Govt urged to help reclaim marine fungi

Alegal expert yesterday urged the government to intervene to reclaim 200 marine fungi now at a British university.

Under Thai law, the country's natural resources belong to the nation. Thus the fungi cultures, shipped to the University of Portsmouth in 1990 for storage and research, must be returned without exception, according to Jakkrit Kuanphot, an intellectual property rights expert.

Considering the lack of written evidence proving the cultures' ownership, the only possible solution is that "the government must appeal to the British government to intervene against Portsmouth by claiming Thailand owns the strains," the professor of Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University said.

According to Nigel Hywel-Jones, head of mycology at the National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Gareth Jones, a renowned marine fungi expert, had chosen Portsmouth because he worked there for so long that he did not expect any problem.

The centre has had a lab and a culture collection of its own since 1995, and it has therefore repeatedly asked Portsmouth to return the strains without success.

Last week, the university announced it would not return the cultures claiming the fungi were part of its collection. It also insisted the decision was well advised.

Prof Chakkrit doubted whether Prof Jones and his research team had collected the fungi from protected marine parks. In that case, they needed a permission paper from the Forestry Department for every one of the cultures, he explained.

Even though there is no law protecting microorganisms, they are considered natural resources, he said.

But in reality, such a paper is rarely made. "It means that Prof Jones is guilty of taking wildlife out of the parks without permission and Portsmouth is an accomplice in stealing the state's property according to Thai law."

Vullapa Arunpairojana, director of the Microbiological Resources Centre of the Thailand Institute of Scientific and Technological Research, said he suspected the motives behind the transfer, because Thailand has had a microorganism bank since 1976.

The Bangkok Microbial Resource Centre is one of 31 banks in 25 countries. "We have over 4,000 of all types of microorganisms in store. The Bangkok centre is also a regional storage hub in Southeast Asia," she said.

Prof Hywel-Jones said, however, that Biotec had approached the centre only to be turned down on the grounds that it was not interested in keeping unknown organisms which did not have economic or scientific value.

"The people there were also afraid the fungi might leak into the air and contaminate the lab," he added.

Anti-biopiracy advocate Vitoon Lianchamroon said the news did not surprise him given previous cases in which many local plants and organisms being taken out of the country and later patented by foreign drug companies as part of its invention or discovery.

The patenting is usually done without benefit sharing and acknowledgment by owner countries until the biodiversity issue became an international issue lately.

"They have done it before. This story is just one of many others to come," he warned.

The environmentalist blamed the problem on BIOTEC's ambiguous stand on biodiversity. Unlike the Public Health Ministry and Agriculture Ministry, the Science Ministry has only paid lip service to the need to protect the country's bioresources, he said.

He added that many international organisations were more eager to help protect Thai bioresources than the Thai authorities themselves.

"BIOTEC can forget about being Thailand's centre for biodiversity now if it doesn't get its act together," he said.