This is worth your time.
Especially pay attention from 11:00 all the way to 16:00.
Phylos CEO basically explains how they acquired the data they needed from their testing clients.
He goes on explaining how this aggregated data now creates a barrier to entry protecting them from competition.
Their board of advisors are specifically appointed to facilitate a future acquisition (upon federal legalization) by one of the Big 4 Ag companies, which are Syngenta, Dow Dupont, Bayer and BASF.
This latest development regarding Phylos less-than-scrupulous data brokering has made for interesting cannabis conversation fodder. What does our @memberdirectory think this means for the future of cannabis data and breeding and, ultimately, confidence?
Crushing - at 14:49:00 when he talks about having the most “trust” in the cannabis industry, I cringed.
Sounds like a lawsuit for fraud in the making.
It is definitely an original and unique approach to the industry come the time and impact it is having on the population. If it catches wind there will be another competitive market to tend to.
I’ve been trying to remain quiet on this, but I think it’s important for me, as the director of the genetics program at Steep Hill to speak out. I’m doing so partially to distinguish ourselves from what has been going on related to this disclosure, but also to try to put in perspective what it takes to do the kind of work that Steep Hill, Medicinal Genomics and even Phylos do. Also, how the industry needs to change, fundamentally, with respect to the concept of IP and how the practices currently in place in the industry lead to this kind of thing happening.
First, let me say that Steep Hill has no breeding program. We have never done it and are actually precluded from it, due to us holding a license in the Independent Testing Lab category in the California regulations. Because of this, we can’t have ANY financial interest in ANY other license in the industry, at least in California. Steep Hill parent company is based in California, and it is the only Steep Hill (others are licensees) that performs genetic testing. So, other Steep Hill licenses offer genetics services by sending the cards they collect back to the parent company. Thus, Steep Hill won’t and CAN’T cultivate or breed. This is why we work with partners and build markers for breeders to use, LIKE the tools used in Big Ag.
Having gotten that out of the way, the next thing to address is data. Steep hill makes it clear up front. When you test with us, chemically or genetically, we WILL use your data in an aggregate manner. Meaning, we take all the data we’ve gotten from various testing put it into the old data cruncher and get interesting facts out that we turn in to breeding markers. Markers that we then offer to the entire industry so everyone can use them. Do you have to test with Steep Hill to get them? Well yes, but that’s because Steep Hill is the one doing all the analysis and developing models so that we can identify the breeding markers we have. We need to pay for that internal research, so we create IP around methods of identifying the markers, not the markers themselves, OR your genetics. In fact, using Doug’s Varin (highest THCVA producer to date) as an example, when we discovered that this strain was as special as it was, WE contacted the breeder who was UNAWARE of what he had and told him, hey you better do something with this, it’s one of a kind. That’s what a genetic PARTNER does. Uses the information that is accumulated using clients data, to help the client. What’s so interesting is that when we started this… people accused Steep Hill of stealing genetics and trying to become “Monsanto”. There were people all over California and Oregon saying that Steep Hill was stealing genetics. Quite Ironic.
So more on data. while this may sound like i’m being a jerk, but any one strain’s genetic data is pretty much worthless. Without being able to look at tens or hundreds of sequences and aligning them so you can identify points of difference you really have only a bunch of A’s G’s T’s and C’s. It isn’t until you see where the A, G, C and T’s differ by comparing a lot of different strains that you see anything worthwhile. So, Steep Hill says up front, if you test with us, this is what we do, and we will tell you if you have anything interesting. Further we give you all your data, chemical tests, genetics test, etc. It was using this approach that allowed us to release the first sex SUCCESSFUL sex test in the industry, and the first CBD test in the industry. We used our data to make tools that would help breeders do their job better and faster.
So let’s talk about the state of the industry now. Again, i’m going to come off as a jerk, but about 2.5 years ago i made a big stink about Biotech Institute LLC patents. I was one of the first if not the first to start saying they were a problem. That the industry, because of it’s open source nature, was creating a nightmare that, in conjunction with patents like the just mentioned, would leave the door open for Big Ag. This is the same thing that allowed Phylos to do what they did AND still not steal genetics. The reality is, as unfortunate as this whole thing is, and in no way condoning what Phylos did, the industry set it self up for this. We follow NO agricultural breeding practices, from either stabilizing cultivars to filing proper documentation prior to releasing a new cultivar, and then we put them on dispensary shelves for anyone to come buy at $10-$20 a clone. Phylos may not have stolen genetics. They may have gone right to the local dispensary and purchased the same strains they tested for people. That doesn’t make it any better, as they are still using the data they had to gain an advantage. But, gaining an advantage is not the same as stealing.
My previous rants were about the fact that Big Ag will come and eat us up, because we let them. We have no patents or PVP’s and we release clones for anyone… ANYONE includes Big Ag and Big Pharma. They will come to the SAME dispensaries that you and I go to, and buy up all the clones and go back to their labs where companies like Monsanto spend over 1 Billion dollars a year in research and they will fucking flatten us. They do what we do, way better AND faster. And we gave them an open invitation by not having matured as an industry to realize that IP and proper documentation is an important thing. This is not speculation. This is how it works in commercial agriculture. And Big Ag has been doing this, using the molecular tools, for a long time. They know how it’s done, in a way the majority of the industry doesn’t understand.
The runway for this, is the very nature of our industry, and the believe that the other industries will play by our rules when they come to the table. I’ve said this before. If you have unique chemovars, you should be using advanced tools to breed your ass off, and file as many PVP’s or plant utility patents as you can. That’s the way to keep this industry ours. Avoiding the issue and IP will just hand the industry to those we want to keep out.
So, yes, this whole situation is unfortunate, but it’s important to realize that (1) not all companies are doing the same thing, (2) the tools NEED to be developed by us, so WE can keep our space in this industry as it moves forward, and (3) the industry needs to be more diligent; in its approach to asking questions about what happens to their data, and applying themselves to creating IP for themselves. We NEED to build the picket fences around our property to keep our property safe and beautiful for all. that’s what patents give us, that picket fence around our property. And cause it’s OUR picket fence, we can open the gate to anyone WE choose.
I hope this helps shed some light on the situation, and helps people feel that they can still use some of these tools and trust some of the companies offering these services.
Great to hear from you @reggie. Your perspective on this subject is greatly appreciated.
How can companies work to re-establish trust?
I’ll be more concerned when Monsantos buys them out.
I’ve only been in the industry for 10 months and I already wish somebody was breeding out the genes that make powdery mildew and botrytis susceptibilities go up on my favorite varieties.
Boom!
Hi @reggie what an honor to have you here. I recently listened to the part one of your two podcasts with Tad Hussey, very impressive. I strongly suggest anyone here to listen in on these extremely informative interviews, especially if you want to get a deep cut on cannabis genetics, and on what Steep Hill is doing. It also makes very clear what a star Reggie Gaudino is within our canna universe. Thanks for chiming in!
Hi @reggie ,
Thanks for chiming in. Only wished you had spoken up before. Been writing about this very threat for over 2 years now and many competent people could have helped with informing our industry better on these topics, by relaying the message. However, the rare answers I received were to convince me there was no risk…
Now, PVPs or Plants Breeders Rights (what we have in Canada) are simply not accessible to the majority of breeders in our industry. The only practical way (prove me wrong) to create a safe haven for breeders is open source licensing backed by a strong and independent nonprofit organization. Because only such a neutral and independent organization will be in a position to appropriately defend breeders’ interest in case of an IP infringement.
It’s one thing to get a PVP on your cultivar, it’s another battle to defend and enforce it through legal and attorney fees. Most breeders can’t afford that.
Currently trying to convince a major biodiversity protection nonprofit in Canada to issue an open source breeding license for those breeders who want effective and practical protection against those predatory companies.
Open Source Breeding is not popular because this concept has never been promoted by the big ag players, who sometimes lobbied to make it illegal. It is now becoming increasingly popular in Europe and this is time to bring it in North America. The cannabis cultivation community has the more than compatible culture to make it a standard.
BTW, you use the term open source above, while you mean public domain. A formal open source license on genetics would ensure tangible protection. No license (=public domain) doesn’t provide any protection. At the moment, cannabis genetics are in the public domain.
Thanks again for taking the time to chime in Reggie.
Monsanto doesn’t exist anymore, they were acquired by Bayer.
Phylos CEO calmly explains how they are uniquely positioned to get acquired by Bayer, Syngenta or Dow…
It’s a only a matter of time…
You are ABSOLUTELY correct. i did mean public domain. I didn’t mean to confuse with open source that has licensing as part of it. Thank you for that correction.
That is not completely accurate. Bayer is in fact the sole shareholder in Monsanto, however the Monsanto website exists, and they still do business as Monsanto, and refer to themselves as Monsanto on the website. The link below shows that they do include the Bayer logo, but they still clearly refer to themselves as Monsanto.
This was a very good read, probably some the best info I received from this cannabis community in a long time. Thx you very much.
I would like to hear what Mr. Clark and others feel about their IP now as property of the very people who proposed to protect it for the industry and the genetic diversity of the Genus. I personally am outraged and saddened by their deceit. This will not stand.
Question:
Did the video presentation released by Benzinga (Who the hell are they?) making its way onto the web on March 9th, cause Phylos to come out with their grand scheme on April 16th?
Over two years ago I was given a PDF presentation and it appears that they were really open with their investors about their overall plan, but not so much with the customers they were data mining.
So the path moving forward is to start creating fences, and yet it’s not exactly clear how we as a community start to do this.
The runway for this, is the very nature of our industry, and the belief that the other industries will play by our rules when they come to the table. I’ve said this before. If you have unique chemovars, you should be using advanced tools to breed your ass off, and file as many PVP’s or plant utility patents as you can. That’s the way to keep this industry ours. Avoiding the issue and IP will just hand the industry to those we want to keep out.
Where can we access these advanced tools so that we can start to protect ourselves? How do we as a community start to support each other in doing this? Where do I file a PVP?
There’s a battle already being waged, and being caught off guard we have this huge disadvantage, how to we flatten the battlefield, or even skew it in our favor?
Thanks for the kind words Herbert
This is heartbreaking is so many ways. I was able to meet many of the Phylos team over the last couple years at speaking events, Cultivation Conferences, etc…and I was always so impressed with their “mission” in the industry and their database was amazing. To turn around and do what they are currently doing is just a tragedy. Especially for all the growers that have essentially paid for their own demise. Sadly, @reggie is correct that the overall lack of business experience in cannabis opens the door for predatory practices…the writing was on the wall for this to likely happen. But he is also correct, this is not ALL companies. Which means we need to be better about how we operate, who we trust, and aggressively support the companies doing it right.
Steep Hill offers genetic tools, and doesn’t have a breeding program. I believe Medicinal Genomics also does not have a breeding program. We both offer full suit of genetic services, from basic single gene targeted analysis to full genome sequencing and analytics. These tools are the very same basic tools that are used in commercial agriculture for many important cash crops. You sequence, you analyze, find SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms) or QTL’s (Qualitative Trait Loci) that can be used to follow specific genes or traits, and then you use those tools to accelerate your breeding program. The larger the number of traits you have sequence targets for, the larger the number of traits you can screen for at the same time, making screening for that rare pheno a reality, instead of a pipedream that requires you grow out thousands of seeds to figure out which ones might be the right ones. As for protecting the IP, PVP’s are useful, but don’t get you everything you might want, so it’s important to get a really good understanding of the limitation of each type of protection available, as well as the filing requirements for each type of protection. Then finally, don’t skimp. Go to a patent agent or patent attorney that knows biotechnology or plant biology that can help you really protect your innovation. Patents are very “topic specific” so a mechanical engineer, will be great for helping you patent your new extraction system, but may not be the best choice to help you protect your unique cultivar.
Another way to protect is actually in the vein of the Strainly model. It’s ironic, i was trying to start a tissue culture spin off a couple of years ago and was developing a downstream license idea where people could opt in to share the banked tissue for breeding projects with other breeders, all handled through the tissue culture bank and proceeds\roylaties would be paid on a decreasing scale out to a minimum royalty of 1% after the genetics were dilute out past a certain amount. But the idea was to have everyone put their genetics into a pool that everyone could share and if breeder X’s strain 1 was bred to breeder Y’s strain 2, the offspring would belong to tissue bank, but the breeders each got 25% of the royalties or profits, the bank took 50% and then if that strain was breed to something else, Breeder 1 and 2 each got 12.5% and breeder 3 got 25% etc
I see aspects of that in the Strainly model, and I think models like that offer an alternative to traditional patenting, as there is a legal licensing framework around it. But make no mistake, there will still be a problem with enforcement as there is no patent protection or PVP protection provided that way, UNLESS you also file for patents or PVP’s as well.
And i wouldn’t buy into the hype too much. I do NOT believe PhyloS has the huge advantage they say. We all have been developing tools for breeding, for about the same time. Further Steep Hill came out with the first sex and CBD tests, Medicinal genomics also have CBD tests as well as a powdery mildew test. So, I find it hard to believe that Medicinal Genomics and Steep Hill are behind Phylos. Which means the industry has options and they aren’t at a huge disadvantage. HOWEVER, if the industry remains complacent, they will end up at a disadvantage.
I’ve developed a “patent information” document that I"ll post here. It’s a primer on patents we give the clients who come to us for genetic analysis.
