Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Biopirates Walk the Plank

By Kelly Hearn, AlterNet. Posted June 15, 2006.


Is the crackdown on biopiracy protecting the rights of indigenous people or putting the freeze on beneficial science?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Kelly Hearn

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

A National Geographic project that uses DNA to map humanity's genetic lineage is under fire from indigenous rights groups that are pressing the United Nations to halt the project.

The controversy marks the rising public profile of "biopiracy" -- a word that just entered the Oxford English Dictionary last year and loosely refers to the failure of companies and researchers to pay indigenous groups and poor governments for biological materials and ideas.

As scientists scour rainforest in search of useful things inside living beings, a growing list of developing countries and groups are moving to stop piratical pilferers -- or take a cut in their profits.

The rising biopiracy panic has even tainted companies like Google, which in March was put on the plank for its reported plans to help geneticist -- and accused "biopirate" -- Craig Venter put searchable genes online. Venter's press representative had no comment, and Google's representative said the company had no information to share.

"Biopiracy awareness is undoubtedly growing fast, so much so that you are seeing calls for an international framework to deal with the problem," said Deb Harris, a Northern Paiute activist from Nevada who directs the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism (IPCB).

In March, a U.N. meeting in Brazil heard calls for international laws to stop biopirates and give indigenous groups benefits-sharing plans. Meanwhile, trade lawyers fight over patent laws at the World Trade Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization. And green groups battle free trade deals like the pending agreement between biorich Peru and the United States, which critics say fails to crack down on biopirates.

But some question whether well-meaning biopiracy activists are taking the wrong road, even hindering science and useful projects.

The National Geographic's Genographic project, a nonmedical project that also lets Average Joes buy a $90 testing kit to discover their own genetic heritage, steers proceeds to a fund that helps indigenous groups. But Harris of IPCB says researchers fail to properly inform subjects before they hand over DNA samples. "The project's research protocols show they only spend 20 minutes with the test subjects getting their consent," said Harris, who has assembled hundreds of signatures from indigenous groups and is pressing a U.N. body on indigenous affairs to stop the project.

National Geographic officials are frustrated by the charges and stress that researchers even took the rare step of releasing research protocols in the name of transparency. They point out that the 20-minute window cited in the protocol alludes only to the physical sampling of blood, not the time it takes to inform and get consent, as critics claim.

"It clearly does not include the extensive time taken to make initial contact with indigenous collaborators and representatives, explain the project, receive word of enthusiasm (or not, which is fine) and then spend time setting up the further permissions to visit the region, talk to leaders and individuals whom we have been briefed are already interested, etc., which takes weeks and months," Lucie McNeil, a National Geographic spokeswoman, wrote in an email.

Share the benefits

Many indigenous groups and developing countries are calling for "contractual benefits sharing" whenever corporations make money off "research leads" or materials snatched from native habitats. Some call for new patent rights over seeds, knowledge and other things foreign companies have been known to grab. Still others reject altogether the right to patent life forms.

The crosscurrents make biopiracy, a very real and ecological destructive problem, a vague and confusing buzzword.

One challenge for biopiracy activists is getting America's shrunken attention span around the dull but crucial topic of patent law. Perhaps that's why biopiracy has a sensationalist vibe.


Digg!

Kelly Hearn is a former UPI staff writer who divides his time between the United States and South America. A correspondent to the Christian Science Monitor, his work has appeared in The Nation, The American Prospect and other publications. He is a regular contributor to AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Biopiracy
Posted by: drsbanerji on Jun 15, 2006 4:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since biological resources have so much potential, and since long and expensive processes separate useful substances in natural form from presentations in forms for direct consumption, indigenous people should form cooperatives. The latter should be managed professionally and work for the sustainable good of all stakeholders including the indigenous shareholders. The Milk Cooperatives of India are shining examples of this business cum community development model.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How much attention did you pay to your interview?
Posted by: siabniac on Jun 15, 2006 5:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Her name is Debra Harry NOT "Deb Harris." Your inattention to this detail calls into question how much attention you pay to the topics you write about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The quagmire of patents
Posted by: inanaturallight on Jun 15, 2006 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has long disquieted me that patents could be issued for organisms not created, but discovered. I am all for seeing those that do the hard work being compensated fairly for it, but patents often are not appropriate for this task. One major requirement for a patent is that it be non-obvious, and how can this criteria be fitted to these kinds of biological patents when it has been obvious to nature for thousands or millions of years? Many of the discoveries patented are the result of modern technologies' ability to read and understand genetics (and indeed these methods have patents, probably appropriate) but the results of study using these methods to 'discover' how nature operates is certainly not a valid basis for a patent. Once we create a method of 'discovery' and put it to common use, EVERYTHING it discovers is OBVIOUS. The argument that these discoveries are patentable makes as much sense as an astronomer claiming a patent on fusion because he/she studied the sun and discovered how it produces energy. The patent process, as with so much of our modern world, has been corrupted by the greed of those in power and has become just another tool to enrich the richest and to deny the benefits of scientific gains to those not in power. Discovering the reasons why some indigenous medicine is effective, and then claiming a patent on the active substance, is theft pure and simple.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let me get this straight
Posted by: Gakl on Jun 15, 2006 12:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So should somone visit a place and harvest seeds of a plant to bring home: then spend time to cultivate breed, and then extract beneficial ingredients from a pre-existing living plant, the person who does this work should have to pay...who?

And how did they contribute to this productivity?

Call me an imperialist, but I fail to see how this amounts to colonialism. If that person were to cut down a whole bunch of trees without paying for the use of the property, I could see that as a problem. Producing beneficial medicines, however should be encouraged.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Let me get this straight Posted by: Elmowilcox
throw out the bathwater
Posted by: mwildfire on Jun 15, 2006 5:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No mention of the obvious solution, supported by a majority of indigenous people--make all patents on living things illegal. I've seen so much abuse I'm inclined to just toss the whole idea of copyright. That might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I suppose, but at the least--no patents on life! Thus no motive for dangerous, reckless experimentation, no motive for ripping off the thrid world, less reason for stripping rainforests and other ecosystems. This planet needs a break from the voraciousness of the capitalist greed-machine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rossi
Posted by: rossi on Oct 20, 2006 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]