Bioprospecting or Biopiracy? A Controversy Study of Motives, Practices, and Ecologies

Biopiracy as the source of controversy

Biopiracy might be viewed within the environmental studies and justice movement as the evil twin of bioprospecting. Where bioprospecting aims to benefit the host country and all parties involved, biopiracy discourse is framed around stealing from and exploiting indigenous people and threatening the safety of the commons. Wikipedia defines biopiracy as, "the appropriation, generally by means of patents, of indigenous biomedical knowledge by foreign entities (including corporations, universities and governments) without compensatory payment."

            Those talking about biopiracy are thus activists who are concerned with the justice and continued sovereignty of indigenous people and the biological resources that are within the territory of these people. One of the pillars that is raised continuously by developing nations is that "brand-name pharmaceuticals and crop varieties being exported to their countries were in many cases derived from medicines and crops discovered or bred in the global South" (McAfee 182). Based on pressure from southern governments, who were influenced by their own communities, the CBD made articles that tried to guarantee the sovereignty of nations over their biological diversity.

            One fear among southern countries and their people is that if pharmaceutical companies patent compounds, the rights of indigenous communities to use the original plants will be threatened. It seems flawed to allow companies to extract resources because they are part of the global commons, but then disallow the continued use of those products because they have been patented.

            Of course, biotechnology companies fear that if southern countries have too much influence over the CBD or other regulatory bodies that it will threaten the success and future of biotechnology (McAfee 184). But really, activists and affected citizens just want to ensure equitable sharing of information, benefits, and use of resources. They are calling for informed consent by communities and governments, and fair agreements on benefit sharing. These concepts don't seem far-fetched, especially if they still allow the pharmaceutical companies to profit and use resources.

            The only thing opponents of biopiracy have to lose by fighting their battle is financial support from investors. Admittedly, biopiracy doesn't generally provide any economic benefits for indigenous communities. But much like any activist causes, by fighting too staunchly against international involvement denies the possibilities for moderate middle ground. One example of this is the conservation and "green-development" mentality where international investment and eco-tourism can spur economic productivity in the host country. Some moderates in the biopiracy / bioprospecting debate have proposed that southern countries that contain the biodiversity should take advantage of the global trend of patenting biological life and patent their own biodiversity then sell it to the pharmaceutical companies.

            Whichever discourse one reads into, it is clear that bioprospecting is in danger of becoming biopiracy by lack of communication with local communities. In some cases, host countries might choose to have no international involvement in their biodiversity. Others, after open-meetings, could realize that there is some economic incentive to allowing regulated involvement in their biodiversity. The fact that these types of controversies are so site specific makes incorporating political ecology as a framework even more important. Analyzing the specific political structures, natural ecologies, and knowledge systems of the host countries is the only way appropriate, equitable agreements can be made, thus avoiding the biopiracy scenario.

Biopiracy: An Overview