Bio-Piracy and Bio-Prospecting

Biotechnology is indeed a big business. The manipulation of living materials to create new types of medicines and agricultural products is currently worth $2 billion a year in the United States. Estimates show that biotech profits will soar to $50 billion by the year 2000. Most of the "raw material" for this booming industry comes from the world's dwindling rainforests of the Southern Hemisphere.
Many scientists believe that the cures for AIDS, Cancer, and other dreaded diseases lie hidden beneath these verdant tropical canopies. The trick is to find the precious gene or cell line first, and then patent the "invention." Profits may be many years down the line, with extensive government-mandated trials and testing for safety, but when pharmaceuticals or agricultural products finally do make it to market, companies often see a phenomenal return on their investments.

Supporters of this genetic gold rush refer to it as `bioprospecting' since genetic materials found in the developing world may yield cure fordisease as well as cash. But what also looms on the horizon, and in fact is already occurring in many parts of the developing world is `biopiracy'. That means corporations use the folk wisdom of indigenous peoples to locate and understand the use of medicinal plants. Then this knowledge is commercially exploited while the indigenous people who made it all possible receive little or nothing in return.

In this connection it becomes important to answer few important questions:What is biodiversity prospecting?

Biodiversity prospecting is the exploration of wild plants and animals for commercially valuable genetic and biochemical resources.

What are genetic resources?

Genetic resources are the genes found in plants and animals that are of actual or potential value to people. (The term is also used to refer to chemicals found in plants and animals, since these are based on genetic information.)

Through the use of new biotechnologies, genes from any plant or animal can be transferred toanother. Plant and animal breeders, for example, use genes found in wild species, and genetically engineered organisms are now being used for new industrial applications such as mining, wastewater treatment, and carbon-dioxide scrubbing. The different biochemicals produced by species are of considerable value in the pharmaceutical and pesticide industries.Well, the number of biodiversity prospecting ventures are growing rapidly, The flurry of interest and enthusiasm in biodiveristy prospecting is taking place in a policy vaccuum. Virtually no precedent exists for national policies and legislation to govern and regulate wildland biodiversity prospecting. If done well, biodiversity prospecting can contribute greatly to environmentally sound development and return benefits to the custodians of genetic resources.

But carried out in the mold or fungus of previous resource-exploitation ventures, biodiversity prospecting can have a neglgible or potentially harmful effect on biodiversity conservation andenvironmentally sound development.

Biodiversity prospecting offers suggestions to governments, non-governmental organisations, scientists, and industry on designing effective and equitable biodiversity prospecting programs, with a particular focus on the use of biodiversity in the pharmaceutical industry.

The premise of Biodiversity Prospecting is that appropriate policies and institutions are needed to ensure that the commercial value obtained from genetic and biochemical resources is a positive force for development and conservation.

How does biodiversity prospecting relate to biodiversity conservation?

Prior to the Convention on Biological Diversity, most countries considered genetic resources to be the "common heritage of humankind", meaning that there was no law or moral obligation requiring a company that collected genetic material from another country to pay for access to that material.

The convention, by asserting the sovereignty of nations over their biodiversity, explicitlyrecognizes the right of countries to establish legislation regulating access to genetic resources and, if they wish, require payment for that access.

Moreover, it requires that any company or country collecting biodiversity obtain the prior informed consent of the source country. Because of the Convention, it will soon become standard practice for collectors to pay a fee for access to biodiveristy and to enter into contractual aggreements with source countries (or institutions within those countries) that allocate a share of royalties (or the patent itself) to the source country.

Why did the USA intially refuse to sign?

The biodiversity convention contains several confusing articles. The US Government, by considering the worse case interpretation of articles related to intellectual property rights (patents) and financial mechanisms, argued in Rio that the convention would undermine the interests of companies in the USA. The Clinton administration has reversed the US position on signature,arguing that US interest can be adequately be protected under the convention and that it is an important legal instrument that will help conserve biodiversity. (In 19994, ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. The Committee held hearings then submitted Executive Report 103-30 to the full Senate. However, the Senate failed to bring ratification of the Convention to the floor for a vote. Because the United States has not ratified, it is considered an "observer" rather than a "party" to the Convention.)

Pharmaceuticals as Biopirates

Biotechnology and new patent laws have allowed companies to capitalize on even the smallest life forms. The E Merck pharmaceutical company has patented microbial samples from nine countries. These include soil bacteria from a heather forest on Mt. Kilimanjaro, a Mexican soil fungus useful in the manufacturing of male hormones, a fungus found in Namibian soil of potential use in treating manic depression, asoil bacteria in India that serves as an anti-fungal agent, and a Venezuelan soil bacteria patented for use in the production of antibiotics. The `biopirates' are also on the lookout for profitable, patentable plants. In one remarkable example, several North American companies, including WR Grace, have been granted more than 30 US patents on the neem tree of India-- and not only on the tree, but also on the indigenous knowledge about its many uses.

In another act of biopiracy, two drugs derived from the rosy periwinkle -vincristine and vinblastine-earn $100 million annually for pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly. The plant is indigenous to the rainforest of Madagascar, but the country has received nothing in return.

Pharmaceuticals as Biodemocrats

Given biodiversity's growing value to industry and its diminishing supply as a result of the destruction of rainforests around the world, it is not surprising that countries rich in biodiversity would seek to profit from it. But what is unique about currentinitiatives is that they are likely to lead to a situation in which the use of genetic resources contributes to (a) the conservation of those resources,(b) to the development needs of the source country and (c) to higher profits for industry

The best example of this is the National Biodiversity Institute (INBio) in Costa Rica, which, in September 1991, announced a groundbreaking agreement with the US-based pharmaceutical firm E Merck and Co. Under the contract, INBio will provide E Merck drug sceening from wild plants, insects, and microorganisms. In return, E Merck will provide INBio with a two-year research and sampling budget of $1.14 million, royalties on any commercial products that result, and technical assistance and training to help establish drug research in Costa Rica. INBio agreed to contribute 10 per cent of the unfront payment from E Merck and 50 per cent of any royalties to Costa Rica's National Park Fund to help conserve national parks. Costa Rica is benefiting from its relationship withINBio in the two ways, in addition to conservation. First, this agreement results in substantial transfer of technology to Costa Rica. Costa Rican scientists are being trained to discover and extract drugs, and INBio is already beginning to assess some of the drugs for their usefulness against local diseases.

Second, Costa Rica stands to receive substantially greater sums from any commercial discovery than has historically been the case."

India, on the other hand, consists of 65 crore acres of land. Of this, 35 crore acreas are under agriculture. The country is surrounded on three sides by water and the mighty Himalayas give us plenty of flora and fauna and good monsoons too. We have plenty of rivers, reservoirs and streams. And all these 65 crore-acre land gets plenty of sunshine so biomass energy is generated in plenty. To manage these renewable resources we have almost 100 crore population. So we have the highest and massive genetic resources. Many readers are familiar with the battle the Council ofScientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) recently won against registering of turmeric patent in USA. We also know the efforts CSIR scientists had to take against the US patent on Basmati rice.

Now we have won the battle but many more such battles are in the offing and are awaited. Before we lose our stronghold in the foreign hands to conserve our rich diveristy we all third world countries need to unite. There are 200 such medicinal plants from our country on which multinationals are trying to take patents on various usages all over the world. And India with such wider scientific base and cultural background should take lead to stop all kinds of biopiracies by multinational companies. Rather India should take lead to form bio-partnership and being senior partner in manpower and genetic resources amongst all the third world countries. Indeed this is the need of time. After all, the prospects of Bioprospecting depend on successful Bio-Partnership only.