Conclusion: What are the Differences?

            This website has sought to provide an outline of the controversy surrounding bioprospecting and biopiracy. Both words have very different connotations within the scientific and activist communities, and have been co-opted to represent the positive and negative ways that scientists can carry out knowledge sharing for pharmaceutical advances. In each case, there are types of governance that dictate how agreements will be arranged and followed through. At the heart of the debate lies the question of whether or not the differences between biopiracy activists and bioprospecting scientists can ever reach a compromise. Many activists feel that biopiracy is too colonialistic, invasive, and disrespectful to indigenous sovereignty. Others are enraged by the idea of patenting life for corporate interests. However, the pharmaceutical industry believes that patenting biological life is not only the key to conserving it for future use, but also to promising advancements in the medical world.

            There is a lot of room for citizen input in this debate, though the issue is still rather underground for many people. To engage outsider citizens, more abstract concerns need to be highlighted, such as the threats to all biological life (even their own genetic material), and corporations' ability to determine the fate of biological diversity. However, for citizens in the developing host countries, the ability to voice concerns is very difficult. Indigenous communities can be ignored by corporations, especially in countries with weak infrastructure and political bodies. In order for there to be a consensus about this controversy, activists and sponsors must agree upon what is legitimate use of biological life.  Beyond that, they must ensure interactions and negotiations with indigenous people respect indigenous knowledge. The Panama example cited previously is the closest example to an equitable, positive, and influential bioprospecting agreement. Using a political ecology framework analyzes the effectiveness of each case study, based on governance, individual interests, and community resistance.