Subject: biopirates
The Nation
Wed, March 19, 1997

Confusion on property rights rules clouds battle against 'biopirates'

 BY JAMES FAHN
   WHOM do genes belong to? The answer has yet to become clear ­ either for humans
   or for other life forms ­ but eventually should decide which bioprospectors are in fact ''biopirates".

   The question has been asked most frequently about researchers seeking to develop valuable products  out of non-human organisms: Many of the compounds found in plants and animals are potentially useful to
   the pharmaceutical, food, agricultural and cosmetics industries. Presently, the companies which
   research, develop and manufacture these products reap virtually all the rewards.

   However, non-governmental organisations in developing countries ­ whichcontain most of the world's
   remaining biodiversity but generally lack the expertise to exploit it commercially ­ argue that some
   of the royalties should return to the species' country of origin, and to the local people in the area
   where rare species are found.

   They point out that in many cases herbs have been used as medicine and even bred by villagers for
   generations before they are spirited away by foreign scientists for research-and-development purposes.
   And they resent the fact that the intellectual property rights of multinational corporations are
   zealously defended, while those of local villagers are ignored.

   ''Ironically, the companies that accuse the Third World of piracy and have created [intellectual
   property rules] to stop this piracy are themselves engaged in large-scale piracy of the biological
   wealth and intellectual heritage from the Third World," writes Vandana Shiva, an Indian scientist and
   activist.

   The UN Convention on Biodiversity is eventually supposed to standardise property rights rules for
   bioprospecting, but Thailand (along with the United States) has yet  to ratify it.

   Meanwhile, the call for property rights over biodiversity leads to all sorts of complicated questions:
   Who ''owns" a species found in many locations, even in different countries? What if it is found at
   sea, outside any country's exclusive economic zone? And how can compensation be provided for past
   appropriations? Botanical gardens and natural history museums around the world are filled with
   specimens taken decades, even centuries, ago.

   Thais often complain about the case of the plao noi, a plant found in Petchburi with anti-ulcer
   properties that has been developed into a commercial drug by a Japanese company. But they rarely ask
   where many of their staple crops originated: corn comes from America, as does the potato. On the other
   hand, notes Sirina Teo of Singapore's Bioscience Centre, citrus plants originated in Southeast Asia.

   Meanwhile, the question of genetic property rights has now spread to humans. The United States has
   allowed patents to be filed on human genes, cells and cell lines that may prove useful in fighting
   diseases. Applications have already been filed for patents on cell lines taken from Solomon Island
   natives and the Hagahai people of Papua New Guinea.

   Nor are indigenous people the only ones being targeted by ''biopirates". Carlos Correa, an Argentine
   academic and member of the Third World Network, reports that a patient named Moore who checked into a  hospital at the University of California found that two of his cell lines had been patented without
   his permission and licensed to private companies for research. The patent claims even stood up in
   court.

   Do your genes belong to you? Perhaps you better patent them to make sure. 1