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
|
 |
Shaman Pharmaceuticals in Tanzania
There is
a large gap between a bioprospecting agreement that is successful and
beneficial and a biopiracy project that exploits indigenous rights and
knowledge. The discourse surrounding these two models is also quite
different. The following case study has both bioprospecting goals and
intentions, and mixed reviews by its locally affected people. The
discourse is exemplative of a middle ground example where goals are not
followed through completely, but not with biopiracy as the result.
In Tanzania, Shaman
Pharmaceuticals arranged a bioprospecting project to collect samples
that were used to treat a form of diabetes and hepatitis. One social
scientist, Hanne Svarstad, followed shortly after Shaman had published
their first set of findings. She conducted extensive field research and
interviews with local healers, women, and average people. Her
conclusions were very interesting: the successful bioprospecting
discourse Shaman published was not accurate to the opinions in
Tanzania. However, many local healers still wanted more bioprospecting,
and were in no way framing their side of the story as one of biopiracy.
Shaman provided both short-term
and long-term economic benefits to the communities in Tanzania it had
worked with. For the short-term, a proposed $6,500 US was given to help
build new buildings and fund school and community projects. Long-term,
they planned to allocate benefits from the income of the products.
Their report championed their efforts of acquiring prior informed
consent, in including women, and in providing knowledge protection for
local healers.
Unfortunately, the women involved
in meetings were usually birth attendants who couldn't contibute much
on the topic of medicinal plants. Also, Svarstad found that, "the
company collectors had not involved these women in the meetings or even
told them that the collection expedition had been followed by donations
to the community" (Svarstad 249). Based on this example, some of the
information Shaman provided was false, and embellished to heighten
their positive image. Svarstad did not find it appropriate to rule this
case as one of biopiracy, just because Shaman had embelllished their
report a bit. Because, after interviewing the local healers, she
realized that many of them supported bioprospecting and wanted more.
Bioprospecting heightens the
status of the local healers, provides with small economic benefits,
provides additional scientific knowledge from the Western
scientific community, and allow them to gain power within the
bioprospecting association, as they control which samples the
bioprospectors find and study. Probably the most beneficial of these is
the heightened status of healers; all of a sudden, foreigners from big
cities are comint to small villages specifically for the knowledge that
healers have. As one ofher informants told her, "'The child who fails
in other jobs is the one who is chosen by his father to become a
traditional healer. Therefore, traditional healers are not among the
smartest people'" (Svarstad 249).
As is clearly shown in this
example, while one party saw it as a successful bioprospecting
agreement that was equitable and fair, the other agreed it was somewhat
good, but not quite as good as Shaman. So, there is much overlap
between where goals for success can lead and how they are perceived.
This can be overcome through media, depending on where the discourse
lies. Here, there was no outspoken anger or activism against the
Shaman. So Shaman's positive discourse overwhelmed negative
impressions. Had there been more biopiracy discourse, then it
would have been interpreted completely differently by outsiders.
A political ecology framework can really help understand the
differences in discourse between bioprospecting and biopiracy. Where
the first tends to be found in academic journals and in large
international organizations' websites, the latter is concentrated on
the web, in newsletters and activist websites.
Potential influences
in the biopiracy movement are therefore much more open to citizens; through
online debates, blogs, articles, and accessible language, citizens can easily
access the material. There are two parties that receive different outcomes from
the web-based biopiracy discourse. Citizens directly involved, in indigenous
communities, have an output for expressing their views independently. On the
other side, citizens in the global north who are concerned with indigenous
justice can easily access the stories of communities in the global South.
Support for bioprospecting then is usually
from scientists and economists who see the conservation of biological
diversity as a positive outcome of knowledge sharing. The language in
texts is sometimes critical, but always quite formal and integrative.
The length of such articles, essays, and chapters are usually quite
lenghty, which is a deterrant to an on-the-go reader. Vandana
Shiva crosses the discourse divide, because she publishes books about
the subject of biopiracy. She wants to get more in-depth, but she keeps
the writing style very manageable and accessible. (Biopiracy: The
Plunder of Nature and Knowledge)
|
  |