Commercialization of biological products and genetic resources is widespread in the modern world, especially after the boom of recombinant DNA technology, genetic engineering, bioinformatics, etc. The need to keep creating new products sometimes leads to companies employing unfair methods. Unfair acquisition of patents and exploitation of natural resources, especially in less-developed countries, has considerably increased in recent years, although such unethical activities have been around for a long time.
Biopiracy is the inappropriate and unethical use of traditional knowledge and biological materials such as biochemical or genetic materials of one country by unauthorised individuals without the compensatory obligations to the original authority(s). Companies and influential individuals can patent any resource such as seeds, extracts, gene sequences, etc. Of course, these resources are not innovated by these people, but they may patent them and enjoy the benefits gained from the commercialization of the products.
The unauthorized extraction, patenting and commercialization of important plant materials from a tree that is indigenous to a particular country/ region while denying any sort of compensation to the government of the country of origin, the authorized personnel or the indigenous community.
One of the most reported examples of biopiracy is the neem patent case of 1994. A US company by the name of W.R. Grace patented the antifungal extract obtained from neem seeds. However, the antimicrobial and pesticide nature of neem has been well-known in the Indian community since ancient times! Hence, neem and its derived products and their beneficial uses are a part of the Indian community’s traditional knowledge.
After several objections were raised concerning the unfair patent, the patent was eventually rejected by the Environmental Protection Organization (EPO) in the year 2000 citing a lack of innovation, adding that derived products obtained from pre-existing genetic resources or biological materials such as neem oil, sunflower oil, peanut and corn etc, can’t be patented.
The purposes fulfilled via biopiracy include the acquisition and privatization of traditional knowledge, production of pharmaceuticals, the introduction of new varieties of plants and animals, etc. Individuals or companies that run such lucrative activities exploit the bioresources of developing countries without suitable compensation. Such “theft of nature” and the accompanying denial in terms of the rights of indigenous communities of the country calls for appropriate legislation to support the country whose resources are being exploited.
Biopiracy poses a threat to many of the indigenous communities whose livelihoods depend on the natural resources available in their area.
Unfair usurpation of traditional knowledge and indigenous resources by a patent holder will give them ill-earned profit.
On the other hand, the indigenous people will not gain any compensation and will also have to compromise on their generational knowledge.
Other than forsaking their generational knowledge the farmers or communities may also have to compromise their livelihood
Unjust and unethical exploitation by claiming such patents translates into the disturbance of a well-established judicial system.
Biopiracy is often extended to claiming rights over the biodiversity of a particular region. Such activities have a significant impact on biodiversity- it leads to the depletion of the endemic biodiversity and also exploit the communities that safeguard the biodiversity of an area. Biopiracy can also lead to the extinction of endemic species.
The “innovations” more often than not are derived from the generational or traditional knowledge held by the local or indigenous communities. Traditional knowledge refers to the knowledge and skills that are developed and passed on within a community, through its generations. This genre of knowledge includes medicinal knowledge, agricultural knowledge, ecological knowledge, etc. among others.
Traditional knowledge of the Indian community is rich and diverse, and hence, subject to biopiracy. Indian traditional knowledge is conserved in the form of manuscripts and ancient texts. This is not only significant for the indigenous or local communities of India but also holds valuable potential and application in modern industries, including pharmaceuticals, agricultural and cosmetic industries, etc. Big international companies often pillage such traditional information (appropriation), and follow it up with the commercialization of the obtained product, without recognising or compensating the indigenous communities. Examples of such theft include the neem patent, the turmeric patent and the Darjeeling tea patent.
Such traditional knowledge in India is not governed or protected by Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). According to researchers in this field, the intellectual property system has not been designed in a way that can provide benefits to the communities. Consequentially, such knowledge and innovations that are essentially the property of a particular community are subject to the threats of biopiracy.
Due to the ambiguity in the origin and nature of biological resources and traditional knowledge, formulating standard legislation against individuals or companies involved in biopiracy is difficult. Nevertheless, the preservation and protection of traditional knowledge, conservation of local or indigenous biological resources, and the rights of people whose livelihoods depend on such resources are important
The biopiracy of traditional knowledge can be prevented by devising useful laws and rules that help local or indigenous communities protect their generational knowledge.
Certain acquisition and profit-sharing provisions can be developed so that both parties can benefit from the usage of important biological substances. Such an approach is termed positive protection. Another approach is the defensive mechanism. Under this approach, unfair acquisition of traditional knowledge or bioresources is prevented.
According to the Convention on Biological Diversity, a country has national rights over its natural biological resources.
Biopiracy refers to the illegal and unjust acquisition of biological resources of a country by external organisations, without compensating the concerned indigenous communities or sovereign authorities.
Biopiracy can be extended to biological resources, genetic resources, traditional knowledge, etc.
Traditional knowledge is the knowledge that is passed on through the generations of a community.
Biopiracy also has a significant impact on biodiversity.
Appropriate laws and rules must be developed to protect the rights of the indigenous communities subject to biopiracy.
Q1. Is genetic information patentable?
Ans. No, raw genetic information itself is not exactly patentable, however, one can patent some information derived from such sources.
Q2. What are some of the indigenous communities of our country?
Ans. India is home to about 700 tribal groups including the Gonds tribes of Madhya Pradesh, the Santhal tribes of West Bengal, the Garo tribes of Meghalaya, the Munda tribes of Jharkhand, the Kurumba tribes of Kerala, etc.
Q3. What are some effective initiatives that have helped in controlling biopiracy?
Ans. The Nagoya Protocol (2010), under the UNCBD, advocates equal sharing of the benefits reaped from biological sources between the public and the private sectors.
Q4. Why is biopiracy referred to as scientific colonialism?
Ans. The usurpation of scientific resources is comparable to the oppressive colonisation of less-developed countries by the more influential ones. Hence, biopiracy is also called scientific colonialism.
Q5. What is bio-prospecting?
Ans. Bioprospecting refers to the legal search for potential sources of biologically important products, which can later be commercialised. If performed illegally, it leads to biopiracy.
Physics
Biology
Chemistry
Mathematics
Economics
Psychology
Environmental Science
Social Studies
Fashion Studies
English