Search

Biopiracy as "a silent disease" is hardly detectable because it does not leave traces frequently. The corporate hijacking of food is the most important health hazard in this era; giant commercial enterprises are using intellectual property rights to patent indigenous medicinal plants, seeds, genetic resources, and traditional medicines. The new era of biotechnology relies on the genes of living organisms as raw materials. The "Gene Rush" has thus become similar to that of the old "Gold Rush." Sri Lanka has been spotted in the top 34 biodiversity hotspots globally. Moreover, localized in the tropics, human generations in Sri Lanka have utilized the array of plant species for herbal treatments and treatment of diseases. Sri Lanka after its 30-year civil war is moving towards a solid growth and conservation of the environment which is a major component in a sustainable development where the conservation of biodiversity plays a significant role. In this paper, we present an overview of typical cases of global biopiracy, bioprospecting via introduction of cost-effective deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fingerprinting and international protocol with Private-Public-People Partnership concept as excellent forms of utilization of natural resources. We propose certain perspectives as scientists towards abolishing biopiracy and also to foster the fair utilization of natural resources; since the economy of most developing countries is agriculture based, the gross domestic product of the developing countries could be increased by enhanced bioprospecting via introduction of cost-effective DNA fingerprinting technologies and thus not being a pray of corporate hijacking."Biopiracy is biological theft; illegal collection of indigenous plants by corporations who patent them for their own use" (Vandana Shiva). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Illegal transfer of wildlife has 2 main purposes: trade and scientific research. Trade is the most common, whereas scientific research is much less common and unprofitable, yet still important. Biopiracy in science is often neglected despite that many researchers encounter it during their careers. The use of illegally acquired specimens is detected in different research fields, from scientists bioprospecting for new pharmacological substances, to taxonomists working on natural history collections, to researchers working in zoos, aquariums, and botanical gardens. The practice can be due to a lack of knowledge about the permit requirements in different countries or, probably most often, to the generally high level of bureaucracy associated with rule compliance. Significant regulatory filters to avoid biopiracy can be provided by different stakeholders. Natural history collection hosts should adopt strict codes of conduct; editors of scientific publications should require authors to declare that all studied specimens were acquired legally and to cite museum catalog numbers as guarantee of best practices. Scientific societies should actively encourage publication in peer‐reviewed journals of work in which specimens collected from the wild were used. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature could require newly designated types based on recently collected specimens to be accompanied by statements of deposition in recognized scientific or educational institutions. We also propose the creation of an online platform that gathers information about environmental regulations and permits required for scientific activities in different countries and respective responsible governmental agencies and the simplification of the bureaucracy related to regulating scientific activities. This would make regulations more agile and easier to comply with. The global biodiversity crisis means data need to be collected ever faster, but biopiracy is not the answer and undermines the credibility of science and researchers. It is critical to find a modus vivendi that promotes compliance with regulations and scientific progress. Article Impact Statement: Although poorly debated, illegal collection of wildlife for science is a situation faced by scientists working from bioprospecting to taxonomy and natural history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the early 1990s there has been considerable global discussion and debate surrounding biodiscovery activities and the utilisation of both genetic resources (including biochemical derivatives) and associated traditional/Indigenous knowledge (TK/IK). Concerns about misappropriations and biopiracy have often been raised; however it has been difficult to quantify the scale of this problem beyond some common examples and anecdotes. This paper contributes to emerging research in this area (e.g., see Oldham et al. 2013, PLOS One, 8, e78737; and Robinson and Raven, 2017, Aust Geogr, 48, 311) and seeks to quantify patent utilisation of specific GRs where there is documented TK. A patent landscaping approach was undertaken with a focus on plants with associated mātaraunga Māori (Māori knowledge) from Aotearoa New Zealand. We explain our methodology and highlight 77 patent families of interest identified through our search. Although the findings are not definitive about misappropriation without additional analysis of the patents' specifications and claims, and sources of mātauranga Māori, the data we outline may be useful for drawing out cases of misappropriation and biopiracy. These findings might also be useful for considering the potential implications of these for Māori claims under the Waitangi Tribunal Wai 262, potential access and benefit‐sharing (ABS) systems, and intellectual property regulations or reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Elaborating on conversational exchanges with a Brazilian shaman about biopiracy and interweaving scholarly literature from the ontological and 'botanical' turn, the author examines the disciplinary as well as the political ramifications of plant healers and practitioners – particularly indigenous ones – going largely uncited in plant‐centred discussions. In Brazil, indigenous claims for territory and political sovereignty gain traction when they are linked to cultural patrimony. Highlighting ayahuasca as an example of the way that certain plants and people can be involved in collaborative survival, the author demonstrates the entwined semiotic‐material stakes of the botanical turn within claims for traditional knowledge and territory. Her analysis frames possible ethnobotanies and methodologies of refusal in respecting plant(ed)‐human resistance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Nagoya Protocol is a comprehensive framework aimed at combating biopiracy (where genetic resources are utilised without the provider State's consent or in violation of mutually agreed contractual terms), rewarding the stewardship of genetic resources and traditional knowledge, and providing a tool for sustainable development. From a holistic perspective, the Protocol is an incredible achievement; however, it rests in its legal ambiguities which have minimised the regulatory impact on user States. This article examines the key components of the Nagoya Protocol and critically analyses whether the Protocol facilitates its objective of responding to asymmetries between the interests of biodiversity‐rich countries and the users of genetic resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetic and biochemical resources have the ability to provide considerable economic, social and environmental benefits to a nation. Traditional knowledge of these natural resources is extensive. Biopiracy occurs when commercial actors appropriate traditional knowledge without recognition or benefit‐sharing. It has faced international condemnation. The importance of acknowledging traditional knowledge and ensuring benefit‐sharing from inventions based on this knowledge is recognized. This paper explores strategies for protection of traditional knowledge and considers the adequacy of Australia's approach. It discusses the global problem of biopiracy and Australia's international obligations. It explores Australia's current protection, including part 8A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations ( ) (Cth). This paper then compares Australia's strategy to the protections afforded in the United States, New Zealand and Brazil. It is argued that an additional disclosure of origin and source requirement within the Australian Patents Act (Cth) would assist in better protection of traditional knowledge and the promotion of benefit‐sharing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SUMMARY We estimate the effect of cash transfers given to youth conditional on high school attendance on the labor supply decisions and academic performance of youth. We exploit differences in the size of the total transfer received based on timing of birth to identify the causal effects of interest. Specifically, individuals born late in a quarter receive a larger total transfer than comparable individuals born early in the following quarter. We find that the transfer increases the labor market participation of youth and the number of months worked. The estimated effect is larger for individuals from low-income families. The results suggest that some youths are borrowing constrained. Since we find no evidence of corresponding effects on academic performance, alleviating the constraint appears only to affect consumption decisions and not human capital investment. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Polanyi (1944 , [1957] 1968 ) has distinguished three “patterns of social integration,” namely, “reciprocity,”“redistribution,” and “exchange.” This triad has provided the starting point for most subsequent discussion. Our purpose is to introduce a further type of coordination, the “destructive mode of coordination.” This mode achieves coordination by intimidation, threat, and the use of non-institutionalized coercive means. Resources and human efforts are allocated in order to appropriate what other people produce. Two simple examples provide an introductory illustration: traffic circles (roundabouts) and prisons. Appropriation through pirating provides a further example of destructive coordination. More specifically, biopiracy (blood patenting) is discussed in order to clarify the relationship between destructive coordination and the institutionalization of property rights. Finally, we focus on the role of destructive coordination as a transitional mechanism that is supported by the institutional vacuum, ultimately yielding to other modes of coordination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ayahuasca commonly refers to a psychoactive Amazonian indigenous brew traditionally used for spiritual and healing purposes (that is as an entheogen). Since the late twentieth century, ayahuasca has undergone a process of globalization through the uptake of different kinds of socio-cultural practices, including its sacramental use in some new Brazilian religious movements and its commodified use in cross-cultural vegetalismo practices, or indigenous-style rituals conducted primarily for non-indigenous participants. In this article, I explore the rise of such rituals beyond the Amazon region, and consider some philosophical and political concerns arising from this novel trend in ayahuasca use, including the status of traditional indigenous knowledge, cultural appropriation and intellectual property. I discuss a patent dispute in Unites States and allegations of biopiracy related to ayahuasca. I conclude the article with some reflections on the future of ayahuasca drinking as a transnational sociological phenomenon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the concept of biopiracy, which initially emerged to challenge various aspects of the regime for intellectual property rights (IPR) in living organisms, as well as related aspects pertaining to the ownership and apportioning of benefits from ‘genetic resources’ derived from the world’s biodiversity. This paper proposes that we take the allegation of biopiracy seriously due to the impact it has as an intervention which indexes a number of different, yet interrelated, problematizations of biodiversity, biotechnology and IPR. Using the neem tree case as an example, it describes activists’ use of the term as one that involves a deliberate simplification of science and IPR. Additionally, it argues that in so doing, biopiracy is positioned as a touchstone that mobilizes actors and problems, and ultimately generates ‘solutions’ to the very challenges it creates. The paper will also encourage a view of biopiracy claims that does not always treat them simply as claims of theft, or as a misallocation of benefits, but rather as claims that are designed to raise broader questions about the IPR system itself. It concludes by advocating that, in order to properly understand how to address biopiracy, we must be prepared to move beyond the current narrow readings to develop a more complete picture of the term’s influence in challenging how, and by whom, the decisions about what is natural and what is invented come to be made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents news items on environmental issues. The Australian government in 2006 has blocked funding for a wind power project on the the coast of Victoria claiming that the project may pose a risk to the endangered orange bellied parrot. Research discussed at the eighth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which was held in Brazil in 2006 suggests that biopiracy may be more prevalent than previously thought.

The article focuses on the proposal that aim to broaden the scope of article 37.5 of the Vienna code. It mentions that the proposal aims to prevent biopiracy and the smuggling of the protected specie. It further states that the proposal also intends to allow an illustration as the type of non-fossil plant name other than microscopic algae or microfungi.

The article discusses the issue on the arrest of Czech researchers Petr Svacha and Emil Kucera for collecting insects in Singhalila National Park in India. The two researchers allegedly intent to smuggle insects abroad and after being in jail for over a month, they were released on conditional bail and then face prosecution. The guidelines of National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) in the country determine that such exchanges with foreign institutions be routed through government ministries. The author argues that the guidelines would result in delays and would pose logistical problems. K. Divakaran Prathapan states that no museum would send a specimen to a government ministry, to hand over to an entomologist after scrutiny by officials who know nothing on its importance or how to handle it.