IN A world increasingly driven by science and technology, nature has become an invaluable resource for discovery. From the dense forests of the Amazon to the mangroves of Bangladesh, researchers are tapping into the vast reservoir of biological wealth, hunting for compounds that could lead to the next breakthrough in medicine, agriculture or biotechnology. This practice, known as bioprospecting, holds immense promise but is also fraught with ethical dilemmas. At its best, bioprospecting can lead to transformative innovations; at its worst, it can veer into biopiracy 鈥� exploitation of indigenous knowledge and natural resources for corporate gain without fair compensation. The tension between these two outcomes raises profound questions about the future of biodiversity, intellectual property, and indigenous rights.
听
Thin line between bioprospecting and biopiracy
BIOPROSPECTING refers to the exploration of biodiversity for commercially valuable genetic and biochemical resources. From pharmaceuticals to biotechnology firms, companies have long partnered with academics to identify natural compounds with the potential to transform industries. Pharmaceutical giants, in particular, are heavily invested in bioprospecting, seeking out new treatments for diseases ranging from cancer to Alzheimer鈥檚. Yet, too often, the communities from which this knowledge originates are left behind 鈥� exploited rather than included.
Yet, as history has shown, this practice can easily slip into biopiracy 鈥� a term first popularised in the 1990s to describe the exploitation of indigenous knowledge without proper recognition or compensation. The line between ethical bioprospecting and biopiracy becomes blurred when companies patent naturally occurring compounds or traditional remedies, effectively privatising centuries-old indigenous knowledge. Such actions not only deprive local communities of the economic benefits they rightfully deserve but also strip them of their cultural heritage.
The Nagoya Protocol, part of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), was established to address these concerns. The protocol sets up a framework for access and benefit-sharing鈥� (ABS), ensuring that profits from the commercialisation of biological and genetic resources are fairly distributed. However, the gap between policy and practice remains wide. While the Nagoya Protocol provides a blueprint for ethical bioprospecting, many communities still struggle to benefit from the wealth generated by their natural resources.
听
Colonialism鈥檚 lingering influence: biopiracy in context
BIOPIRACY is often described as a modern form of colonialism, and for good reason. During the colonial era, European powers exploited the natural wealth of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Resources were extracted with little regard for the well-being of local communities or ecosystems. For instance, the British Empire鈥檚 introduction of tea cultivation to India from China fundamentally reshaped global trade and local economies. However, not all historical interactions were purely exploitative 鈥� some involved trade and mutual benefit.
In the modern era, the legacy of this extractive approach lives on, albeit through more sophisticated means. Corporations now rely on patent law, intellectual property rights, and high-tech research to justify their claims. Take, for example, the infamous case of the neem tree in India. Known for its medicinal properties for centuries in the Indian subcontinent, the neem tree became the subject of biopiracy when international companies sought to patent its active ingredients, bypassing the indigenous knowledge that had sustained its use. Only after lengthy legal battles did the European Patent Office revoke these patents, recognising the traditional knowledge held by Indian farmers.
Another illustrative example is the turmeric (Curcuma longa) patent case. Turmeric has been used in traditional medicine and cooking in the Indian subcontinent for centuries. In 1995, a patent was granted in the United States for the use of turmeric in wound healing. This patent was later revoked after it was challenged, but it highlighted the issue of biopiracy and the need for better protection of traditional knowledge.
This legal outcome offers some hope but also serves as a reminder of how easily biopiracy can occur in the absence of robust regulations and vigilant enforcement. However, it is important not to paint the entire industry with the same brush. In some cases, companies engage in benefit-sharing agreements that ensure local communities receive a portion of the profits generated from the commercialisation of their resources. The Nagoya Protocol has laid down frameworks for ethical bioprospecting, but enforcement remains inconsistent, particularly in developing countries where regulatory capacity is often limited.
One promising initiative comes from within Bangladesh itself. Local NGOs are working with international partners to develop community-based bioprospecting projects that give indigenous groups greater control over how their knowledge and resources are used. These projects provide a model for how bioprospecting can be done ethically, offering both scientific and economic benefits without the shadow of exploitation.
听
Patents: a double-edged sword
THE patenting of genetic resources and traditional knowledge is perhaps the most contentious aspect of bioprospecting. In theory, patents are meant to protect intellectual property and encourage innovation by giving companies exclusive rights to profit from their discoveries. But in practice, patents can become tools of exploitation, especially when they are granted for knowledge that has been part of indigenous cultures for centuries.
The global pharmaceutical industry, valued at $1.48 trillion in 2022, depends heavily on natural products for drug discovery. Yet, only a fraction of the profits made from these discoveries trickles down to the communities that first identified their medicinal properties. While some companies argue that patents are necessary to recoup the cost of research and development, critics contend that this system disproportionately benefits wealthy nations and corporations at the expense of the Global South.
The solution lies not in abolishing patents altogether but in reforming the system to ensure fair compensation and benefit-sharing. Mechanisms like the Nagoya Protocol and regional agreements can provide a blueprint, but their success depends on widespread adoption and strict enforcement. The focus should be on developing patent systems that recognise indigenous knowledge and ensure fair compensation.
听
A path forward
DESPITE the risks of biopiracy, ethical bioprospecting offers a path forward鈥攐ne that respects both the rights of indigenous communities and the need for scientific advancement. Several success stories highlight how equitable partnerships between researchers, companies, and local communities can lead to innovation without exploitation.
One such example is the partnership between the South African government and the San people over the commercialisation of Hoodia, a plant traditionally used by the San to stave off hunger. After negotiations, a benefit-sharing agreement was reached that ensured the San people received a portion of the profits from Hoodia-based products. This model of ethical bioprospecting, grounded in mutual respect and fairness, should serve as a template for future ventures.
For Bangladesh, the focus should be on strengthening local capacity to regulate bioprospecting activities and ensuring that benefit-sharing agreements are upheld. By working within the frameworks provided by international agreements like the Nagoya Protocol, Bangladesh can protect its rich biodiversity and ensure that its indigenous communities are compensated fairly for their contributions to science and innovation.
听
A crossroads for science and justice
BIOPROSPECTING stands at a critical juncture. On the one hand, it holds the promise of breakthrough and economic opportunity; on the other, it risks perpetuating a legacy of exploitation and neo-colonialism. The challenge for policymakers, corporations, and local communities is to strike a balance between these two outcomes. The future of bioprospecting lies in ensuring that the wealth generated from nature鈥檚 bounty is shared equitably, that indigenous knowledge is respected, and that global frameworks like the Nagoya Protocol are not only signed but strictly enforced.
By addressing the systemic issues that allow biopiracy to flourish and by promoting a more inclusive, ethical model of bioprospecting, we can ensure that nature鈥檚 wealth benefits all of humanity 鈥� without trampling on the rights of those who have stewarded it for centuries. The potential is immense 鈥� but only if we tread carefully.
听
Md Zahurul Al Mamun is a climate change researcher and analyst.