Lust for Life - ethics of bioprospecting by pharmaceutical companies - Brief Article

Sierra, May, 2000 by Barbara J. Fraser

To bioprospectors, nature is as good as gold

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office struck a blow for nature last November when it moved to rescind a patent held by a California man since 1986 on the plant Banisteriopsis caapi, which is sacred to Amazonian tribes and the source of the hallucinogen ayahuasca, used in religious rituals. One Native leader hailed the preliminary ruling as "a victory for indigenous peoples everywhere." But the case is only a minor skirmish in the larger debate over rights to biological resources and traditional knowledge.

Bioprospecting, the search for natural substances of medicinal value, is as old as humanity. But over the past century it has become increasingly elastic--taking in biology, chemistry, pharmacology, and ecology--and increasingly lucrative. More than half of the 150 most widely used prescription drugs claim biological origins, and annual sales of drugs derived from natural sources now exceed $40 billion. One San Diego biotechnology firm, Diversa Inc., has even struck a deal with the federal government to search for profits among the microbes in Yellowstone National Park's hot springs.

Indigenous communities are increasingly suspicious of foreign researchers who learn their lore, then take plant samples home for further study and potential profit. But in addition to prompting cries of neocolonialism, the rush to profit from nature raises serious environmental questions.

When the cancer drug Taxol was developed, for example, demand for Pacific yew bark, which contains the active substance, threatened the tree's survival until researchers found a way to use the needles instead. Coral reefs have been damaged by bioprospectors collecting marine samples. And Ecuadorian environmentalists complain that swaths of rainforest were cleared to cultivate sangre de drago (Croton lechleri), touted as a remedy for intestinal upsets.

Hope Shand of the nonprofit Rural Advancement Foundation International calls patenting plants "a slippery slope." "Once the U.S. government opened the floodgates to the patenting of living materials, that didn't just mean plants and animals. It also meant human genetic materials," says Shand. "We've seen major controversies, where companies or institutions have claimed exclusive patents on the cell lines of indigenous peoples."

"We've been very concerned about the whole concept that companies can patent life-forms," says Glenn Wiser of the Center for International Environmental Law. "That's really troubling, and when it's done without the informed prior consent of people, it's much more troubling."

Such concerns notwithstanding, some insist that potential gains from bioprospecting can motivate poor countries to preserve their biological diversity. The National Institutes of Health is testing the theory by sponsoring International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups (ICBGs) in partnership with overseas research institutes and industry giants like Bristol-Myers Squibb and American Cyanamid.

Bioprospecting "should be a fantastic tool for promoting conservation," says Todd Capson, a biochemist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, who coordinates an ICBG there. He hopes the project--which helps fund local conservation, research, and environmental education --will become a model. The researchers rely on ecological criteria and do not collect samples on indigenous lands. If an indigenous group approached them about a project, Capson says, "they would participate as equals."

Critics contend, however, that in negotiations between bioprospectors and local people--especially indigenous groups the playing field is far from level. In addition, most " countries lack adequate laws to regulate commercial use of plant, animal, and marine substances.

"Discovery of new drugs for the benefit of humanity is completely legitimate," says Lucia Gallardo of Accion Ecologica, an Ecuadorian environmental organization calling for a moratorium on bioprospecting. "But we oppose what's behind that research, which is the drive for patents and establishing exclusive, monopoly rights to biological resources."

Nelida Gomez, a specialist in natural-product chemistry at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, says bioprospectors must understand a plant's ecology to minimize damage from collecting, and governments must develop sound policies with input from legal experts, scientists, and indigenous people.

Such policies may be a long way off. But the ayahuasca case, says CIEL's Wiser, "has taken on a very significant importance" in drawing attention to the practice of patenting nature.