Bilateral science and technology (S&T) agreements are important because they contribute to market-building and intellectual capital accumulation for transnational corporations. The US alone has over 800 bilateral S&T agreements being implemented in over 60 countries all over the world, involving research expenditures of an unknown amount. The federally-supported agreements carry stringent obligations to secure and protect US intellectual property rights and a good number of them focus on the life sciences. It is common practice for bilateral S&T agreement to serve non-S&T policy objectives, and in the US, a prominent discussion has been going on about how to better integrate S&T cooperation within national foreign policy.
In the case of the US , these agreements serve to pressure countries to revise their standards for protection of investment and IPR. Up until recently, a 1990 model IPR protocol was annexed to each agreement. That protocol says that each party has full rights to any IPR generated under the agreement in its own country, while rights in third countries will be negotiated separately. But it also says that if one participating country does not protect such IPR under its domestic laws, and the other does, the IPR-protecting country will walk away with all the rights – worldwide. This provision has been extremely controversial and caused several countries to either haggle over the text or walk away from the research funds. The most famous case is India, which carried out an open dispute with the US over this policy from 1987-1992. The US was basically asking for all the rights to any drug patents coming out of joint vaccine and diagnostics research, since India does not allow for patents on pharmaceutical products – unless, of course, India would like to revise its patent law. The dispute put all Indo-US research cooperation on hold for six years, until the US was willing to amend its protocol to respect India’s rights.
Australia, which has about 55 bilateral research cooperation agreements with 25 countries, has also been accused of pushing its own standards for investment and IPR protection through these agreements in countries like the Philippines.
The European Union has about 30 bilateral S&T cooperation agreements with third countries.
last update: May 2012
PANG warns against Fiji’s ratification of IEPA | 22-Jul-2014
The secret deal that threatens NHS | 19-Jul-2014
Les négociations TAFTA et CETA utilisées pour affaiblir la législation climatique européenne | 17-Jul-2014
Malta: Anti-TTIP front launched | 15-Jul-2014
EJN condemns EPA | 13-Jul-2014
EFF: We join dozens of organizations and businesses to protest TPP copyright proposals | 11-Jul-2014
Susan George : “La mobilisation contre le traité transatlantique est difficile à cause du secret” | 11-Jul-2014
Los agricultores protestan en Seúl por el TLC con China | 10-Jul-2014
Las protestas contra el TTIP en el Reino Unido se centran en la privatización del Sistema Nacional de Salud (NHS) | 10-Jul-2014
Toutes et tous hors Tafta ! | 10-Jul-2014
Farmers protest China FTA in Seoul | 10-Jul-2014
AFL-CIO and ETUC issue "Declaration of Joint Principles" | 10-Jul-2014
Ilana Solomon : « En matière d’énergie et de climat, le TTIP nous entraîne exactement dans la mauvaise direction. » | 8-Jul-2014
Who lobbies most on TTIP? | 8-Jul-2014