Bioprospecting or Biopiracy?
(Page 2 of 2)
March/April 1996
By Marilyn Berlin Snell, Utne Reader
Supporters of this genetic gold rush refer to it as "bioprospecting": Relatively common or inexpensive raw materials are transformed through detailed scientific work and high technology into highly refined commodities and desperately needed medicines. Detractors, on the other hand, call it "biopiracy" and see it as just another example of how the rich and developed world rips off the poor. Questions about who "owns" the developing world's biodiversity, and who should profit from its fruits, abound. The answers are far from clear.
RELATED CONTENT
But perhaps nowhere is anti-Semitism more evident than in the mandatory Holocaust studies classes i...
The Fine Art of Breaking Free...
Grandfather of the alternative press...
What a bird's gotta do to attract a mate these days...
Cathouse for Dogs March / April 2004 Herman Thrust Herbivore Karl-Friedrich Lentze's dream ...
In the following section we present various sides of this multifaceted debate. Should transnational companies be allowed to corner the market on products developed from tropical plants, animals, and microorganisms? Should the Human Genome Diversity Project be allowed to sample the blood, hair, and saliva of indigenous peoples--essentially mining their genetic makeup for medicines? Andrew Kimbrell of the International Center for Technology Assessment offers an emphatic no. Henry Greely, who chairs an ethics subcommittee associated with the Human Genome Diversity Project, says yes with equal vigor. Others describe what groups around the world are doing to fight back against genetic engineering and biopiracy, while several contributors outline the efforts of some transnational companies to do right by their "hosts" in the developing world.
Page:
<< Previous 1 | 2 |