed nations, Malaysia grants relatively few patents.

Page 5 of 36

According to a 2004 report produced by the Malaysian Science and Technology

Information Centre (MASTIC),8 1,492 patents were granted in 2002 (Fig. 1). In
comparison, the USPTO granted over 167,000 patents in 2002. Furthermore, in 2002,
only 32 (2.1%) of the patents granted were to Malaysian citizens (Fig. 1). A trend of
increased patent grants is also observed. In 2000, only 405 patents were granted in
Malaysia, although in previous years greater numbers of patents were granted (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Patent applications and approvals in Malaysia, 1997-2002 (taken from the 2004 MASTIC report
on Malaysian Science and Technology Indicators8)

Although the MASTIC report does not provide information as to how many of
these patents might be relevant to the agriculture industry, 334 (22.4%) of the patents
granted in 2002 were associated with the chemistry/metallurgy field of technology.9 This
field of technology is the closest related field to which any type of agricultural
biotechnology innovation might be placed. Additionally, the field of technology
Page 6 of 36

breakdown does not allow one to determine how many of the patents in each category
were granted to residents or non-residents (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Number of patents granted in Malaysia by field, 1999-2002 (taken from the 2004 MASTIC
report on Malaysian Science and Technology Indicators9).

With respect to the countries of origin of foreigners who are granted patents in
Malaysia, citizens of the United State were granted the greatest number of Malaysian
patents, at 512 (34.3%) for 2002. Citizens in Japan during the same period were granted
437 (29.3%) Malaysian patents.10 Regarding the number of Malaysian citizens that
patent abroad, in 2001, 56 patents were granted by the USPTO to residents of Malaysia.11

Page 7 of 36

Interestingly, this number is actually higher than the number of Malaysian residents that
were granted Malaysian patents in the same year. Whether the Malaysian citizens that
are patenting in the United States are the same citizens that are patenting in Malaysia is
unknown.
Although the Malaysian government has released data that addresses the number
of patents granted to both residents and non-residents, data on how many of those patents
are granted in agricultural biotechnology has been more difficult to obtain. The
Malaysian Intellectual Property Corporation (MyIPO), which is part of the Malaysian
government, had a web-based search engine for its patent applications. This could have
been a proper avenue to manually examine patent applications to get a better idea of what
types of patents are being granted. However, the information provided was minimal, and
the website has shut down as of the writing of this report. The web-based search engine
no longer exists, as it was only (an ostensibly unsuccessful) trial version. The MyIPO
website suggests visiting the Malaysian patent office to obtain any desired information
regarding Malaysian patents.
Two other avenues might exist to gather information pertaining to patents granted
in Malaysia. One is to search the PCT databases. However, at the time of the preparation
of this report, Malaysia had been a member state for only 2 weeks. As a result, one will
not be able to acquire information regarding trends in agricultural biotechnology patents
granted in Malaysia through the PCT databases for at least another year. The other
possibility might be to purchase a commercially available patent database. Upon further
investigation, although the manufacturers of the databases claim worldwide coverage,
most do not provide data for patent offices other than the largest patent offices in Europe

Page 8 of 36

and the rest of the developed world. One such database, Micropatent, claimed to possibly
have patent data on Malaysia. However, upon further investigation, it was admitted by a
company representative that the patent information would probably be sporadic and
inconsistent for Malaysia and other countries with less advanced patent offices.
Therefore, it would not be worthwhile to purchase such a database for the information
desired for this report. As a result, the best option for one interested in obtaining specific
data regarding Malaysian patents would be to visit the Malaysian intellectual property
office in Kuala Lumpur.

Agriculture and Biotechnology in Malaysia

According to the USDAs Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN)
report, Malaysia is currently experimenting with multiple genetically modified crops.
Such projects include rice to resist the tungro virus, papaya to resist ring-spot virus
infection, papayas and bananas to have an increased shelf life, pineapples to resist black
heart, chili to resist various viruses, and genetically engineered palm oil that would
increase its levels of oleate, stearate, and vitamins A and E. Malaysia is one of the
worlds top producers of palm oil. In addition, Malaysia is currently conducting confined
field trials for delayed-ripening papaya, and experimenting with bio-diesels and bioplastics. To what degree each respective project is occurring in the public or private
sector is not provided by the data gathered for this report. Despite these research projects
that are non-commercially developing these crops, Malaysia has not yet commercially
produced a bio-engineered crop.12

Page 9 of 36

With respect to the importation of transgenically produced crops, Malaysia

currently has no restrictions. Although transgenically modified corn has not been
restricted, its importation has not yet been officially approved. Roundup Ready Soybeans
have been officially approved.13
Regarding biotechnology policy in Malaysia, a Biosafety Act will soon be
implemented in which all products containing more than 3% transgenically modified
content will be required to be labeled. The USDA is still of the opinion that Malaysia
further needs to adopt unified, transparent and science-based legislation and regulations
that will allow the free trade and commercialization of biotech products, despite certain
recent changes.15 In April 2005, the prime minister of Malaysia created a National
Biotechnology Policy aimed in part at advancing Malaysias role in the world of
agricultural biotechnology. The new policy will provide increased funding for R&D,
training, and patent applications. The Malaysian government is also providing 100% tax
relief for 10 years for corporations that invest in Malaysian biotechnology.14

Research and Development in Malaysia

In this section, the R&D activities that occur in Malaysia will be examined. The
first part will report on innovation in Malaysia. Innovation reflects upon what is actually
produced in a given country. The next part of this section will analyze the expenditure on
R&D activities in both the private and public sector. Additionally, R&D expenditure in
the agricultural and biotechnological fields of research will be examined in somewhat
more detail.

Page 10 of 36

The information pertaining to innovation in Malaysia was taken from a report

published by MASTIC in 2003, which reports on innovation activities during 2000-2001.
The data was collected from 4,000 surveys sent to Malaysian businesses. Only 749
surveys were returned, and of those, only 263 companies indicated that innovating
activities were carried out at their place of business. Of the innovating companies
profiled, only one-third are subsidiaries of other companies, and only 28 out of 88 of the
companies that are subsidiaries have parent companies with foreign headquarters.16
Whether the companies that failed to return the questionnaires were companies that are
considered innovating companies is not known. This incompleteness must be taken into
consideration when analyzing the state of innovation in Malaysia.
The manufacturing sector accounts for roughly a third of Malaysias GDP.17
Although it is impossible to gather from the survey how many innovating companies
produce agricultural biotechnologies, two industries exist that could potentially be
creating technologies relating to agriculture: food products and beverages, and chemicals
and chemical products. Food products and beverages are produced by 13% of the
surveyed Malaysian companies, and chemicals and chemical products were produced by
5% of the companies surveyed (Fig. 3).

Page 11 of 36

Figure 3. Innovating Malaysian companies by industry, 2000-2001 (taken from the 2003 MASTIC report
on innovation in Malaysia18).

Innovating companies were also asked to provide information regarding methods

used to gather information used for R&D activities. Interestingly, patent disclosure was
the least likely medium to be used to gather information regarding innovation. In fact,
132 (52%) of surveyed companies did not use patent disclosures at all as a source of
information (Fig. 4). Whether this is due to characteristics of the Malaysian patent
system, such as its perceived effectiveness, is difficult to determine.

Page 12 of 36

Figure 4. Sources of information for innovating Malaysian companies (taken from the 2003 MASTIC
report on innovation19).

Documented R&D expenditure activities were also surveyed. This data was
published in2004 survey by MASTIC on data collected from a 2002 survey. 2 public
sectors were surveyed: governmental agencies and research institutions (GRI) and
institutes of higher learning (IHL). 39 out of 41 GRI organizations responded, and 17 out
of 18 IHL organizations responded. Only 461 out of 2,312 companies from the private
sector responded to the survey. Of these, only 198 had research and development
activities.20
The purpose of the R&D survey was to assess trends and developments in R&D
between the private and public sector. A total of 254 responding organizations were
surveyed, totaling 6,372 projects. 1,716 of the projects were from private sector
companies. Although only 17 of the organizations were IHL, this group had the largest
number of projects at 3,537. In addition, GRI were responsible for 1,119 of the ongoing
Page 13 of 36

projects.21 In 2002, Malaysia had a gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) of over

US$600M, which is up from US$400M in 2000, and part of an increasing trend (RD).
About US$25M, or 3.9% of the GERD in 2002 was in agricultural sciences (Fig. 5).

Figure 5. Proportion of gross expenditure by field of research (taken from the 2004 MASTIC national
survey on R&D 22).

With respect to other countries in the region, Malaysia had relatively modest
R&D expenditures in comparison to Singapore, which expended just under US$2B in
2002. However, Malaysia expended more in R&D than Thailand, Indonesia or the
Philippines, which expended US$300M, US$55M, US$48M, respectively.23 However,
the exact percentage of these countries R&D expenditure relative to their GDP would
require further calculations.
Total R&D expenditure in the private sector has always been more than that
observed in the public sector. Although a trend has been observed in which public sector
expenditure has increased in percentage with respect to the private sector, this trend
reversed in 2002. In 1996, the public sector contributed 27.1% of the total R&D
expenditure. This percentage increased to 33.8% in 1998 and to 42.1% in 2000, but fell

Page 14 of 36

to 34.7% in 2002 (Fig. 6). This decrease however, was attributed to a 66% increase in
private sector expenditure from 2000 to 2002 (Fig 6).

Figure 6. Gross expenditure between public and private sector on R&D (taken from the 2004 MASTIC
national survey on R&D24).

Both the agricultural and biological sciences exhibit greater expenditure in the
public rather than the private sector. This contrasts with overall gross expenditure as
noted in figure 6. These data may reflect a governmental interest in furthering
Malaysias biotechnology industry. In 2002, the public sector expended US$17M in the
agricultural sciences field, whereas the private sector expended US$7M. In the biological
sciences field, the public sector expended US$12.5M, with the private sector only
showing an expenditure of US$1M (Fig. 7). However, both the agricultural and
biological sciences have seen overall decreases in expenditure in the private and public
sectors. This is noteworthy given Malaysias ostensible interest in promoting their
biotechnology industry. In the agricultural sciences field, public sector expenditure saw a
significant decrease from US$26M to around US$17M, although no similar decrease was
observed in the private sector. In the biological sciences, the public sector saw a more

Page 15 of 36

modest decrease in expenditure, from US$14M to US$12.5M, whereas the private sector
saw more than a 50% decrease in expenditure, from US$2.5M to US$1M (Fig. 7).

Figure 7. Major R&D expenditure between public and private sector by field of research (taken from the
2004 MASTIC national survey on R&D25).

The 2004 MASTIC report also examined expenditure with respect to field of
research for the two public sectors. The GRI public sector expended US$12.5M (9.7% of
its total expenditure on agricultural sciences), and US$9M (7.2%) on biotechnology (Fig.
8A). The IHL public sector expended US$9M (10.0%) on biological sciences (Fig. 8B).
Unlike the GRI public sector, the IHL public sector does not include agricultural sciences
as part of a field of research. Presumably, expenditure on the agricultural sciences in the
IHL sector would be included under the biological sciences category.

Page 16 of 36

Figure 8. Proportion of expenditure by field of research in both the A) GRI and B) IHL public sectors
(taken from the 2004 MASTIC national survey on R&D26).

Human Resources for Science and Technology in Malaysia

This section of the report describes Malaysias commitment to science and
technology in general, and to training and retaining research personnel. The data
presented in this section have been compiled from MASTICs 2002 survey of R&D, the
2000-01 National Survey of Innovation, and from institutional reports from relevant
governmental agencies.27
The percentage of researchers in Malaysia is increasing relative to its population.
In 1998, Malaysia had 2.8 researchers per 10,000 citizens, 6.4 in 2000, and 7.3 in 2002.28

Page 17 of 36

A researcher is defined as anyone who participates in research activities full time, and has
either a Ph.D., masters, or bachelors degree. Technicians and other R&D personnel are
not considered researchers. In 1998, the total number of researchers was 12,127 and in
2002, the number increased to 24,937.29 In considering both researchers and technicians,
the ratio Malaysia exhibited in comparison to the general population was 15:10,000. In
comparison to other developed nations in the region, Malaysia has a relatively low ratio
of R&D personnel. South Korea and Singapore, for example, have ratios of science and
technology personnel to the general population of 60:10,000 and 83:10,000,
respectively.30
With respect to agriculture, the public sector of Malaysia has a higher headcount
than the private sector. For all sectors in 2002, 1,615 of the 12,127 researchers (13.3%)
were involved in agricultural research (Fig. 9). In examining the breakdown with respect
to sector, 895 of the 1,615 (55.4%) agricultural researchers were in the GRI public sector;
581 of the 1,615 (36.0%) were IHL; and only 139 of the 1,615 (8.6%) were private sector
researchers (Fig. 10). It should be noted that agricultural researchers may not necessarily
be involved in agricultural biotechnology research. The field of research breakdown by
sector also provides data for the number of researchers in the biological sciences. The
MASTIC report does not specify whether these researchers are taken from the applied
sciences, or the medical & health sciences category when examining the breakdown of
total researchers (public and private) by field of research (see Fig. 9).

Page 18 of 36

Figure 9. Number of researchers by field of research in Malaysia in 2002 (taken from the 2004 MASTIC
report on Malaysian Science and Technology Indicators31).

Figure 10. Number of researchers by sector and selected fields (taken from the 2004 MASTIC report on
Malaysian Science and Technology Indicators32).

Page 19 of 36

Most of the researchers in Malaysia today are Malaysian citizens. In 2002, the
ratio of Malaysian researchers to foreign researchers was 13.0:1, and was 12.7:1 in
2000.33 The MASTIC science and technology indicators report suggests this large ratio is
consistent with a government policy of utilizing local human resources. Whether other
factors, such as a research environment that may not be attractive to foreign scientists
also contributes to the low number of foreign scientists, is unknown.

Conclusion for Malaysia

Malaysia, like many other developing countries, relies on agriculture, and hopes
to increase its use of biotechnology to increase agricultural output. A significant
proportion of this report has been extracted from various studies provided by the
Malaysian government. One must be aware of the fact that much of the data was
acquired four to six years ago. Further, when analyzing trends many potential
respondents did not make the effort to return their surveys. Therefore, the possibility
exists that observed trends may simply be a result of temporary situations or insufficient
data that could alter any particular predictive landscape.
Not many patents are granted in Malaysia, and only a small percentage are
granted to Malaysian citizens. Additionally, over half of innovating businesses in
Malaysia do not utilize patent disclosures as a source of information. Possible
explanations are only intelligent suppositions. Some reasons could include either
unfamiliarity with the patent system, or local culture and custom. Further possibilities
that might explain the lack of reliance on the patent system could be a lack of confidence
in the enforceability of a patent, or its perceived effectiveness when balanced against the

Page 20 of 36

cost of patenting. Also, with the accession to the PCT and TRIPS, some Malaysian
citizens may perceive the patent system as an effect of globalization that only benefits
wealthier developed countries. Although many possibilities could explain this
observation, Malaysian government and industry seems to be interested in strengthening
the patent system. Recent policy decisions that substantiate this notion are Malaysias
accession to both TRIPS and the PCT. As the accession to the PCT will undoubtedly
increase the protection of innovation in Malaysia, it will be interesting to observe what
effect this will have on Malaysias success in providing agricultural biotechnologies to
the world market in the future.
It is unknown how many of the patents granted in Malaysia are for innovations
related to the agricultural biotechnology field. The only way to truly obtain information
pertaining to Malaysian patents as they relate to agricultural biotechnology will probably
be to either visit the Malaysian patent office, or start a correspondence with a Malaysian
official within their patent office. Furthermore, whether evaluating patents, innovative
capabilities, or R&D expenditure, one must take into consideration the fact that each field
of research may be differently dedicated to agricultural biotechnology. For example,
agriculture or biological sciences are used as fields of research categories in the
MASTIC reports. However, it is not known definitively which categories the innovations
or researchers that enable agricultural biotechnology might belong to.
Malaysia appears to be increasing its percentage expenditure on agricultural
science in the public sector in comparison to the private sector. What is interesting is that
expenditure in this field of research was showing a decreasing trend around the first part
of this decade. This is particularly noteworthy given the 2005 National Biotechnology

Page 21 of 36

Policy that aims to advance Malaysias role in agricultural biotechnology by investing

over US$3.7B in this area. Because the MASTIC reports were conducted just prior to the
introduction of this policy, it is possibile that these trends are reversing. Another
interesting observation relating to Malaysias desire to increase its prominence in
biotechnology is its reliance on local brainpower. Whether the 2005 biotechnology
policy addresses this issue is unknown. If Malaysia desires to implement these policies,
it must retain foreign researchers from countries with more developed technologies.
Although Malaysia has implemented a program that provides incentives to encourage
foreign and Malaysian scientists residing overseas to work in Malaysia, from 2001 to
2004 less than one half of one percent of Malaysian scientists working abroad returned.34
For these new policies to be effective, Malaysia must provide greater incentives to
encourage foreign and Malaysian scientists working abroad to return.

THAILAND
Thailand is a Southeast Asian country with a population of over 64 million
people, and a GDP of US$560B.35 Agriculture is a major industry in Thailand. In fact,
Thailand is the largest exporter of rice in the world. In 2001, over 7 million tons of rice
were exported.36 Thailand aims to become the kitchen of the world, or one of the
largest exporters of agricultural goods. Because of this, Thailand is very interested in the
potential of agricultural biotechnology. However, Thailands relationship with the ideals
of agricultural biotechnology have not always been as favourable. In 2001, though
Thailand had not signed onto the Convention of Biological Diversity37, Thailands
cabinet passed a resolution that prohibited the use of agricultural biotechnology with an

Page 22 of 36

exception for purposes of research. This moratorium resulted from the lobbying by those
opposed to agriculture biotechnology. However the Thai government overturned this
moratorium in 2004.38,39 This action wasnt necessarily to promote the technology, but to
allow for the commercialization of crops that have been genetically engineered.40
The Thailand section of this report will first attempt to examine the current state
of the Thai patent system. This section will also discuss improvements that have been
suggested to modernize Thailands patent system, with particular focus on intellectual
property relating to agricultural biotechnology. Next, the current environment of
agricultural biotechnology in Thailand will be discussed. Thirdly, the section will
address the current and desired state of research and development in Thailand and lastly,
the current and proposed number of personnel dedicated to agricultural biotechnology in
Thailand will be discussed.

Thai Patents
Currently, Thailand is not a signatory to any international convention for
reciprocal protection of patents, although bilateral agreements with other countries do
exist. Thai patent law basically provides two types of patents: inventions and
designs. The number of patents granted in Thailand is comparable to that of Malaysia,
although a greater percentage of the patents granted are to Thai citizens. For example, in
2004, 45% of patents granted were to Thai nationals. However, 2004 was an unusual
year in that the number of granted patents decreased in comparison to the previous two
years (Fig. 11).

Page 23 of 36

NUMBER OF GRANTED PATENTS

THAI
FOREIGN
TOTAL

1999
110
488
598

2000
164
580
744

2001
418
1,098
1,516

2002
635
1,831
2,466

2003
786
1,795
2,581

2004
864
1071
1,935

Fig. 11. Number of patents granted, both invention and design, in Thailand (from S&I International
Bangkok Office41).

If one examines patents granted for only for inventions, and not designs, the number of
patents granted to Thai nationals is considerably smaller, as low as 8%. The two
countries that have the most inventors filing for Thai patents are Japan and the United
States (Fig. 12).

Figure 12. Number of invention patents granted by country in Thailand (from S&I International Bangkok
Office41).

With respect to living organisms, microbes and any components thereof which
exist naturally; animal, plant and extracted substances from animals or plants, are not
patentable. This prohibition is broad, and presumably includes life forms that are not
naturally occurring.42 These prohibitions will likely decrease agricultural biotechnology

Page 24 of 36

development in Thailand. As will be discussed later in this report, Thailand desires to

create a stronger biotechnology industry and strengthen its infrastructure to accomplish
these goals. According to a 2004 strategy report prepared by the International Intellectual
Property Institute (IIPI), Thailand would need to implement many adjustments to its
current patent system in order to achieve its desired advances in biotechnology.
The IIPI recommends that Thailand change its patent laws to allow non-naturally
occurring life forms to be patentable subject matter.43 The IIPI argues that non-naturally
occurring life forms are staples of modern biotechnology, and without this reform, there
will be little incentive to invest in Thailands biotechnology efforts. Further, it
recommends that Thailand provide patent property rights to universities and national
research centers, and set up technology transfer offices, similar to the policy achieved by
the Bayh-Dole act in the United States.44 Furthermore, the IIPI suggests that Thailand
increase its intellectual property education programs, and encourage the development of
an intellectual property bar that will provide attorneys skilled in IP-related advice.45
Finally, the IIPI recommends that Thailand enhance intellectual property-related
enforcement. This would include providing additional training to Thai judges that
focuses on patent and trade secret adjudication, and to expand the use of other forms of
intellectual property dispute resolution.46
Thailands patent system is less favourable to agricultural biotechnology
development than Malaysias. Thailand needs to implement many changes to implement
the advances the country desires. Discovering existing Thai agricultural biotechnology
patents is subject to the same problems a searching for patents in the Malaysia. Unlike
Malaysia, the Thai patent office does have a searchable patent database.47 However, the

Page 25 of 36

database is in Thai. As a result, in order to obtain this information, one would probably
be required to visit the Thai patent officewith a translator. [quick question: did you
check US patents granted to Thai residents? Was any of this info easily available?]

Agriculture and Biotechnology in Thailand

Thailand is currently struggling with strategies regarding agricultural
biotechnology policy. Thailand desires to continue its prominence as a world leader in
crop export, and realizes that biotechnology will be important in accomplishing this goal.
However, Thailand does not allow the importation or production of transgenic crops for
commercial purposes except for imports or sales of soybeans and corn. This failure to
deregulate is likely a result of fears that Thailand will lose export sales to EU nations if
they produce crops containing GMOs.48 Similar trends in other developing countries due
to fears of export restrictions have been well documented.49 A further criticism of
Thailands failure to implement biotechnology policy is the fact that Thailand has not
created any national biosafety laws or framework. This has been reported by many antiGMO organizations, and is believed to be in part responsible for the three year
moratorium that existed against transgenically produced crops. However, biosafetyrelated agencies and institutions have been set up, and Thailand is now establishing a
National Biosafety Framework.50
Despite the fact that Thailand does not allow the production of transgenically
produced crops other than corn and soybean, agricultural crop production attracts the
most research and development interest in Thailand.51 As Thailand is the worlds leader
in rice exports, much research focuses on rice biotechnology. Current rice programs

Page 26 of 36

include resistance to blast disease and the sequencing of the rice genome.52,53 Other crop
programs include resistance to the tomato bacterial wilt, the papaya ring spot virus, the
chili vein-banding mottle virus, and the cowpea aphid-borne mosaic virus that affects the
yard longbean. Additionally, enabling technologies are being researched in Thai labs,
including plant transformation, DNA fingerprinting and molecular diagnosis of plant
disease. A result of this has been the transformation of a local cotton variety using Bt
genes.54 As mentioned previously, most production of transgenic crops is not allowed in
Thailand, and as a result, most transgenically produced crops are still in the
laboratory.55,56 In addition to Thailands crop programs, efforts are also underway to
produce bio-insecticides and herbicides.57,58
Only a few transgenically produced crops have actually undergone field testing,
most likely due to Thailands weak infrastructure for most operational steps in field
testing procedures. Furthermore, all field testing that has occurred has been with foreign
produced crops. These crops include the Flavr Savr tomato (produced by Calgene), Bt
cotton produced by Monsanto, and Bt corn made by Novartis.59,60

Research and Development in Thailand

In Thailand, most funding for research is provided by the government.61 With
respect to biotechnology, 80% of R&D funding comes from the public sector. The Thai
government hopes to increase private funding, both from local and foreign investors, to
an amount equal to the contributions of the public sector. In 2001, total R&D
expenditures made available to Thai universities was approximately US$36M. However,

Page 27 of 36

much of the research in Thailand is applied, focusing on current issues. As a result of the
lack of basic research, Thailand lacks sufficient R&D personnel to carry out a cuttingedge biotechnology industry.62 Of the 126,661 graduate of Thai universities in 2000,
only 172 earned Ph.D.s for any discipline.63
In 2004, Thailands National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
published Thailands National Biotechnology Policy Framework for 2004-2009. The
purpose of that report was to provide a roadmap for the advancement of biotechnology in
Thailand. Three areas of focus addressed in the framework relate to agricultural
biotechnology: investment, crop export and biotechnology personnel.
By 2009, Thailand hopes to have R&D investment reach US$125M, with the
creation of over 100 new biotechnology companies and an increase of over 200% in
biotechnology-related patents. To do this, Thailand hopes to increase its biotechnology
infrastructure, set forth clear policy on contentious issues, and create a favorable
environment for private investment that would lead to the creation of biotechnology
companies with listings on the Stock Exchange of Thailand.64
Thailand also wishes to be known as the kitchen of the world, as a world leader
in exported crops. Currently, Thailand is ranked twelfth in the export of food products.
Thailand wishes to triple its export value to US$30B, which would place it among the top
5 food exporting countries in the world. To accomplish these goals, Thailand wishes to
promote agricultural biotechnology for food production and food safety diagnosis.65

Human Resources for Science and Technology in Thailand

Page 28 of 36

Thailand desires to increase its number of biotechnology scientists. According to

Thailands National Biotechnology Policy Framework, by 2009, Thailand aims to have
over 5,000 dedicated researchers that focus on biotechnology in both the public and
private sector, with over 10,000 students at the bachelor, master and doctoral level
focusing on degrees that relate to biotechnology. This would be accomplished in part by
providing a directory of Thailands biotechnology researchers, creating a research
environment that is attractive to biotechnology scientists from both Thailand and foreign
countries, and to expedite the development of biotechnologies in terms of both
infrastructure and human resources.66

Conclusion for Thailand

As with Malaysia, obtaining information on Thai patents can be difficult.
Relatively few patents are granted in Thailand, and the majority of patents are granted to
foreign nationals. The remaining patents granted each year to Thai citizens are likely to
contain few, if any, patents granted to innovators of agricultural biotechnology. In order
to confirm these predictions however, one would likely need to visit the Thai patent
office.
Similar to Malaysia, Thailand desires to increase private funding for
biotechnology. Currently, most agricultural biotechnology expenditure is provided by the
Thai government. However, a question exists as to whether or not this will aid the
humanitarian efforts of the public sector. Why does Thailand wish to promote private
investment? Is it solely for the purposes of boosting its economy through increases in
export production, or does the Thai government also have a humanitarian interest in

Page 29 of 36

increasing the nutritional requirements of its population? As far as can be gathered by its
framework report, Thailands interest in increasing its biotechnology productivity seems
to be mostly economically driven. Whether or not this could be to the advantage or
disadvantage of local public sector biotechnology firms can only be speculated upon.
Although Thailands interest in the progression of biotechnology may seem at
first glance to only benefit an economically driven agenda, the public sector may likewise
benefit. For example, a recent BIOTEC report predicts that Thailands biotechnology
success depends on the ability of Thai scientists to develop their own enabling
technologies that provide the operational freedom to work around the intellectual
property rights granted by other countries.67 If a technology is discovered locally, and
found to promote Thailands private sector biotechnology industry, then the possibility
exists that Thailands public sector may also utilize that same technology without
concerns of foreign patent infringement. This ultimately depends on how Thailands
intellectual property laws develop to meet its technological demand.
Lastly, Thailand has experienced unusually active GMO opposition. Anti-GMO
groups are thought to have been largely responsible for the moratorium on genetically
modified crops during the 2001-2004 time period. In an effort to meet its biotechnology
goals while balancing the interests of anti-GMO groups, Thailand has produced a
biotechnology policy framework. This framework focuses on furthering its
biotechnology agenda and provides suggestions on creating policy that would closely
monitor the possible ill effects of biotechnology that are of concern to biotechnology
opponents. Some scientists and biotechnology advocates are apprehensive of the
framework68, suggesting that the framework is a superficial effort that will be difficult to

Page 30 of 36

achieve unless Thailand can answer the concerns of anti-biotechnology groups and other
concerns about export reduction.

SUMMARY
Malaysia and Thailand are both developing countries that are interested in
promoting agricultural biotechnology. Although both countries have patent offices that
grant very few patents to their own citizens, Malaysia seems to be taking the steps
necessary to develop a patent system more harmonized with that of more developed
nations, including accession to the PCT and TRIPS. Thailand will probably be required
to modernize it patent laws if it wishes to modernize its biotechnological industry. With
respect to current agricultural biotechnology, Thailand has more restrictions on GMO
crops then does Malaysia. Over-restrictive regulations could potentially create additional
barriers to biotechnological success. Whether these restrictions are appropriate is
probably difficult to determine given how relatively recent the field of biotechnology is.
Because of potential deficiencies in the data reported, it is difficult to asses which
country is providing a greater expenditure on biotechnology. However, both countries
have explicitly stated desires to increase their expenditure on biotechnology. Thailand has
expressed interest in creating an environment more conducive to biotechnology in an
effort to encourage a greater expenditure on biotechnology within the private sector.
Similar to Thailand, Malaysian fields that relate to agricultural biotechnology are
supported more by the public sector. Whether private sector expenditure in this field will
increase with respect to the public sector is not known. Regarding the number of
dedicated researchers in the field of agricultural biotechnology, a comparison between

Page 31 of 36

Malaysia and Thailand will be difficult, as the data analyzed for this report only suggests
Thailands projected, and not actual, number of scientists that will be dedicated to
agricultural biotechnology. Agricultural biotechnology is a rapidly advancing field of
interest to both Malaysia and Thailand. The next 10 years should be an interesting period
to observe how successful both Malaysia and Thailand will be relative to their interests
and current biotechnological infrastructure.

_________________________________
1

Prepared by Gregory C. Ellis, Ph.D., University of Washington School of Law, Seattle,

Washington, J.D. class of 2008.
2

CIA Factbook, Section on Malaysia, available at

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/my.html (last visited Aug. 23, 2006).
3

Malaysian Industrial Development Authority, Section on Intellectual Property

Protection, available at http://www.mida.gov.my/beta/view.php?cat=3&scat=636 (last
visited Aug. 23, 2006).
4

Id.

World Trade Organization, Section on TRIPS, available at

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm (last visited Aug. 23, 2006).

World Intellectual Property Organization, Section on News & Events, Malaysia and El
Salvador accede to WIPOs patent cooperation treaty, available at
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/prdocs/en/2006/wipo_upd_2006_276.html (last visited Aug.
23, 2006).

Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia, Section on Patents, available at

http://www.myipo.gov.my/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=2 (last visited
Aug. 23, 2006).
8

Malaysian Science and Technology Information Centre (MASTIC), Malaysian Science

and Technology Indicators 2004 report, chapter 5, 73-75 (2004).
9

See id. at 75.

Page 32 of 36

10

See id. at 77.

11

See id. at 79.

12

USDA Foreign Agriculture Service Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN)

2005 Report, Malaysia at 4 (2005).

13

Id.

14

Malaysia Biotechnology Corporation, Section on the National Biotechnology Policy,

An Overview of Malaysias National Biotechnology Policy, available at
http://www.biotechcorp.com.my/biotechinmalaysia/nationalpolicy.htm (last visited Aug.
24, 2006).

15

USDA Foreign Agriculture Service Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN)

2005 Report, Malaysia at 1 (2005).

16

Malaysian Science and Technology Information Centre (MASTIC), National Survey of

Innovation, 2000-2001 Report, executive summary (2003).
17

Malaysian Science and Technology Information Centre (MASTIC), National Survey of

Innovation, 2000-2001 Report, chapter 3 at 1 (2003).
18

Malaysian Science and Technology Information Centre (MASTIC), National Survey of

Innovation, 2000-2001 Report, chapter 4 at 13 (2003).
19

Id. at 22.

20

Malaysian Science and Technology Information Centre (MASTIC), National Survey of

Research and Devlopment 2004 Report at 12 (2004).
21

Id. at 10.

22

Id. at 17.

23

Id. at 42.

24

Id. at 21.

25

Id. at 22.

26

Id. at 27, 32.

27

Malaysian Science and Technology Information Centre (MASTIC), Malaysian Science

and Technology Indicators 2004 report, chapter 1 at3 (2004).

Page 33 of 36

28

Malaysian Science and Technology Information Centre (MASTIC), Malaysian Science

and Technology Indicators 2004 report, chapter 4 at 34 (2004).
29

Id. at 35.

30

Id. at 57.

31

Id. at 40.

32

Id. at 41.

33

Id. at 42.

34

Id. at 57.

35

CIA Factbook, Section on Thailand, available at

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/th.html (last visited Aug. 30, 2006).
36

Morakot Tanticharoen, (Thai) National Center for Genetic Engineering and

Biotechnology (BIOTEC), Research and Development on Agricultural Biotechnology in
Thailand (2004).
37

Maorkot Tanticharoen, Rudd Valyasevi, Jade Donavanik and Thippayawan

Thanapaisal, (Thai) National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
(BIOTEC), Recent Major Developments of Biotechnology in Thailand (2004).
38

Greenpeace, Section on Press Releases, Thailand taking the disastrous path to GMOs,
available at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/thailand-taking-thedisastrous (last visited Sept. 6, 2006).

39

Monsanto, Section on News, Thailand to reverse three-year moratorium on cultivation

of genetically modified crops, available at
http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=8071 (last visited Sept. 6, 2006).
40

Id.

41

S&I International Bangkok Office, Section on Thai patent statistics, available at

www.s-i-asia.com/patents.htm (last visited Sept. 1, 2006).
42

Michael P. Ryan and Eric Garduno, International Intellectual Property Institute, An

intellectual property system in Thailand bor bio-innovation and commercialization: A
national strategy for business, government, and the technology community, 2-3 (2004).

43

Id.

44

Id., 4-7.

Page 34 of 36

45

Id. at 9.

46

Id., 13-14.

47

Available at http://www1.ipic.moc.go.th (last visited Sept. 6, 2006).

48

USDA Foreign Agriculture Service Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN)

2005 Report, Thailand at 4 (2006).

49

see Neil D. Hamilton, Forced Feeding: New Legal Issues in the Biotechnology Policy
Debate, 17 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 37, 41 (2005).
50

USDA Foreign Agriculture Service Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN)

2005 Report, Thailand at 3 (2006).

51

USDA Foreign Agriculture Service Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN)

2005 Report, Thailand at 5 (2006).

52

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Section on Southeast Asia Market Information,

The Biotechnology Sector in Thailand, July 2002, available at
http://www.ats.agr.gc.ca/asean/e3337.htm (last visited Sept. 6, 2006).
53

Morakot Tanticharoen, (Thai) National Center for Genetic Engineering and

Biotechnology (BIOTEC), Research and Development on Agricultural Biotechnology in
Thailand (2004).
54

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Section on Southeast Asia Market Information,

The Biotechnology Sector in Thailand, July 2002, available at
http://www.ats.agr.gc.ca/asean/e3337.htm (last visited Sept. 6, 2006).
55

Id.

56

USDA Foreign Agriculture Service Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN)

2005 Report, Thailand at 4 (2006).

57

Morakot Tanticharoen, (Thai) National Center for Genetic Engineering and

Biotechnology (BIOTEC), Research and Development on Agricultural Biotechnology in
Thailand (2004).
58

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Section on Southeast Asia Market Information,

The Biotechnology Sector in Thailand, July 2002, available at
http://www.ats.agr.gc.ca/asean/e3337.htm (last visited Sept. 6, 2006).
59

Id.

Page 35 of 36

60

USDA Foreign Agriculture Service Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN)

2005 Report, Thailand at 4 (2006).

61

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Section on Southeast Asia Market Information,

The Biotechnology Sector in Thailand, July 2002, available at
http://www.ats.agr.gc.ca/asean/e3337.htm (last visited Sept. 6, 2006).
62

Id.

63

Id.

64

National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Thailands National

Biotechnology Policy Framework 2004-2009, 4-5 (2005).
65

Id., 7-8.

66

Id., 19-21.

67

Maorkot Tanticharoen, Rudd Valyasevi, Jade Donavanik and Thippayawan

Thanapaisal, (Thai) National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
(BIOTEC), Recent Major Developments of Biotechnology in Thailand, 6-8 (2004).
68

USDA Foreign Agriculture Service Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN)

2005 Report, Thailand at 3 (2006).

Page 36 of 36