Intellectual
property rights are a highly contested issue. There are a host of challenges
including defining what constitutes intellectual property, the group who has
the knowledge, the worth of the knowledge, and transferring the knowledge to a
market value. While we have discussed intellectual property rights---or
traditional resource rights--in respect to indigenous communities, this article
addresses the issue a little closer to home. A policy implemented in 2010
requires any scientist conducting research in a national park to share any
profits with the National Parks Service. Independent research is being done in over 200 national parks. There have been concerns of private
bioprospecting on public land for quite some time. In the 1980’s bacteria that simplified DNA testing was
discovered in Yellowstone, but the park never
received any compensation. Under the new policy, the National Parks Service is
estimated to bring in between $635,000 and 3.9 million every year.
Opponents
of this policy are concerned this will lead to a privatization of public resources.
Courts have ruled that the policy is legal as long as an environmental analysis
is done to ensure no impact is made on the environment. The parks service
justifies the policy saying that research in the parks can improve management practices
and increase general knowledge on the park’s organisms. The National Parks
Service also stresses on their website that exclusive rights are never given.
Thus, researchers are just granted the license to use something, not harvest or
own it.
When
we discussed traditional resource rights in class, I didn’t consider that I
might be part of a group that could receive benefits from bioprospecting—or be
wrongfully excluded. Yet, since national parks are public land, a share of the
profits is being returned to the public (via the parks service). This policy is different from intellectual
property rights however because it doesn’t require knowledge. Hot springs
bacteria from Yellowstone are an area of special interest because the hot
springs environment forces unique and potentially useful adaptations in the
bacteria. However, much is unknown about the bacteria and the public has no
general knowledge of the bacteria’s uses. Is the land owner—the public--owed
compensation for a resource they weren’t aware of? If yes, the implications
could be quite broad.
Defining the
group who needs to be compensated in traditional resource rights cases would
become nearly impossible because one would have to include the group from whom
they got the knowledge and potentially any other community where the resource
exists, even if the community is unaware. On the other hand, giving no
compensation could make national parks a huge potential revenue source for
private companies. This could also lead to a situation similar to one that took place in Madagascar. The indigenous community used a plant to treat diabetes, but a pharmaceutical company used it to treat cancer and claimed they didn't owe the indigenous population compensation because the indigenous community didn't know the plant could treat cancer.
Does it matter if the community has knowledge of the resource or its uses? Do you think the
parks service should receive a share of profits? Is this comparable to resource
rights of an indigenous community? How is it the same or different?
I think this article does a very good job of bringing a problem we’ve been studying to the home front. We’ve talked a lot in class about “if this happened in America,” but this is truly happening in America! However, I think there are a few differences regarding the situations, mainly in that they are studying on their own local government-owned property versus tribal property abroad. However, it does call to mind—who reaps these benefits and do we deserve them even if we didn’t know there was tiny bacteria with good DNA residing there.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think it matter that they did not know specifically about the resources being researched and their uses. I feel it is very American of me to assume that what really matters in this situation is the fact that they are doing research on government property. If that was the privately owned land of some other person, you can bet that they would want some compensation for housing a hoard of scientists on their land. Here it is the same way—research can have some negative effects on the land being studied, and we see this even in the case of the indigenous.
I would say that a lot of the reimbursement is being focused on Park management and others components, not necessarily on cutting checks to all of the people within the area. The money would stay in the closed system that is the Park system, thereby going to improve/maintain/preserve these areas. I think it sounds fair that they receive funding to preserve something that is being studied, especially since many parks are either becoming privatized or are losing money due to the declining tourist levels from Americans to these parks. I see this as a potential way for America to save its park system with supplemental funding needed to keep them visitor-ready. Parks are expensive to run!
I don’t know if I necessarily see this as a parallel to indigenous rights on every level, however. There are not people in the parks who seek this as a lifestyle in which all of their resources for survival are located within the park—even Reservations will be able to find additional resources, and there are very few if any who can say their communities resides completely within a National Park full time. However, the case of those few exceptions, it makes sense that their homes be preserved through the funding that this could bring in.
I chose to see this situation as one in which the Parks are choosing to charge researchers for crawling around in “the area beyond the rope fence,” causing potential erosion and habitat loss, but only when they can afford it through the benefits of their erosion. It also parallels giving a “thank you” to those who helped find their discovery. In short, we can make this less about intellectual property and more about “do unto thine neighbor.”
I think it’s interesting that this was so controversial in America and abroad. I think anyone who is using anyone else’s resources for money should compensate them in some way, which makes this agreement fair.
I realize that this did not answer the question regarding indigenous resources, but I hope it highlights some of the differences and similarities.