36
common benefit. The trade negotiations which will be made possible by the bill before
you are part of this overall design.”
144
Upon its passage in January 1975 President Ford proclaimed that it was the “most
significant trade agreements program passed by the Congress since the beginning of the
trade agreements program four decades ago.”
145
In spite of these enthusiastic claims,
many commentators at the time recognized the neomercantilist elements embedded
within the legislation.
146
Conclusion:
This history provides a window into thinking about institutional continuity over
time and space considering that intellectual property rights have become the backbone of
America’s information economy. Tying intellectual property rights to trade through the
Trade Act of 1974 remains the pillar for trade legislation to this day. Hence, this paper
argues that the shift in the broader economy toward commodifying and commercializing
scie ntific knowledge, as evidenced in the case of agricultural biotechnology, can be
traced to deliberate policies enacted by policymakers to reconstitute U.S. power.
144
“Statement before the Senate Finance Committee on the Trade Reform Act,” Bureau of Public Affairs,
Department of State Bulletin (December 3, 1974).
145
Carroll Kilpatrick, “Ford Signs Trade Act In Ceremony,” The Washington Post (January 4, 1975);
President Ford, “The Trade Reform Act and Today’s World Economic Problems,” American Conference
on Trade (December 9, 1974) Department of State Bulletin.
146
W. D. Eberleby Vartanig G. Vartan, “U.S. Trade Policy-Appearance and Reality,” New York Times
(Dec. 7, 1975); Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, “. . . and the Confusion Behind the Scenes,” The
Washington Post (Oct. 3, 1974).
Convention