Quite frankly, I think the only thing that these news laws are doing is to slow down academic research. Poachers will poach. International corporations will hire armies of lawyers, grease the right wheels and easily get permits. Researchers, on the other hand, who have neither time nor resources to go through complicated paperwork to get permits, will simply stop working in difficult areas.

Sorry I don't have a direct answer to your questions, but if you find out please let me know, I am very interested. I know of no reviews in the topic.

Plant breeders can tell a lot of stories about stolen breeding lines and other valuable genotypes, including ones from foreign countries. Some patents were obtained in USA (mostly by ethnic Indians) for compaunds and medicals from Indian plant used traditional medicine that caused the term “bio-piracy” in relation to a commercially useful product that is derived from traditional plants and knowledge.

In 2010 Swiss national operating under not for profit organisation had been researching on medicinal value of plant known as Oloisuki by maasai pastoralists in Tanzania. This plant is used by maasai people for the treatment of malaria. During their study they were also exporting genetic resources from this plant and manage to develop a product known as Maasai syrup. sold in Europe as a soft drink. The whole exercise contravenes Tanzanian and international laws related to access and benefit sharing in genetic resources

The above statement is what we call Bio piracy of genetic resources. There should be equal sharing of these resources e

Paulo: Thank you for this example! It lead me to others reported in the online article: http://www.theinternational.org/articles/233-biopirates-are-harming-indigenous-livelih

Unfortunately, that article was long on accusations, but short of specifics, including the species names. A more thorough reference for Oloisuki is:

http://www.tabef.or.tz/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/A-TALE-OF-BIO-PIRACY-IN-MAASAI-STEPPE.pdf

That article had lots more information, but also did not provide evidence of appreciable economic gain by the pirates. I could not find 'Masai syrup' on the web. All of the examples from the first article are are from pharmaceutical researchers, mostly decades-old (although I realize that main especially recent cases may be harder to document), and through overt bio-prospecting.

There is certainly no doubt that many modern medicines have their roots in traditional medicines (both North and South), most from decades ago. A solid peer-reviewed synthesis of more recent cases would certainly be appreciated, especially any where substantial economic gain by the pirates can be demonstrated.

The on-line articles suggests that the international courts are addressing this problem, and the contracts between bio-prospectors and local governments would seem to be appropriate.

Any evidence of non-bioprospectors ('regular' scientists) have been guilty of such behaviour? Or any animal examples?

Truman. Economic appreciation of Maasai syrup is not necessary be known, the important thing is that they took genetic resources from Tanzania made a product, patent it without any recognition, appreciation or benefits to the source (Tanzanian).

Another one is this: Hoodia (Hoodi gordonii). was used in Southern Africa known as the San. used Hoodia as a hunger suppressant. It was bio pirated by team of researchers in UK........ You can find the article in the web.

The implicit position appears that "biodiversity" is a national asset like land in some countries. However, biodiversity is a number per unit area rather than a physical asset that can be publicly or privately owned. A plant or animal specimen can be owned. As animals feature rarely in this discussion, let's take up the case on huntable game in southern Africa. Farm ownership includes game on the (freehold) land. Such game may include live indigenous species or their rare variants captured outside the farm within or across international borders. Subsequently, breeding material of (re-)introduced species may be traded internationally. Poaching or pirating? In other words, is public ownership of species or specimen and their genes (DNA) or rather private ownership at stake?

If not effort of those who living in Biodiversity rich area to conserve, manage and use them in sustainable way, these biodiversity couldn't be there. I believe that even London was biodiversity rich some times ago but because they decided to change it with buildings and industries biodiversity perished away. We are taking care of these biodiversity for benefit of all of us. It is difficult to accept notion that biodiversity should flow freely to industrialized countries while the flow of biological products from the industrialized countries is patented, expensive and considered the private property of the firm that produce them. This asymetry is unjust

I can appreciate the need for controls (as Paulo has mentioned above), but I feel we must open up and research biodiveristy without the strain and complications of strict state controls. Also the asymetry is not black-and-white. Sometimes controls/strict laws may promote collaborations - and this si positive thing.

Here in Turkey, there are strict laws on field-working and exporting specimens abroad ( I sample wild freshwater fishes). This does strain collaborations; or may even actually promote collaborations with Turkish scientists. I'm a Greek national working with Turkish scientists; I think it would be viewed as a kind of "theft" if I was taking my specimens away to Athens without some close Turkish collaboration. After much paper-work etc I finally found out that I CANNOT legaly export (or practically export) the specimens. So that way I spend more time in a lab in Ankara. But how are these fishes/aqautic ecosystems to be explored/protected if foreign scientists cannot easily work in Turkey?

When i saw this question, I interpreted it in the way that Stamatis Zogaris has in his reply, rather than with the "piracy" of removing material for commercial and patented gain elsewhere. I think that many countries have now made it difficult to remove specimens for study, perhaps not quite to the extent that applies in Turkey. While I think this is counterproductive, it may be in part a reaction to a kind of scientific rather than commercial imperialism. i have found that the answer, usually, is first to find a local collaborator (and perhaps also to offer the prospect of training if needed), and second to make sure that voucher specimens (syntypes at least if new species are described) are returned to an institution in the country concerned. These do not always work, and can be difficult in countries with only rudimentary institutions. I have at least one pending case where material collected with local colleagues is still awaiting clearance for removal, but the study will not advance unless material can be studied using facilities and specimens lodged elsewhere. This actually hinders the scientific careers of local workers, who would benefit from quick publication. As an aside, staying for a long time away from home is expensive, and for many with families impractical.

Alex.  Do you have names (company, microbe, product)?  Otherwise, it is all rumor.

Truman,  I would say it before Feb 2014 but  not now.

But, it was a usual example of successful collaboration told at all our meetings with DTRA and USDA people, not just a rumor. And nobody thought of it as "biodiversity theft" - just about an example of imperfect law

I see that most of problems in this field are caused by absence of general agreement between countries on use of genetic resources for commercial purposes and "royalties" that must be paid to country of origin of such genetic resource. It could be good step if such money will go strictly for science and education.

Hi Truman,

You must be aware of what happened in regards to this in Kenya and the subsequent introduction of the (much dreaded) Material Transfer Agreement that almost no researcher can fulfill the requirements of  in order to legally export samples from the country.  These strict regulations came about in part due to some foreign researchers export and subsequent patenting of a micro-organism (not sure of the specific one) that was extracted from the alkaline Lake Bogoria.  This micro-organism was subsequently used to make acid-washed/faded blue jeans.  I believe it was patented and the researchers made a mint.  This story epitomizes your question.  I don't think there is any proper documentation of this, but the story is certainly known within Kenya.

Darcy,

HI!, and thanks for the story. It would be nice to tease apart truth from rumor in such cases.

let me answer by citing from the case of Echinops Giganteus plant exploited from Cameroon. In 2012, a French flavours and fragrances company V. Mane Fils (MANE) began exploring the aromatic properties of Echinops Giganteus. The pharmaceutical company considered the aroma of Echinops Giganteus as potentially interesting to the perfumes sector. Facilitated by the Cameroon Ministry of Environment, Protection of Nature and Sustainable Development (MINEPDED) in collaboration with Environment and Rural Development Foundation (ERuDef) NGO entered into a 3 years renewable agreement with the Magha-Bamumbu community where this plant is popularly used to treat heart and gastric troubles. As part of the mutually agreed terms (MAT), the pharmaceutical company agreed to share 25% of profits directly attributed to Echinops Giganteus with the Magha-Bamumbu community. Unfortunately, after the 3years of this agreement, this community has not received a fair share from the exploitation of their biodiversity.

11 years old article (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/feb/22/india-protect-traditional-medicines):

India moves to protect traditional medicines from foreign patents

The move comes after scientists in Delhi noticed an alarming trend – the "bio-prospecting" of natural remedies by companies abroad. After trawling through the records of the global trademark offices, officials found 5,000 patents had been issued — at a cost of at least $150m (£104m) — for "medical plants and traditional systems".

The database, which took 200 researchers eight years to compile by meticulously translating ancient Indian texts, will now be used by the European Patent Office to check against "bio-prospectors".

... in Brussels alone there had been 285 patents for medicinal plants whose uses had long been known in the three principal Indian systems: ayurveda, India's traditional medical treatment; unani, a system believed to have come to India via ancient Greece; and siddha, one of India's oldest health therapies, from the south.

Patrick, does the company claim that there are not profits, or does it claim profits and does not share them? Or just silence? Any references?

Alex, apparently the Indian government is not suing for a share of the profits, but rather for the revocation of patents. And not for the use of plant native to India per se, but rather for the idea (traditional medical systems) that certain plants are useful. In other words, defending the ideas more than the species. This is a different approach than others (e.g., Patrick's example above). Any reports that the Indian government is trying to retrieve foreign profits (rather than simply prevent them)?

I think that patenting species is a bad idea, regardless of who does it.

Your questions is directly linked with the Access and Benefit sharing regulations under the 'Nagoya Protocol' and subsequent biodiversity laws by the countries to control the access to genetic resources and ensures benefits to indigenous communities.

It is important to have the policies in place to stop the incidences of bio-piracy however at the same time authorities also need to see that these regulations do not hamper the scientific communities and others. The entire process of granting the permission for both research and commercial utilization needs to be eased out. There have been numerous development in India towards it, Authorities are developing the online platforms and IT tools for granting the permission.

You have asked for the evidences of Bio piracy...We have certain examples in India like- We were traditionally using the Turmeric as anti septic since ages..it has been in our cultural systems from the thousand of years however we did not had the IPR for the same. Research scientist and companies from the developed nations conducted the research on turmeric in India and went for the IPR in their respective countries while both genetic resources and traditional knowledge were originating from the India. There are few other examples as well.

Santosh: I am not sure tumeric is a good example of piracy, at least as defined by the Nagoya Protocol. Tumeric and its medicinal properties have been well-known and in the public sector across many countries for centuries (if not millennia). One could argue that its uses should not be patented by anyone (I would agree with that), but I do not think that if Nagoya had been in place even a hundred years ago, it would have mandated payments to any particular country or culture. Do you have reference to the contrary? Or does Nagoya protect the public sector as well?

What I am really looking for are examples of a new and (highly) profitable use of a species from a particular locality, where the profits have not been shared with the place of origin.

Rosy Periwinkle, native to Madagascar, has recently been shown to be a useful (and profitable) anti-cancer drug, and is often offered up as a prime example of biopiracy. But is the use of rosy periwinkle by cultures across the world (including in Aruveda traditional medicine) an example for biopiracy by all these cultures, at the expense of Madagascar? Would Nagoya encourage Madagascar to sue traditional healers in India who profit from its use?

For that matter, are African countries that grow maize guilty of biopiracy from the Native peoples of the new world? Are the Iriquois guilty of biopiracy from the Mayans? I do not mean to use these examples to ridicule the concept of biopiracy, but rather to point to that it can be a very sticky wicket. Is there a scholarly exploration of these issues available?

Dear Truman, To a large extent i agree with your observations and this is one of the major reasons behind poor implementation of Nagoya protocol across the Nations. Even with in the authorities, there is debate what should come under the biological (genetic) resources and what not. We all in the fraternity of ABS are aware about complexities in it. The turmeric example was on my top of the mind so i shared with you however there are many other examples of bio-piracy in India.

In India, there is a famous case study around Kani Tribes and arogyapacha” ( trichopus zeylanicus ssp. Travancoricus). I am sharing the link of case study. Hope this can be of use to you.

https://www.wipo.int/ipadvantage/en/details.jsp?id=2599

I am happy to engage with you further on this subject and learn more from each other. Thanks

The strict laws imposed by the Nagoya convention treat plants and animals as a source of capital, and several studies have shown it has had an overall negative effect on the study of biodiversity. There are many factors underlying this - be it the multitude of paper work (that usually takes months or years to be processed by local authorities), the impossible demands (e.g. stating which species you will collect in a trap, which is unfeasible for an entomologist), and the fact that many times one cannot even temporarily export specimens for further study, which is crucial if the institutions in the host country do not have the necessary equipment to study the collected material.

Overall, the evidence supporting the case for bio-piracy caused by the activities of scientists is extremely scant - you can read a review of the topic here:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6396/1405.full

Of course, as any field biologist can tell you, the system in many cases is incredibly ineffective and corrupt, and very frequently local scientists will turn a blind eye to the laws of the Nagoya convention, if they know/like their foreign collaborator, or if there is a benefit for them e.g. high impact publications. Furthermore, this system also seems hypocritical at worst, deluded at best, as many megadiverse countries suffer from exploitation and destruction of their biodiversity by multinational corporations and corrupt governments, not scientists. One could also write entire tomes on cases of corrupt officials destroying the forests they are supposed to protect. One should specify that of course the incidence of these phenomena differs from country to country, but the overall outlook in my view is negative.

We of course abide by the laws of the Nagoya convention, but as a community many of us acknowledge how they hamper the study of biodiversity, especially at a time when the rate of biodiversity loss is at its highest point in human history...

My personal view is that the Nagoya convention started with a noble cause for the solution of genuine problems, but has ended up benefiting bureaucrats, governments and political agendas, instead of scientists and biodiversity itself. Sometimes the system is so absurd, that even local scientists cannot collect in their own country!

The scientific community needs to push for the Nagoya convention to be modified and have more realistic terms, that will promote international collaborations that truly result in equitable sharing of information and resources.

This is my perspective as a scientist from a biodiverse country - I am sure others have different opinions, but I think as a community we should engage in this dialogue. Most people I know acknowledge the problem, but do not discuss it in public in fear of losing their jobs and collaborations.

Leonides,

Thank you for your comments and the great reference!

I am also concerned that even if Nagoya gets revised, the individual countries may implement such changes, especially is they feel exploited more broadly by the developing world.

Nagoya protocol implementation is the problem here...and has just made the matters worse..with now countries making reference to it to "deny' access to some key research elements. Howerver, as some one has said there are reasons to worry especially on the story: extremophiles found in Lake Bogoria ..in Kenya: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4cb0/3c616824f3ecc50c7439a1824132a72ac0f9.pdf

that has made agencies like KWS tighten its rules on access to study materials; that in some circumstances isn't justfiede at all

Truman P Young Robert M. Pringle

Thanks, Paul! The Bogoria example looks like a likely candidate. Do you know why the lawsuit was not pursued?