Bio-Prospecting or Bio-Piracy: Intellectual Property Rights and Biodiversity in a Colonial and Postcolonial Context

Abstract

Despite the rhetoric of decolonization following World War II, developing countries are, if anything, more dependent now on the science and technology of the developed world than they were in colonial times. This has led some critics to describe their situation as "neo-colonial." This paper will explore the issue in relation to the biotechnology industry, and to the 1993 United Nations Convention on Biodiversity. This convention challenged the assumption that the earth's biological and genetic resources are part of the "global commons" by giving property rights over these resources to the nation-states. While the objective of encouraging states to conserve biodiversity is universally endorsed, the strategy of using property law to do so is not. The search for new genetic and biological resources has become a major priority for the agrichemical and pharmaceutical industries, and despite continuation of the colonial tradition of appropriating indigenous knowledge and resources, new and more equitable models are being explored and developed within the convention's framework. These strategies, while controversial, offer the hope of a new and more just "International Genetic Order."

An Economic Model for Bioprospecting Contracts

“…Finally, in the scenario where R&D is found to be successful, the private company incurs additional costs to apply for approval from the regulatory agency, and royalties. (Merson 2000). In 2002, an estimated 2.4 billion dollars were obtained from global sales of marine biotechnology products (Ruth 2006).…”

“…A well-known presented case is, for instance, the bioprospecting contract between the INBio- and commercial agriculture traditionally depend upon plant genetic resources, but biotechnological companies and pharmaceutical companies always acquire material as raw samples, extracts from plant genetic resources or 'value-added' genetic resources (Ten Kate and Laird 1999;2000). Table 1 contains a review of the most important provisions in a sample of 8 selected contracts, stipulated world-wide.…”

“…Table 1 contains a review of the most important provisions in a sample of 8 selected contracts, stipulated world-wide. (Breibart 1997;ICBG 1997;Mulholland and Wilman 1998;Neto and Dickson 1999;Ten Kate and Laird 1999;Merson 2000;Artuso 2002;Greer and Harvey 2004;Dedeurwaerdere et al 2005) Though very different in peculiarities, the selected contracts present a set of common features and provisions.…”

TRIPS and the pharmaceutical industry: Prescription for profit?

“…The emergence of multinational corporations as dominant players in global pharmaceutical markets has led to standardisation and an accentuation of inequalities (Merson, 2000). In many cases, corporations use IPR and licensing agreements to disguise the structuring of a global knowledge cartel to effectively dominate markets rather than being controlled by them.…”

Bioprospecting and Resistance: Transforming Poisoned Arrows into Strophantin Pills in Colonial Gold Coast, 1885-1922

“…15 12 Lyons 1992;Echenberg 2001;Tilley 2004. 13 Merson 2000;Schiebinger 2004. 14 Bloom and Walton 1957;Eisner 1990;Reid et al (eds) 1993;Shiva et al (eds) 1999.…”