 |
 |
 |
 |
Bioprospecting or Biopiracy? A Controversy Study of Motives, Practices, and Ecologies
|
Features Bioprospecting A Brief History Methods and Goals Who is Bioprospecting? Governance Biopiracy An Overview Who is Biopirating? Case Studies Success in Panama Biopiracy in Chiapas Middle Ground in Tanzania Concluding Remarks Differences and Similarities |
|
Bioprospecting: An Overview What is it, and who does it affect? As the world becomes more globalized and science more technologically complicated, it is increasingly harder to come to consensus about scientific controversies. Some controversies are engulfed by morality and ethics debates, such as genetic engineering. Others, like nuclear power, reflect conflicts of power, safety, and global impacts. When these overlap, issues of power relationships, locational scale, and ethics come together into one scientific arena. Bioprospecting is one such example; it is the practice of searching rich biodiverse regions for new chemical compounds within species. Usually taking plants from the developing world, bioprospecting commonly seeks new compounds to aid the medical world. In the best case scenarios, bioprospecting agreements work with the local communities to share knowledge about biological life, benefits from research, and conservation goals. Unfortunately, there are many opportunities for well-intentioned bioprospecters to stray from their goals. For such occurrences, activists opposed to bioprospecting have claimed the term biopiracy. In these cases, the scientists or researchers ignore the needs of local communities, and 'pirate' the natural resources of a region. Without contributing back to the local economy, and exploiting the knowledge of local healers and leaders, the leaders of biopiracy expeditions are condemned in the indigenous rights activist community for perpetuating colonialist attitudes and imperialist use of resources. The term 'biopiracy' has such strong connotations, and thus condemnation of parties lends a particular narrative to the anti-biopiracy movement. The images associated with perpetrators are those of pillaging, stealing, and ravaging. This has had specific impacts on concerned citizens, and has led to much action against the organizations accused of biopiracy. Through corporate boycotting, protesting, or letter-writing, citizens in the US and global North can, and have influenced their businesses. On the local scale, indigenous communities can come together and determine the appropriate amount of outsider influence in their lands. Activists groups have been mobilizing across the world to protest the patenting of biological life in general, and especially exploitative biopiracy practices. In light of so much activism and protest, it is important to explore whether bioprospecting can ever be done effectively and equitably. If there is room for appropriate, respectful, and equitable action, then bioprospecting could potentially benefit all parties involved. It would help the medical world, the development of third world communities, and conservation efforts. With so much variation between success and failure, the governance leading to each scenario must be explored to understand how bioprospecting can guarantee the most people the most equal and fair outcomes. This website will seek to compare two detailed case studies and their outcomes. The first case study, in Panama, was a successful bioprospecting agreement, where all parties involved seemed benefit as much as possible. The second case, in Chiapas, Mexico, demonstrates a place where local residents refused to allow scientists and outsiders into their land to take their wildlife, because they saw it as a threat to their sovereignty. A political ecology framework will be used to analyze these case studies, because it is a valuable way to consider issues of power, scale, knowledge, and discourse. This framework helps to explain how different perceptions of knowledge and its values contribute to different governance, motives, and conclusions. Throughout each case study, compare how the perception and value of knowledge, on both the bioprospecting side and the local side, both work to impact the discourse that is carried out about the projects. The impacts of the media vary greatly with the scale of the cases, and this has much to do with the type of discourse: positive bioprospecting claims tend to be academic, while criticisms of biopiracy are more citizen-friendly and web-based. Finally, there are many more models that are possible for bioprospecting. These will briefly be addressed throughout the website, but not as thoroughly as the two main examples. Remember that there are many opportunities for bioprospecting agreements to change their course, and either fall into a case of biopiracy, or just not follow through on stated goals. There are also more localized cases of bioprospecting that are going on, though these are less common and also less the focus of academic and corporate interest. Please be aware of similarities and differences throughout the website, and follow the links if you are interested in more information! |
The Cornell University professor Thomas Eisner coined the term "bioprospecting" in 1989. He describes it as, "the systematic search for secondary metabolites with potentially therapeutic properties as a strategy for creating economic incentives for conserving biological diversity" (Eisner 1989). In other words, bioprospecting today is understood as a two-way process that both searches for medical products in biologically diverse regions, and promotes conservation through economic incentives. |
|
|
|