Talk:Bioprospecting

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment Low‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 October 2020 and 16 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Geoplatka.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

 – Merger was opposed vehemently by some; has actually remained stable for 4+ years in merged state; but article tagged as severely problematic, and renamed.

Proposal: merge biopiracy and bioprospecting into Biopiracy and bioprospecting.

Reasons: terms refer to the same thing, simply evaluated differently; biopiracy is the most commonly recognized term, but bioprospecting also has weight in the field. Practical measure which may finally end all remains of the NPOV dispute.

Caravaca 14:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really fail to see, after reading both articles, the supposed connection you are referring to here. Biopiracy and Bioprospecting both have completely different connotations. I vote for 'no'. 70.81.139.6

I realize this discussion was started over a year ago but I think its worth looking at again. Firstly, the phrase 'Biopiracy' is in many contexts a slur against people who call themselves 'Bioprospectors' and so taking either stance introduces bias, as -piracy is a slur and -prospector is a euphemism. I think both article title's are NPOV.

Moreover, Bioprospecting is a dead article which shares a huge overlap of content with this one.Yeago 18:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question of naming things !! Connotations  !! Whispers in dark rooms !! Rumours ! Forgive the self evident statement that both bioprospecting and biopiracy terms could be applied depending on the exploited life form and case circumstances. I don't want to hurt any rhododendron's feelings. AK4722:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)84.92.162.77 (talk)

Why are these articles merged?! They're totally different concepts, and merging them actually weakens the difference that should be created to differentiate the terms.--163.178.17.124 (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was done almost a year ago. Someone came along and renamed the current article, and that's what we have today.Yeago (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This merge - and the current article - has a huge PoV-problem. For instance, the main article should be "Bioprospecting" and in a neutral in tone. A "Controversy" or otherwise critical section could deal with "Biopiracy". That it is done long time ago, does not excuse the rampant PoV-pushing to be found here. As one of many examples of bioprospecting that were done without stepping on the toes of anyone, the history of Kalata-Kalata could be added. --EthicsGradient (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

noun; "bioprospecting, regarded as a form of exploitation of developing countries". Problem Solved???

What about genetic resources taken from a country post-CBD with no traditional knowledge attached to the resource. E.g. Fungi isolated from Grevillea in Australia, taken to the US without access or benefit sharing with potential for the next antibiotic (against Bacillis anthracis (cause of anthrax) and plasmodium (malaria). Can that be classed as biopiracy? 11:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)bootsie007

Apparently that is not biopiracy, but a part of the wider definition of bioprospecting. The only way something wouldn't be biopiracy is if the people who had the traditional knowledge were compensated. But it's so illogical, nations and peoples move, change borders, die out, transfer knowledge to other people and so on, how are you supposed to know which indigenous people had the original idea? For that matter, how do you compensate them? 216.249.60.116 (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am noting that a lot of people who are calling this article 'POV' aren't familiar with how IP works on an international level - it's not a criticism, it's a statement and I hope it is taken as such. I would request that people actually read through the external links on this article before inserting their own POV into this discussion. Ideally, I agree with how the intellectual property laws should work - but the fact is that these laws do not, at present, work the way that all those inserting POV claims are discussing. The Enola Bean is a blaring example. Brazil's creation of drugs for HIV being disputed is another example. The facts are there, and while the term may be considered strong by many, the phrase is in use in academic papers around the world.

One person claims that this entry is allowing people to move their political agenda forward, and yet... nobody has dealt with the facts regarding actual cases. Folks, if you want to call this POV - fine - but address the facts, and know the topic, please. The way the system actually works is obviously - based on fact - not the way you think it should work. Which is sort of the whole point. :-)

I'm removing the POV notice now. Address the facts, and understand the actual cases, please. --TaranRampersad 18:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is POV down to the title which, I'd imagine, is not used by anyone who is not a true believer. jdb ❋ (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One person disagrees and there's a 'dispute'? Honestly, Biopiracy is a common phrase used in the developing nations, and is one of the words by the United Nations and even WIPO with regard to unlicensed use of plants that are patented. This is a major issue for the developing nations. I would think that this article, if disputed, would be disputed in a more constructive manner and with more detail than a broad brush stroke saying, basically, 'I don't believe it'. I call for this article to be moved out of dispute until such time that those with disputes at least put more effort into their disputes. Further, if there are disputes they should be about objectivity.

Also, please clarify what a 'true believer' is.--TaranRampersad 15:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since no clarification was given, I have removed the dispute tag until such time that there is more than vague accusations of 'dispute'. Edit the article objectively if you are in a position to dispute, per the guidelines of the dispute link - and if you cannot, give more than a broad brush stroke, please. If there are issues, they cannot be addressed by the above. --TaranRampersad 03:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been here for months. Please see below. jdb ❋ (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed folowing:

The company may even ask for the intellectual protection of the modified variety in the original country in order to prevent both seeds from co-existing, and the natural variety from being sold under the traditional name. In the latter case, the source country loses its rights to produce or use the original variety for any further breeding.

The statement make these three claims:

• The company may ... prevent both seeds from co-existing - All IP provisions (patents, copyrights, etc) protect the the derived or new thing or whatever, not the idea or work that existed before.
• The company may ... prevent ... the natural variety from being sold under the traditional name - I guess it is supposed to mean "traditional name being protected by trademark". This is unlikely because trademarks are granted to distinguish bussiness or product and cannot be generic. See Trademark#Establishing trademark rights
• ... the country loses its rights ... for ... breeding - Again, this would be possible only when the original species would be patentable, which is (as I explain above) impossible.

For this I am removing this paragraph. --Alvin-cs | Talk 13:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin, this would all make sense if the world all followed the same Copyright, Patent and Trademark laws - but they do not. The point made in the paragraph you removed (which we are now discussing putting back in) is that even if something already existed naturally in another country, it can be patented in a separate country and TRIPs agreements as well as GATT can force the original country to pay to use the same thing. Thus the term biopiracy.

• You say that trademarks are not an issue, and yet trademark law is localized to a country. A trademark search is only good for the country in which the trademark search is done - that is common knowledge. This can happen, and is valid.

• And the original species is patentable by present laws - which is what the whole biopiracy issue is really about. IP laws don't work the way you are describing. Thus, I shall return the paragraph if I do not get a response from you within the next 72 hours on this... (It's a discussion, and while I have feelings about this, we're talking about objective material in the Wikipedia - so please note that I'm not fighting, just discussing).--TaranRampersad 18:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original species, by definition, ARE NOT patentable. Or, if they are patented mistakenly (which does occur), they are paper thin and probably unenforceable. That's the reason the existence of "biopiracy" is somewhat debatable, and why most legal scholars entirely doubt its existence. That said, there may be backwards patent law system which would support patenting the original, but that's probably NOT the system involved in 99% of IPR disputes. A fundamental principle of a legitimate patent law system is that you cannot patent that which would prevent the farmer from doing that which he's already been doing. For example, someone tried patenting growing broccoli for cancer protection and suing broccoli producers for infringement. It was held the patent invalid[1]. Now, once you introduce something new, eg. hybrid crops, isolated and purified genes, chemicals, etc, you have patent infringement and licensing issues.
  • On trademarks. It's true that trademarks are generally localized. However, the strength of a trademark is also relative to several factors including distinctiveness. Generic marks--one that identifies the product or service in the generic sense (eg. using the word "plastic bag" as a trademark for a plastic bag)--are hardly protectable, if at all, under ANY legitimate system. Furthermore, an indication of use must be that is identifiable as a mark, not merely that it is used. If a local community understands the name of the plant to be the name of the plant, and not the commericial source of the product, it's not going to be easily protectable.
  • None of this is new. These are merely fundamental principles. If you want to cite local IPR oddities of certain source countries that permit such practices, go for it. That would probably be helpful for this article. However, by and large, your interpretation of the law is, in the most general sense, wrong. Mmmbeer 13:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

* unauthorised use of biological resources

Although I am aware that development of biological warfare, abusive animal testing, hunting endangered species and recently human cloning are illegal and thus unauthorized, the article does not look like mean these. Can anyone give an example of use that would require authorisation (propably from goverment body)?

* unauthorised use of traditional communities' knowledge on biological resources

This sounds like unauthorised use general knowledge being wrong in some sense. Many companies exploit e.g. the day-and-night cycle or that the best grocerry near our block is Tom's. So, because noone authorises use of traditional knowledge, this can not be sign of an activity and so should be deleted.

* unequal share of benefits...

Would be 50:50 share of income equal? Rubbed down to "not sharing of benefits ..."

These flaws in definition make term "biopiracy" vague. Can someone fix this? Without this, fixing rest does not have a sense.

I looks to me like this article in general being WP:POV duplicate of GMO#Controversy and Controversy paragraphs in related articles. If nobody determines the scope of "biopiracy", I would suggest merging with GMO or something alike. --Alvin-cs | Talk 13:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unauthorised use is actually a business term in this. Like using software without authorization. I do sort of agree that this could be rolled into controversies, as you point out, but it is a term used in the United Nations and people do look for this entry because they want to find out what it is.--TaranRampersad 17:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I went ahead and "fixed" this article quite substantially. I simply commented out a number of things that were entirely inappropriate, like the software patent rant. That doesn't make this article NPOV yet. TaranRampersad was totally out of line to remove the banner. This article is in need of a great deal of help and focus. Save the anti-corporate, anti-globalization, anti-patent screeds for something else. I also went through the sources cited and they're in need of a great deal of trimming and balancing. We get it... they think biopiracy is the worst thing ever. However, do not remove the NPOV banner. It's nowhere near NPOV. Mmmbeer 22:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing. I mentioned that this article "needs focus", but I want to be clear as to at least one point. Biopiracy may relate to genetically modified food, but that's not really the point. It deserves a mention, but this is NOT the appropriate article for that discussion. Mmmbeer 22:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some perpective from the April 2000 issue From the Council for Responsible Genetics

"DNA Patents Create Monopolies on Living Organisms"

The hunt for new genes to exploit for profit is regarded as a vast new frontier in science and industry. "Bioprospectors" are mining the rich genetic resources of the Third World for pharmaceutical compounds and other products, often using indigenous knowledge as their guide. As a result, indigenous communities could end up paying royalties for products based on plants and knowledge that they have been using for centuries.

Are patents necessary to provide incentive to scientists and business? Searching the world over

As new DNA sequences on our chromosomes are being identified, entrepreneurial scientists are applying for patents in order to claim exclusive rights to research and profits from thousands of such gene sequences. The Human Genome Organization (HUGO) is an international membership organization of individual scientists dedicated to coordinating efforts in genome research. HUGO recently released a statement in favor of the right of those who have determined the biological functions or products of the genes to patent their work. Patents are necessary, they claim, to provide financial incentive for scientists to do meaningful research. Does the research of molecular biologists give them the right to own genes? A gene bank project aims to preserve the genes of disappearing cultures.

A project associated with HUGO is the Human Genome Diversity Project. Designated by critics as the "Vampire Project," it aims to collect blood, hair and cell samples from up to 700 indigenous communities throughout the world. The stated goal is to gather genetic information from "vanishing" indigenous communities before these people disappear as a result of increasing industrialization and political repression. Many indigenous groups are outraged that researchers might patent genes without the consent of the communities of origin. All of the targeted groups agree that the goal of cultural preservation could be achieved by better methods than merely keeping their genes frozen away in a laboratory tissue museum. As Chief Leon Shenandoah of the Onondaga Council of Chiefs wrote in a letter to the National Science Foundation, "If there is a concern for our demise, then help us survive on our terms."

I'm going to throw my hat into the ring and say this article is POV. To start with, just examining this bullet point:

patenting of biological resources with no respect to patentable criteria (novelty, non-obviousness or inventive step and usefulness or industrial applicability).

Is biopiracy a critique on the exploitation of markets or one of the patent law system? Patenting of isolated and purified substances has repeatedly been upheld by courts in the United States. So that's hardly "with no respect to patentable criteria."

Not to mention the scenario is entirely POV. I mean, what the heck is the point? Couldn't one construct a totally unsympathetic scenario too? Consider the alternative: local group realizes westerners have commericial interest in a plant compound used to successfully treat AIDS, and, to prevent their magic from being lost, decide to burn the plant before the compound could be isolated. Yay for biopiracy!

What is with people writing "encyclopedia" articles for their favorite political issue? Mmmbeer 04:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're injecting your POV. Your experience is apparently only based on U.S. interpretation of laws. I strongly suggest you do more research; you won't need it for the bar but you will need it to help hammer out a better article on Biopiracy. Thus, inherently, you are injecting your own POV - so it is somehow appropriate that you keep adding 'NPOV' when you edit.

There is a world outside of the United States. Get used to it. --65.199.203.228 05:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You'd better explain how the population with the native plant couldn't export it. The patent law doesn't protect the plant. It protects the "isolated and purified" gene, chemical, etc. If the country wanted to export the, let's say fruit, they very well could. Indeed, the local populations can continue going on doing what they had done for forever without additional costs. Of course, if they wanted the product incorporating that patented material, well, then they're no different than anyone else. Mmmbeer 11:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I'm willing to say that this article, as it is now, is closer to NPOV. Mmmbeer

For a view on the other side of the biopiracy debate I have been recommended Paul Heald, "The Rhetoric of Biopiracy", 11 Cardozo J. Int'l & Comp. LJ 519 (2003). It's a somewhat controversial article but quite famous and is known for being one of the most pursuasive arguments "for" biopriacy. This is all second hand information as I don't know all that much about the topic myself, so take it for what its worth. I hope to try to look it up one of these days when I can find the time. -- PullUpYourSocks 12:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It can be downloaded here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=285177#PaperDownload (warning: Firefox apparently doesn't work). Rasmus (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This link works better: here. Mmmbeer 18:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The primary failing of this article is the omission of the rationale for so-called "biopiracy" -- that there are plenty of useful organisms in the world, and that those who go to the effort of finding and preparing them for large-scale use ought to benefit from doing so. A fine example is Cyclosporine, an immunosuppressant used in organ transplantation. It was originally discovered as the product of a fungus living in Norwegian dirt. Was it "biopiracy" for the manufacturers of cyclosporine to patent their invention?

The very word "biopiracy" is a non-neutral term -- it's akin to naming our article on homosexuality "gross indecency," or our agriculture article "land rape," or our democracy article "tyranny of the majority." If you Google for it, the vast majority of the results are highly-charged sites _against_ "biopiracy." (Besides contrarians like the author above, who, exactly, is _for_ "biopiracy"? It's like renaming "motherhood" to "maternal slavery" and asking if anyone's in favor of _that_.) You'll find plenty of defenders of patent protection of chemicals discovered in exotic areas, but few of them will call themselves "pirates."

As the article, both in title and content, remains highly POV, I've restored the NPOV warning. jdb ❋ (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do please consider the use of biopiracy in the title of the above-cited SSRN article -- "Rhetoric of Biopiracy" -- which argues against sui generis protection for indigenous knowledge; I think this shows that biopiracy is pretty well established in usage, and people will look for an article with this title. When they find it, though, they should be told in the lead paragraph that the term is controversial; the article should then present both sides fairly and accurately. See the proposed revision, below. NPOV doesn't mean that a point of view you disagree with got into the article (or even its title); it means that the presentation is one-sided. (I think it is one-sided, and I've made a suggestion (below) for fixing it (at least in the lead paragraph)Bryan 16:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add something a student just wrote to me: " Wikipedia's article on biopiracy was the single article I found during my research that represented the views of multinational corporations as well as indigenous peoples," such as this: "Gaining power over (indigenous) knowledege allows more people all over the world to benefit from knowledge that would otherwise be unknown". I think there's still some work to do on this article, but the need for an article with this name, notwithstanding its bias, seems clear. Bryan 21:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Re: JosephBarillari. While I don't like the term, and have put this article up for NPOV before, I don't think that you're right that the topic is akin to calling motherhood "maternal slavery". Well, it might be, but that's really a bad analogy anyhow. I don't think that anyone would say they were "for biopiracy". I'm not sure that there are many people that would say that they're for genocide or anything you can name that we consider genuinely reprehensible or immoral. The problem for this article, though, is that this is a term used to describe a particular behavior and it is the common term for it (unlike "maternal slavery") (Ed. I wonder if we need a redirect from maternal slavery to motherhood). In any event, there's no place else to send this article. It deals with a real topic and several countries have taken up the issue--see Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, etc[2].
  • That all said, this article has a lot of work. It's better than it was before I got my hands on it--basically an anti-globalization rant. Unless there are viable locations for the article, it should stay. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 22:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Biopiracy refers to the patentingprivatization and unauthorized use of biological resources [Indigenous knowledge|indigenous biomedical knowledge] by foreign entities (including corporations, universities and governments) without compensatory payment. Since no consensus exists that the patenting of indigenous knowledge actually amounts to piracy, some believe this term is too biased to be used. However, it is well established in the literature. outside of a country which has pre-existing knowledge. This privatization and use is sometimes claimed to be predatory. Particular activities usually covered by the term are...

Rationale:

• Biopiracy isn't about the appropriation of resources; it's about the appropriation and privatization (by means of patents) of knowledge
• It is important to mention 'without compensatory payment' -- if payment were made, presumably, we wouldn't call it 'piracy'. Bryan 16:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'll bite on the patenting point. I don't think that that'll work. In fact, I'm almost certain all the behaviors attempted to be captured by the "biopiracy" can described simply as patenting. In fact, it's possible that a patent on certain biological materials have no patent potential at all--especially, if we look outside US patent law. In those cases, the objection is the problem "taking" something local and then never returning. Patenting is certainly part of it, but it's not all of it.
  • On compensation, I think you're right to an extent. Those "exploitive" entities do often pay something for access; it's just that when biopiracy concerns are raised it is usually because the compensation is less than what is received for the resulting commercial product. This makes sense, of course. Leading you to gold is a cheap service, but actually mining, purifying, exporting, and retailing involves considerably more "risk" and "cost". As such, it's perhaps better phrased as "without just compensation". Of course the problem with that is you're going to start to slide down the slippery slope. In my example, what portion of the profits from the gold is due the person who leads you to the gold? What if the person didn't know what they had and figured it for iron pyrite? That's a tough argument to make.
  • Finally, biopiracy, as a concept, exists and is demonstrable. The problem is usually whether one believes that it is a "bad" thing, something to be genuinely concerned about, or if there is some inequity in the outcomes. So I'm not sure that your last significant change makes sense. In the spirit of full disclosure, I think it's a bunch of bunk, but that's not a first. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 22:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We do seem to be crossing paths today! --Thanks for these very helpful comments. What do you think of this?

'Biopiracy is a loaded term that refers to the appropriation, generally by means of patents, of [Indigenous knowledge|indigenous biomedical knowledge] by foreign entities (including corporations, universities and governments); such appropriations are said to be a form of piracy when indigenous peoples (or their advocates) believe that adequate compensation has not been paid.

For example, in 1995 the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a pharmaceutical research firm received a patent on a technique to extract an antifungal agent from the Neem tree (Azadirachta indica), which grows throughout India; Indian villagers have long understood the tree's medicinal value. Although the patent had been granted on an extraction technique, the Indian press described it as a patent on the Neem tree itself; the result was widespread public outcry, which was echoed throughout the developing world.

In part due to biopiracy's perceived resemblance to colonialism, in which Western governments were seen to extract natural resources from colonized countries without paying due compensation, it is often presented -- as the term biopiracy obviously suggests -- as a form of predation, which is practiced by richer nations upon the poorer. Although few would advocate biopiracy, defenders of the patent system point out that, in the absence of patents, pharmaceutical companies would have little incentive to develop modern medications from indigenous knowledge, which means that the medical benefits of this knowledge would be denied to millions of people worldwide. Bryan 00:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are all fighting, but when I added something to the articleand sourced it, that became the only numbered source on the page. Shouldn't someone be linking up all those statements withsome proof?Gabbahead 21:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of balance in the item brings disrepute to Wikipedia. Other contentious issues in the globalization debate are well and fairly represented. The range of account of the meaning of Biopiracy is narrow, the inherently political nature of concept by those who coneived it is inadequately discussed, the range of sources and links is skewed. An immediate improvement would be source Graham Dutfield on www.Sci.Dev.Net "Bioprospecting: legitimate research or 'biopiracy' " where he presents a balanced picture on the evolution of the term "Biopiracy". ao

Problem with above comment: no date or author attached. I assume the comment applies to an outdated version of the article, unless its author returns with a dated comment and states otherwise. Caravaca 08:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link is http://www.scidev.net/en/agriculture-and-environment/bioprospecting/policy-briefs/bioprospecting-legitimate-research-or-biopiracy--1.html . Dutfield gives a balanced view. Twr57 (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the whole term is a red herring. The real issue is trying to own a naturally-occuring form of life (not just a single plant) the same way Stephen King owns his copyrights. This doesn't make a lot of practical sense and is only enforceable with heavy-handed tactics like sneaking unto fields to gather evidence or burning illegal crops. It's as insane as trying to charge someone with theft for 'stealing' your sunlight by flying over your solar cells. 75.70.89.124 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to quibble about the inclusion of the example in the introductory paragraph, but I have to wonder if it's appropriate to footnote that something was widely reported but have it link to a very peculiar site. One questionable source != widely reported. Also, I'm not doubting the veracity of the statement, it may have been. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 01:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. "Widely reported" means: I've read a lot on the topic and IMHO the failure to compensate the indigenous people in the Rosy Periwinkle case verges so strongly on "common knowledge" in the field that nobody (else) particular bothers to explicitly state it or supply sources any more. "Common knowledge" in my view is knowledge which no longer requires any footnotes at all. But I put one in all the same! How many more sources would you like? Caravaca 08:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"very peculiar site": Living Rainforest is not a peculiar site! It looks to me like a museum/information centre with real staff, a real building and a school-orientated educational mission that goes out of its way to be informed, informative, impartial and simple. In my view, it's much better than an web-only source. Could your comment have anything to do with the UK being a long way from Wisconsin?! [warning: humour] But seriously, I can add more sources. Or would you like to suggest one? Caravaca 08:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reader needs to know what the 'country of origin' was and who 'the indigenous people' were. It would also be of interest to know what information was made use of. 'Common knowledge' has its place, but some things that many people know are wrong. Twr57 (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of the fact that if and when a patent is granted to a private organization, the specific thing being patented becomes just as much property of the applying party as land is property of a nation. This leads to POV in the following arguments section, where matters are only examined from the standpoint of a nation forbidding the use of a plant in Most Virtuous Medicine that Saves Little Children rather than ever mentioning the other, more infamous way where a patent granted to a corporation is used to strip indigenous peoples of the natural right to make use of, and further refine, their traditional knowledge.

Certainly this sounds alarmist. I'd de-POV the section myself if it weren't for the lack of concrete reference, rather than memories of news articles from yesteryear, with which I'm afflicted. One must consider however that patents in the US are typically laid out like an onion, with very very general claims at the top and the real meat at the bottom. Though an apologist might make the argument that only the specific claims are enforced, this viewpoint acquires a degree of failure and suck on contact with the real world. Indeed, the wider patent claims present in a patent for a specific method of data compression have been successfully used against (out of court, I'd imagine, patent litigation being ridiculously expensive for no gain for the defendant) parties that were putting out-of-patent or prior art covered techniques to use, even and particularly when these techniques had little (if anything outside the rough field of application) to do with the patent's specific claims, or even its title! It is not hard to imagine, and I would be surprised if evidence of this were difficult to find, a situation where an indigenous people are suddenly forbidden from growing, say, traditional varieties of rice due to their government's deference to the US patent regime, even though according to the apologists of "bioprospecting" the relevant patent only covered a few molecules in some obscure industrialized situation.

In closing, would someone with proper Wikipedia princess mojo mind sticking a NPOV tag at the top of that section? Again, I'd do it myself but being just an anonymous shithead I think I'll pass this time. The article was written by someone, and that someone may easily prevail over Andy N. Onymous in a dispute. 88.112.2.159 18:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure what your point is. I'm not going to disagree that the section needs work, but I'm not entirely clear what you think needs to be done. I will point out one thing, though: patents are territorial. There are only some narrow circumstances in which a foreign patent may be enforced (importation of a patented product, export of components for use in a patented process abroad). Furthermore, countries don't really defer "to the US patent regime", but they may find offering US patent owners the same protection in their country appropriate. Even in that case, patents don't stop a farmer from doing what they've always done. Even in cases like Monsanto's Technology Use Policy to prevent saving of seeds and prohibitting resale of their patented seeds, that's enforced by contract.

Finally, rants about the patent system are really rants about the patent system. I'm not sure how talking about litigation costs, prior art searches, and data compression are really that relevant to ownership rights. The point of the biopiracy article should be to describe biopiracy and the mechanisms by which it operates. Biologic resources are not really that different than anything else. The problem people have is not that indigineous peoples lose their ability to use the natural resource (often NOT the case), but rather that they lose out on the ability to exploit that resource for profit or share in the commercialization. In fact, there's some really irony in the idea of indigenous knowledge I.P. proposals which would create yet another type of I.P. and perhaps lead to yet different types of biopiracy. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 13:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An apologist who argued that the broadest claims of a US patent were unlikely to be enforced would be displaying his or her ignorance. That one won't run. The indigenous peoples who are suddenly stopped from selling rice they've been selling for centuries is in principle impossible - though in practice only pretty unlikely, given that very silly patents get granted sometimes. The Enola Bean patent - discussed in the article, and (let us hope) on its way out, however slowly - is a case in point.Twr57 (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I've changed some of the text about vincristine since strictly speaking it wasn't accurate. Vincristine is used in chemotherapy for several types of cancer, none of which is specifically a "children's cancer". Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia often does affect children, but also adults over the age of 50. Hodgkin lymphoma mostly affects young adults and people over 60; non-Hodgkin lymphoma incidence increases with age. It's also not correct to speak of vincristine as a "cure". Firstly, it's used only as one component of a therapy regime, not on its own, and secondly, while the long-term survival rates can be good, "cure" is far too strong a term to be used unqualifiedly. Kay Dekker 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. courts have upheld patents on biological substances like adrenaline and even basic elements.

OK, I'm not a patent lawyer, but that surprises me. There's certainly no mention of this on the Chemical element page. I'd really like to see a citation for a US court upholding a patent on an element. Kay Dekker 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a patent for an element, regardless of whether it was court-tested or not. I can't think of a good way to search, though, since most elements will appear in many patents even though the element itself is not claimed. Thoughts? CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect.Yeago (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed both parts. I could not find a patent, as such, on adrenaline: [3]. Of course anyone with a decent reference/patent number can replace this if there's something I've missed. (Note that pre-1975 patents are not very searchable in the USPTO.)

CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC) But they now are on Google. See USP 1,002,909.Twr57 (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a granted claim to a chemical element, and moreover one that's been tested in court. See In re Seaborg, 328 F.2d 996 (CCPA 1964). Claim 1 of US patent 3,156,523 reads "1. Element 95".Twr57 (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see and incorporate Conrad Gorinsky into this articleYeago 17:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

84.92.162.77 (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)== Opening ==[reply]

From the first paragraph:

Vincristine was initially patented and marketed by Eli Lilly.

I think that this should be corrected, or sourced if correct. I found a patent from Eli Lilly claiming N-desmethylvinblastine and a method for making it from vincristine (#3354163) as well as a patent for a process for purifying vincristine and other substances (#3932417), but no patent on vincristine itself. I'm not sure that it would be patentable under US or EU laws, since there is evidence of prior art in earlier patent claims (see #3352868) *Natural products cannot be granted patents*. AK47 [I was under impression vincristine is natural product]

Would

A method for purifying vincristine was initially patented and marketed by Eli Lilly.

fix the problem?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently in serious need of vigorous NPOV editing. The problems start with the title, and go on from there.

A better title than Biopiracy and bioprospecting might be a good start: "biopiracy" is clearly a self-evident Bad Thing and as such this term is solely used by its opponents, and "bioprospecting" clearly a self-evident Good Thing, and this term therefore solely used by its supporters.

Perhaps "Biopiracy controversy"? Or "Controversy over commercialization of traditional remedies"?

If no-one can come up with a more neutral title, the same article cannot deal with both, since two opposing biases are loaded right into the title. We should perhaps consider unmerging the two articles.

The Anome (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've now moved this article to commercialization of traditional medicines, something which I hope both sides can agree on as a neutral name for the subject of the article, rather than using the weighted terms of "bioprospecting" or "biopiracy". -- The Anome (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that the article isn't confined to the commercialisation of traditional medicines. It includes traditional seeds - see the section on the 'Enola bean'. To leave out seeds - and agriculture generally (the neem patent was not on a medicinal use of neem) - is to cut the subject down arbitrarily. "Knowledge" rather than "medicines" might do it. Twr57 (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought. But then you must consider the dubious usage of 'traditional'. I think the move from Bioprospecting and biopiracy was a step down when it comes to exactness. I thought the fact that both were included in the title resolved the NPOV issue (and the NPOV issue isn't really so strong, as the terms appear in a plethora of contexts, some weighted, some not). That's why I moved it to 'Bioprospecting and biopiracy' in the first place.Yeago (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is 'bioprospecting' self-evidently a Good Thing? The two terms have a common prefix 'bio' which is generally broadly neutral, so the flavour presumably comes from the suffix. 'Piracy' is clearly bad. Why is 'prospecting' clearly good? It seems pretty neutral to me. Twr57 (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC) The current title of the article is admirably neutral, but unfortunately inaccurate. It is not solely about medicines. See for example basmati rice, the 'Enola' bean, etc. I am thinking about changing it - change it again if you have a better idea.Twr57 (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is terrible. All 3 words (commercialization/traditional/medicines) are misleading. As mentioned above, there are issues with food stuffs as well as medicines. The title doesn't cover "bioprospecting" where no traditional knowledge is involved (i.e., bulk screening of plants and discovering a new compound), regardless of whether the "owners" of the organism are compensated or not. And how about cases (rosy periwinkle) where the traditional medicinal use has nothing to do with the use for which a patent is granted? I believe there are also cases (ayahuasca?) where a patent was granted, but no comercialized product resulted. Bioprospecting/biopiracy are loaded terms, yes, but they cover non-foods, non-traditionally used organisms and patents that fail to be commercialized. It'd be interesting to know how people end up on this page; I was looking for biopiracy, and I'd guess most searches leading here are for that or bioprospecting. Nobody is searching for "commercialization of traditional medicines".192.104.39.2 (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed the entire essay-like "Ownership" section from the article. This was a difficult call, since it removed a substantial amount of well-written but essay-like material, including a couple of cited references for individual points. My justification for this action is that the section in total constituted original research and was synthetic overall, and in my opinion needed removing, both per policy, and to help the article evolve in a more structured way. I also believe that this does not affect the balance of the article, since the material removed was, although essay-like, also quite balanced, so no agenda is advanced by removing it.

For reference, the last version of the article containing it can be found here: [4]. If it is to be restored, it first needs a complete rewrite to meet the requirements for attributability and verifiability from reliable sources throughout.

Since the points it raised are significant, I'd appreciate it if they could be re-written in a new non-synthetic, non-OR, framework. -- The Anome (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Yeago, who restored the entire section, after first removing all the {{fact}} tags, with the comment "rv. You can't stick an OR tag on cited material. I'm probably going to revert things to a day or so ago and get mediation in here to deal with this, as most of your edits are suspect.":

Saying that "most of [my] edits are suspect" comes close to accusing me of bad faith. I have tried to scrupulously maintain balance in this article, trying to keep the balance between the characterization of this activity as "biopiracy" and the characterization of it as "bioprospecting". If you can make the "Ownership" section into something other than original research. I'd greatly appreciate it.

At the moment, it's an essay, and an essay with occasional cites is still an essay, as can be seen from the use throughout of passive and/or free-floating phrases like "One might argue that" and "[a] virtue-based approach might argue that", "would probably have", and "it is intuitively intolerable that". In each case, someone either actually made these respective arguments in a reliable citable source, or they didn't. If it can be cited, attribute it. If not, take it out. Providing a cite for each individual section in the "ownership" section would be a start.

Removing {{fact}} tags does not make the need for cites go away. -- The Anome (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership section still needs POV work in addition to citations. It's not that it's blatantly biased; it just doesn't present both sides of the issue. For instance, there are arguments against the premise in most of the subjsections but none for "All humankind as the owner of biodiversity." I didn't try to write more into that subsection but did take out its second paragraph, "Temporary patent rights imply that entrepreneurship is valued and investing in new research and experimentation can be profitable." As written before my edit, it wasn't logically tied into its subsection. Patent protection may fit into this view in that, though 'all humankind is the owner of biodiversity,' the benefits of this diversity will not reach people without patents. If that is the intended link it should be qualified and made clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.84.74 (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The related Category:Biopiracy and bioprospecting has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Renaming in this case, to match this article. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone less naive in Wikiways than I explain what's going on here? I go to 'Categories for Discussion' to contribute (possibly) and find an embargo on contributing. There was a link to another page, which asked for contributions 'below the line', but I couldn't find any way of making them (nothing below the line showed up for editing or adding to). In my view "Biopiracy and bioprospecting" is a reasonably balanced title (though of course what people mean by 'biopiracy' is quite unclear, except that it's something inherently evil) and has the advantage of indicating what the article is about. A title that limits the subject to 'Traditional medicines' is simply inadequate to cover the range of subject-matter involved. Twr57 (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just shift it to the bottom of the article and change the name to Criticism of commercialization of traditional medicines. Take out the bioprospecting part and shove it up in the intro. 216.249.60.116 (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. "Mein Geduld ist zu Ende". I give notice that, if the next time I come back to this article, it is still entitled "Commercialisation of Traditional Medicines", I shall delete the sections headed 'Enola Bean' and 'Basmati Rice' on the ground that these can by no stretch of the imagination be considered Traditional Medicines. No reason not to include them under a broader title. Twr57 (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the hope that a calm consideration of the content of the article will lead to universal agreement that the title should be amended as proposed, I've reinstated (in abbreviated form) the paragraph on Basmati. This is a classic case of [quote] 'biopiracy' [unquote], and should be included. I also have put in a link to the patent. This has the original claims in it. I tried to verify that the claims had been restricted (I remember that this was said at the time) but I couldn't do so from the USPTO website (Public Pair). Can anybody help? Twr57 (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now restored the section on the Enola Bean as well. I have seen no objection to changing the title as proposed, so (having finally discovered how to do so) I've done this. Twr57 (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone more experienced with wiki-editing than me should look at that section. The following contains what appears to be an attempt at a link to articles for India and Nepal but isn't formatted correctly: "...anti-fungal agent from the neem tree (Azadirachta indica), which grows throughout [[India][Nepal]]; Indian villagers have long understood the tree's medicinal value." Help? Thanks! 208.125.237.242 (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cases seem to be in no specific order. Neither alphabetical, nor by date. It would be nice to have them sorted by the date of each plant's first patents filing. 75.70.89.124 (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the bare URLs listed in the references section are either dead links or links to pages that have since changed. Please consider using more verifiable sources such as reports or newspaper or journal articles that can be more easily retrieved. Animalparty (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bioprospecting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413132944/http://www.unilever.com.au/sustainability/nutrition/ to http://www.unilever.com.au/sustainability/nutrition/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ghanaweb.com/public_agenda/article.php?ID=5062
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060418041208/http://www.biodiv.org:80/doc/info-centre.shtml to http://biodiv.org/doc/info-centre.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060425201122/http://www.biodiv.org:80/doc/lists/bib-art-cbd.pdf to http://biodiv.org/doc/lists/bib-art-cbd.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041224233949/http://www.activistmagazine.com:80/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=127 to http://www.activistmagazine.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=127
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070318062301/http://twnside.org.sg:80/ to http://www.twnside.org.sg/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070709054650/http://www.etcgroup.org/en/issues/biopiracy.html to http://www.etcgroup.org/en/issues/biopiracy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030625011109/http://www.alternet.org:80/story.html?StoryID=16057 to http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16057
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ip.aaas.org/tekindex.nsf/TEKPAD?OpenFrameSet

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bioprospecting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050418042121/http://crop.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/44/3/968 to http://crop.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/44/3/968
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140430032944/http://www.csw.ucla.edu/publications/newsletters/2010-2011/article-pdfs/Apr11_Foster.pdf to http://www.csw.ucla.edu/publications/newsletters/2010-2011/article-pdfs/Apr11_Foster.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ghanaweb.com/public_agenda/article.php?ID=5062
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biodiv.org/doc/info-centre.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biodiv.org/doc/lists/bib-art-cbd.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060418041208/http://www.biodiv.org/doc/info-centre.shtml to http://biodiv.org/doc/info-centre.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.activistmagazine.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=127

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bioprospecting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110023325/http://www1.american.edu/TED/enola-bean.htm to http://www1.american.edu/TED/enola-bean.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130623025334/http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/32433/1/114581.pdf to http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/32433/1/114581.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051013101935/http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/mexico/biopiracy.pdf to http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/mexico/biopiracy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of references for the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library Sen S, Chakraborty R. Traditional Knowledge Digital Library: a distinctive approach to protect and promote Indian indigenous medicinal treasure. Current Science (00113891). May 25, 2014;106(10):1340-1343. Kidd, Ian James. (2012). Biopiracy and the Ethics of Medical Heritage: The Case of India's Traditional Knowledge Digital Library. Journal of Medical Humanities, 33(3), 175-183. Kangarooth (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]