Via AlterNet:
The National Park Service (NPS) is quietly taking public comment through Dec. 15 on a proposal to allow private companies to "bioprospect" in our national parks -- to commercially mine, not the mineral riches of a park, but the genetic resources of plants, animals, and microorganisms in territories specifically set aside for stewardship in the public trust.
You might wonder what our government is giving away? What exactly are the implications for giving away the genetic material of the plant/animal/microorganism life present in our National Parks? Why is this potentially a bad thing?
Follow me to the flip......
In the global south, home to much of the world's genetic diversity, this battle has already been underway for decades. In a process reminiscent of Columbus, transnational corporations have been using Western courts and laws to patent genetic codes and plant and animal life that existed long before any humans were around to "discover" them or own their "rights." The struggle against such legal chicanery has often been led by indigenous peoples who've relied upon the riches of their environments for millennia without the assistance of lawyers or scientists (or shareholders). Suddenly, they've been told they no longer have the right to use those riches -- or, worse, they can use them, for a price, paid to distant companies with no truly legitimate claim to their use.
This, in the south, is referred to as "biopiracy," and it seems like an appropriate term to start using in America as well. National Parks, beginning with Yellowstone (whose geothermal features were instrumental in both the park's original founding and the commercial appeal of "bioprospecting"), were set aside as lands to be owned and used by the public. Their early stewardship, beginning with Yellowstone, was specifically intended by Congress to exclude high-value heritage lands from the rapacious development of much of the surrounding West. We are the owners of these lands -- but their resources are now apparently for sale, in ways large and small, without the permission or even knowledge of the rightful owners. That's piracy.
An even scarier aspect of the NPS proposal is the precedent it sets, and the question of where that precedent stops. Can any life form or portion thereof existing in the parks be given away (or "benefit-shared," if the public agency gets a cut)? In any public lands? Using eminent domain, anywhere at all? What's to stop the government, using existing law and schemes such as this, from deciding by regulatory fiat that some piece of your genome should be "benefit-shared" by some state agency? It's an awfully slippery slope, one in which, thanks to two decades' worth of privatization of public resources, we're already well downhill of the crest.
The example that is referred to in this article is Taq Polymerase, an enzyme that was dicovered in geothermal bacteria that reside in the geysers of Yellowstone National Park. The discovery of Taq polymerase eventually allowedPCR to become a viable technique to amplify DNA which in turn allowed for the explosion of the field of Molecular Biology and the sequencing of entire genomes. Taq polymerase literally helped to unlock the door on the many secrets coded in our DNA.
You might ask, Ok, What's so bad about that? That one discovery lead to a revolution in science and medicine. Isn't that something we should be doing?
Around the year 2000, the world market for Taq polymerase was estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Roche (after buying the technology from Cetus) made billions of dollars as the sole provider of Taq Polymerase, which only went off patent this year. And it sued other companies to prevent them from selling Taq polymerase for any PCR related uses. Taq Polymerase has been quite the cash cow for Roche. (see this blurb on patent law if you are not familiar with it: http://biotech.about.com/... )
And what did Yellowstone National Park receive?
Nada as far as I could find.
Roche made billions and the National Park System languishes as our government cuts its funding. Heck, our government didn't even get a slice of the pie.
While Roche or any other company should have the ability to make money off its products, (that I have no problem with), I can't help but think that companies that go into our National Parks with the explicit intention of finding genetic info to make their next blockbuster product should have to pay the park system some sort of fee or percentage of their profits of that product in return for being allowed to harvest this genetic material from publicly owned land. I think they should contribute toward the preservation of the land that is potentially going to earn them billions of dollars in profits.
Or at the very least, I think we should have the discussion with the American people about the question of bioprosecting in our National Parks.
=========================================================
My own digging on the subject via the internet yielded a document put out by Yellowstone that indicated its interest in being compensated for allowing corporations to take specimens. The PDF file is here. Of course, Yellowstone is painfully aware of how it lost out in the past by not negotiating for compensation.
My digging also yielded a sampling of the kinds of things companies have their eyes on:
Phtyotechnology: the use of plants for environmental cleanup. (in this case, specifically finding plants that are useful for such cleanups)
The science supporting phyto-technologies is not new but reflects another way of applying knowledge about how plants and their associated microbial communities in roots and the surrounding soil treat pollutants. One limitation has been the depth to which plant roots will go to interact with subsurface pollutants and aqueous waste streams. Landscape architect Alan Christensen has recently obtained a patent for a system he developed to facilitate “deep phytoremediation,” using existing landscape engineering technologies to plant poplar trees (as bare stems sprouting out their tops and sides) eight feet below the ground surface, thus facilitating horizontal rooting.(9)
When a plant encounters a contaminant in soil, water, or air, it can interact with it in four possible ways. It can find the contaminant toxic and die, can ignore it completely, can transform it into products that are useful to it, or can simply store it. On-site remediation using plants occurs in one of three ways: by accumulation of toxic substances in the plant, by degradation of the pollutants by plants, or by control of the movement of subsurface toxic streams with trees.(10) In phyto-accumulation the leaves, shoots, and accumulated toxic substances from the top layer of soils are harvested and incinerated two to three times during the growing season.(11) In phyto-degradation, contaminants are broken down in the soil by secreted plant enzymes or by microbial activity.(12) Hydraulic control by trees such as willows and poplars uses deep rooting structures to take up and sometimes transpire through their leaves large amounts of water from the soil and groundwater.(13)
Genetically Engineered Anti-Material Weapons:
The use of genetic engineering to manipulate natural processes of microbial degradation is opening up new possibilities for the development of offensive biological weapons that destroy materials. Practically every natural or manufactured material in the world is potentially vulnerable. The development of this technology raises serious arms control concerns for the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) and, because of the environmental dangers such organisms pose, for the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, the principal international agreement on movement of genetically modified organisms.
+snip+
Naturally occurring biodegradative microorganisms pose virtually no military threat. It is only though the use of genetic engineering that they can become viable weapons. Thus, the development of genetically engineered anti-material microbes underscores the tight relationship between the prohibition of biological weapons and the precautionary approach to regulation of biotechnology. The Convention on Biological Diversity, through its Biosafety Protocol, should develop approaches to control these ecologically unsound weapons and move to more tightly coordinate its work with the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC).
Genetic Research: Mining for Medical Treasures
News Flash! Obesity Gene Identified!" Increasingly, headlines announce newly discovered links between genes and their functions in the body. Ironically, in 1953 the papers barely carried the news that James Watson and Francis Crick had elucidated the structure of DNA, the bearer of all genetic information. At that time, no one knew how to mine the genes buried in our DNA. Since then, scientists have pinpointed thousands of genes, including defective genes responsible for rare inherited diseases like Huntington disease. Researchers have established links between genes and common diseases not previously considered genetic conditions, such as cancer. They have associated genes with psychological and personality traits, including schizophrenia and impulsivity, as well as human capabilities, such as language. This genetic research promises to improve our ability to diagnose, prevent and treat diseases and disorders. Fifty years after Watson and Crick's breakthrough, scientists are publishing the "final draft" of the human genome, which is the entirety of DNA in our 23 pairs of chromosomes. The complete blueprint of our genome will reveal more unknown genes and undoubtedly lead to more breaking news.
What do these discoveries mean? Usually, they mean that a genetic mutation or variation is correlated with a defect or disorder. The normal function of many genes remains unknown, but certain genetic variations occur more frequently among people with a family history of a disorder. Such genes fall into the category of risk factors rather than direct causes. Most conditions are multigenic (influenced by many genes) rather than monogenic (caused by a single gene like Huntington and cystic fibrosis). Furthermore environmental or lifestyle influences (diet, exercise, toxins, infections, smoking, and prenatal nutrition) orchestrate how a genetic score is played out in an individual's life.
Each genetic discovery is a piece of the complex biological puzzle that researchers are seeking to solve. It is not an end unto itself, but the beginning of an effort to learn how and why specific genetic variations affect the health and/or development of an individual. This basic research lays the foundation for practical applications that will increasingly affect our lives and health care.
The above journal article delves into what's ahead listing these directions that Genetic Research is taking us, particularly focusing on:
- Targeted Drug Therapy and Rationally Designed Drugs
- Personalized Medicine for an Individual's Drug Responses
======================================================
The possible results of bioprospecting is a mixed bag of items (with many I don't even have listed), some in our national interest and some not. And some that we have no idea what path future discoveries may lead us.
Before our government gives away the secrets hidden away in our national parks to Corporate America for next to nothing, shouldn't we discuss what we're willing to give away for free and what types of things we feel companies should compensate our park system for? What types of projects we want companies to pursue and what ones we don't? It our natural resources. It's our future.
Of course it's tough to really have a dialog on this when most people have no idea this is even happening. One has to rely on the non-MSM sources to even find one story covering this.
Yet, if we've got something to say, we better say it now. December 15th is coming up quick.