The Return of the Enola Bean: Biopirating Biodiversity?

Submitted by Taran on Thu, 06/23/2005 - 22:28

On Friday, June 10, 2005, I wrote 'Whatever happened to the Enola Bean?'.

Yesterday someone responded. Paul Gepts (Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California) was kind enough to login and answer - pointing at the paper co-authored by him: 'The Genetic Anatomy of a Patented Yellow Bean'. From the comment, it appears that there is evidence that shows that the Patent on the Enola Bean is based on pre-existing work.

In other words, the patent is not worth a Mexican farmer's chance against the United States legal system. This is an alleged case of biopiracy (with apparently strong evidence!), and until it is challenged it will remain alleged - and a tarnish on the United States Patent Office as well as the legal system which would allow such a patent. It's alarming that this would be allowed to happen, and it brings in question what else has been patented in such a manner.

Following the link, Mr. Gept's work continues.

Biodiversity

'Who Owns Biodiversity, and How Should the Owners Be Compensated?', (Plant Physiology, April 2004, Vol. 134, pp. 1295-1307) is a substantial article with references about Biodiversity.

There are different definitions of Biodiversity, but the theme is common: Biodiversity is the variety of life: the different plants, animals and micro-organisms, their genes and the ecosystems of which they are a part.

In the context of Mr. Gept's article (ibid), biodiversity is defined as (links added)

...the sum of genetic and phenotypic differences existing in living organisms (including viruses, although they do not fit the precise definition of a living organism) at the molecular, individual, population, and ecosystem levels....

And as he points out at the very beginning of the article (ibid, links added):

At the World Summit on Sustainable Development, held in Johannesburg in 2002, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. K. Annan, outlined five major areas slated for progress in achieving a sustainable future for humanity...

The article (ibid) ends:

...Are the nonutilitarian functions of biodiversity, such as ecosystem health and function as well as its esthetic role, well served by a IPR regime? Because biological and cultural diversity are inextricably linked, can legal and economic frameworks be instituted that address the conservation of both types of diversity?

Will the current IPR-driven regime for biodiversity primarily benefit the most powerful actors in the debate, i.e. transnational pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and their respective governments, or will both sides benefit? If the former is true, what can be done do develop a more even playing field that will take into account not only biodiversity and the TK associated with it, but also the rights of indigenous and local people and their efforts to conserve them?

Answers to these questions will be forthcoming in the next years. They will determine how profound the transition from a common heritage to a private regime will be with regard to biodiversity ownership.

Innovation?

So on one hand, we have people claiming that copyright and patent law allows innovation, and yet we see in the case of the Enola bean what some people mean by 'innovation'. This is the sort of information that WIPO needs to address - for indigenous peoples, and for people in the developing world.

Otherwise, we get what the patent and copyright systems appear to be: A method of robbing from the poor. Certainly this could not be a conscious intention? This must be an oversight of those who the citizens of their country, and the general public, entrust to assure such things do not come to pass.

Right?

As seen in the context of the developing nations, how will WIPO address this such that they become developed nations? Is biodiversity not a part of a natural infrastructure made up of the natural evolution of species over time?

In the context of a farmer, how does this improve the quality of life?

Is there not a parallel with software patents, when it comes to intellectual diversity? Consider Leibniz and Newton coming up with almost the same mathematical concepts at the same time - calculus?

Developing nations have elevate the importance of this if they truly wish to become developed nations - especially when signing agreements such as TRIPs.

Additional References