Pharmaceutical Exploitation
of the Rainforests: Where Do We Draw
the Line?
By Meredith McGrath
3/6/99
Bio-prospecting--searcWng the rairlforest for useful
species, has arrived. Biodiversity
prospecting includes the exploration, extraction, and screening of biological
diversity and indigenous knowledge for commercially valuable genetic and
biochemical resources. With the renewed
interest in the potential found in the rainforests, pharmaceutical companies in
particular have crossed an ethical line with regards to the indigenous peoples.
There is an immediate need
for a renewed effort to control the destruction of natural forests in the
tropics, which are disappearing at an alarming rate of 12.9 million hectares
per year. It is widely agreed upon among
biologists that in SO- I 00 years, without intervention, most remaining
tropical forests will be destroyed.
However, many self-serving groups exist with questionable motives for
preserving the forests.
The "rainforest
harvest", as it is often referred, is perhaps a misleading marketing
campaign. The idea links the exotic and
environmental credentials of the rainforest to the reassurance of fertility and
abundance. The theory behind the slogan
is that if it can be proven that forests are more valuable left standing, then
their preservation is more apt to be considered. No mention is made of preserving biodiversity for its own sake.
Since the philosophy of a
free-market economy encourages individuals and corporations to utilize the
environment to their maximum benefit, without considering environmental
effects, it has contributed to the present situation. Northern-based institutions seek access to tropical biodiversity
for the primary purpose of developing patented and profitable products. No matter
how convincing the rhetoric,
conservation and equity are secondary issues.
The Rural Advancement Foundation International estimates that medicinal
plants and microbials from the South contribute at least $30 billion per year
to the North's pharmaceutical industry.
It is conservatively estimated that the market for research samples or
extracts of biological materials within the U.S. pharmaceutical industry alone
is $30-60 million per year.
For decades, plant
collectors from industrialized countries have ventured to the tropical forests
in search of valuable genetic material for agricultural plant breeding. No money changed hands in the process. In 1980, none of the U.S. pharmaceutical
industry research budget was spent on research into higher plants. Today, it is estimated that over 200
companies and research organizations worldwide are screening plant and animal
compounds for medicinal properties.
It is generally acknowledged
that about one in 10,000 chemicals derived from the mass screening of plants, animals,
and microbes eventually results in a potentially profitable drug. As recently as 199 1, Monsanto Inc. was
recruiting company employees traveling to exotic destinations, to dig up a few
soil samples. Claiming it was for the
sake of science, a spokesman for Monsanto declared nothing off limits.
The Convention on Biological
Diversity of 1993 addressed the issues of conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity. However, rather than
suggesting multilateral implementation, the Convention promoted bilateral
deals-commercial contracts and other agreements for access to biodiversity. The
Convention's language on intellectual property rights is subject to varying
interpretations. As it stands, the
Convention offers passive support that pits indigenous communities and
countries against one another.
The first and perhaps most
well-publicized example of a bilateral contract for bioprospecting occurred in
1992 between pharmaceutical giant Merck and Co. and InBio, a Costa Rican
non-profit research center committed to cataloging the country's half-million
insects and plants. InBio agreed to
provide Merck's drug-screening programs with chemical extracts from wild
plants, insects, and microorganisms. In
return, Merck agreed to give InBio a two-year research budget of $1.135
million, undisclosed royalties on any resulting commercial products, and
technical assistance and training for in country research. The agreement stipulates that Merck receives
the exclusive rights to screen InBio's samples for medicinal properties. If a drug is developed from one of the
samples, theoretically InBio (and ultimately Costa Rica) would receive
royalties from drug sales. Although the
Merck/InBio agreement was hailed by many as a "model" agreement for
bio-prospecting, others think it is a questionable way of protecting
biodiversity.
Bilateral prospecting
agreements are sanctioned by the multilateral Convention on Biological
Diversity. In the majority of cases,
however, commercial agreements cannot be effectively monitored or
enforced. Unfortunately the reality is
that when indigenous peoples share information or genetic materials, they in
essence lose control over such resources, regardless of whether or not they are
compensated.
Two examples of such
exploitation resulted from actions taken by Eli Lilly and Co. and again by
Merck Pharmaceuticals. Eli Lilly
removed specimens of the rosy periwinkle plant from the forest of
Madagascar. Extracts from the plant led
to the development of two anti-cancer drugs, which have since earned Eli Lilly
approximately $ 1 00 million per year.
Madagascar received nothing. In
a related example, a photographer on assignment in the forests of Brazil for
National Geographic Magazine recognized the potential applications for Western
medicine of a tribal remedy. He sent
bark and sap specimens from the tiki uba tree to Merck, which proceeded to
research and develop a drug for use by Western physicians. The Brazilian tribe received neither credit
nor payments from the drug.
Costa Rica's rainforests are
estimated to hold 5-7% of the world's remaining biodiversity. If similar agreements were widely duplicated,
the biodiversity of the South could be auctioned off for roughly $10 million
per year. Merck's sales in 1992 were
$8.6 billion, while Costa Rica's GNP that year was $5.2 billion. For Merck, the contract with InBio provided
extremely cheap labor, access to unidentified species, and good public
relations.
For the Western markets to
benefit from prospecting in the tropics, it is critical that the local governments
and indigenous peoples also profit.
Many proponents of preserving the rainforests claim that it is for the
sake of the forest dwellers. They claim
that it will afford the indigenous people an income and thus monetary
security. However, under close
scrutiny, this theory has proven false.
In reality, the sharing of benefits between Northern corporations and
indigenous peoples does not occur. For
the most part, the terms and conditions under which indigenous peoples might
benefit financially are controlled by the northern corporations. The dream of huge profits for the indigenous
peoples is just an illusion. There are
several issues surrounding the controversy of ethical standards with regard to
these peoples, whose land is being intruded upon. Perhaps the most critical are intellectual property rights and
property rights for the land.
It is difficult for the
Westerner to understand and accept the indigenous' definition of property. In indigenous systems, there is no "ownership."
Their reverence to nature prohibits the assumption that one may "own"
something. This poses a problem for the American legal system, which places
tremendous value on the notion of private property. Furthermore, since indigenous society does not recognize personal
property, the issue of intellectual property is even more complex. Indigenous
knowledge is traditionally passed orally from generation to generation. It is difficult to determine who the
"owner" of the knowledge is.
Intellectual property rights are hard to enforce when the property in
question is not owned by an individual.
At the forefront of the debate, due to its inclusion in the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), is the introduction of an intellectual
property rights (IPR) system. Current
IPR systems do not protect the rights of indigenous peoples. Under the new agreement, knowledge of the
forest may be patented, thus, allowing for the appropriate compensation to all.
The current bilateral
prospecting agreements fail to acknowledge the contribution of the indigenous
peoples. The fact that the same
medicinal compound may be found and used in various forest communities enables
the bio-prospectors to claim that which they acquire from whichever country
they choose-under terms most favorable to the bio-prospectors. When the time comes to commercialize a plant-based
pharmaceutical, it is left up to the company's discretion to acknowledge and
compensate the indigenous communities.
Because of this, the royalties portion of the agreement is often very
ambiguous.
Corporations need to be held
accountable for their actions. There is
an obvious imbalance between the financial power and legal expertise of
multinational corporations and the developing countries of the South. This leaves no one to negotiate on behalf of
the indigenous people. If a
disagreement arises ten years from now over the origin of a plant species, or
whether or not a patented product results from a natural plant extract or a
synthetic version, it will most likely be left up to the corporations to
decide. Their current track record for
honoring such agreements leaves the indigenous communities at a tremendous
disadvantage.
Several possible remedies to
the current state of bio-prospecting the tropics have been suggested by U.S.
-based environmental programs. To
begin, it is imperative that indigenous communities have the right to say "NO"
to bio-prospectors. Until more
impartial agreements can be reached, many propose a temporary moratorium on
further collecting. Not only are we
destroying thousands of
square miles of rain forests before we even have the opportunity to catalog the
inhabitant species, but it is happening at the expense of the resident
indigenous communities.
A second possible solution
is to disallow the patenting of living products or processes by northern
corporations. While multinational
corporations are free to patent bio-materials, there are no effective
guidelines for recognizing the contributions of the forest dwellers. Until there is, there is no reason to permit
patenting.
In fact, it appears that
patenting for the brand-name pharmaceutical companies is being progressively
more protected by legislation. In 1995,
Congress implemented the latest round of the GATT, which resulted in increased
benefits to the brand-name drug companies.
Patents were extended from 17 years to a maximum of 20 years. As a result, brand-name drug companies are
insulated from competition from generic companies for an additional period of
two years. But in the end, it is the
consumers that bear the brunt of the legislation. Restricting access to generic drugs has cost consumers appro3dmately
$550 million per year. One reason
generic drugs can be sold for less is that they do not have to duplicate the
initial research conducted by the original manufacturer. Restricting patenting or even reducing the
length of patents would help to eliminate the virtual monopoly the large
brand-name pharmaceutical companies have on the market. The availability and use of generic drugs
assists all people in the management of health care without sacrificing
quality. The current policy results in
the
transfer of billions of
dollars from the pockets of consumers to producers of name-brand drugs.
Perhaps the most critical
proposal is two-fold: the establishment of multilateral agreements and the
organization of an indigenous-run foundation.
To avoid the conflict of potential legalese confusion, an advocate for
the indigenous peoples might be beneficial.
The creation of such a foundation would allow the communities involved
to determine the nature and funding of proposed research. Furthermore, the
institution of multilateral programs such as a United Nations fund to support
global conservation of biodiversity would give indigenous communities more
control, and a voice over their circumstances and future.
If scientists and biologists
plan to continue entering the rainforests looking for knowledge and remedies,
it is necessary that they return something of value. The rainforest harvest has done nothing to preserve the forests
nor to benefit the people who live in them.
The pharmaceutical companies of the North need to recognize the existence
of a distinctly different ethical system of the South. Not only should the multinational
corporations prosper, but direct economic benefits need to be granted to the
indigenous communities of the rainforests.
ENDNOTES
Jean-Pierre Kiekens,
"Saving the World's Forests," Environmental News Network, 17 April
1997, 3.
John O'Nile, Presentation in
EDGE series, Stanford University, 17 February 1999.
United Nations Development
Programme, "Conserving Indigenous Knowledge: Integrating Two Systems of Innovation," September.
Kathy Heine, "Treasure
in the jungle," Monsanto Magazine, No. 1, April 1991, 2.
Rosemary Brown, "Equity
Over Exploitation: Global Guidelines for Corporate Giants," Earth Tirries,
October 1994.
"U.S. Drug Company Pays
a NMon for Chance to Mine Costa Rica’s 'Green Gold' for New Medicines,"
Science in the Rainforest, Heredia, Costa Rica, 11 December 199 1.
Stephen Corry, "The
Rainforest Harvest: Who Reaps the Benefit?" Ecologist, Vol. 23, No. 4,
July/August 1993.
WORKS CITED
Brown, Rosemary. 1994. Equity over exploitation. global guidelines
for corporate giants. Earth Times,
October.
Corry, Stephen. 1993. The rainforest harvest: who reaps the
benefit? Ecologist, Vol. 23, No. 4,
July/August.
Heine, Kathy. 199 1.
Treasure in the jungle. Monsanto
Magazine, April, No. 1.
Kiekens, Jean-Pierre.
1997. Saving the world's forests. Environmental News Network, 17 April.
Local
"prospectors" seek the fruits of the forest. New Scientist, Vol. 129, No. 1757, 23
February, 199 1.
O'Nile, John. 1999. Rainforests and Deforestation. Presentation in the EDGE Series, Stanford
University, 17 February.
United Nations Development
Programme. 1994. Conserving indigenous
knowledge: integrating two systems of innovation. UNDP. New York, September.
U.S. drug company pays a
million for chance to mine Costa Rica's "green gold" for new medicines. 199 1. Science in the
rainforest, 11 December.