Pharmaceutical Exploitation of the Rainforests: Where Do We Draw the Line?

By Meredith McGrath

3/6/99

Bio-prospecting--searcWng the rairlforest for useful species, has arrived. Biodiversity prospecting includes the exploration, extraction, and screening of biological diversity and indigenous knowledge for commercially valuable genetic and biochemical resources. With the renewed interest in the potential found in the rainforests, pharmaceutical companies in particular have crossed an ethical line with regards to the indigenous peoples.

There is an immediate need for a renewed effort to control the destruction of natural forests in the tropics, which are disappearing at an alarming rate of 12.9 million hectares per year. It is widely agreed upon among biologists that in SO- I 00 years, without intervention, most remaining tropical forests will be destroyed. However, many self-serving groups exist with questionable motives for preserving the forests.

The "rainforest harvest", as it is often referred, is perhaps a misleading marketing campaign. The idea links the exotic and environmental credentials of the rainforest to the reassurance of fertility and abundance. The theory behind the slogan is that if it can be proven that forests are more valuable left standing, then their preservation is more apt to be considered. No mention is made of preserving biodiversity for its own sake.

Since the philosophy of a free-market economy encourages individuals and corporations to utilize the environment to their maximum benefit, without considering environmental effects, it has contributed to the present situation. Northern-based institutions seek access to tropical biodiversity for the primary purpose of developing patented and profitable products. No matter

how convincing the rhetoric, conservation and equity are secondary issues. The Rural Advancement Foundation International estimates that medicinal plants and microbials from the South contribute at least $30 billion per year to the North's pharmaceutical industry. It is conservatively estimated that the market for research samples or extracts of biological materials within the U.S. pharmaceutical industry alone is $30-60 million per year.

For decades, plant collectors from industrialized countries have ventured to the tropical forests in search of valuable genetic material for agricultural plant breeding. No money changed hands in the process. In 1980, none of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry research budget was spent on research into higher plants. Today, it is estimated that over 200 companies and research organizations worldwide are screening plant and animal compounds for medicinal properties.

It is generally acknowledged that about one in 10,000 chemicals derived from the mass screening of plants, animals, and microbes eventually results in a potentially profitable drug. As recently as 199 1, Monsanto Inc. was recruiting company employees traveling to exotic destinations, to dig up a few soil samples. Claiming it was for the sake of science, a spokesman for Monsanto declared nothing off limits.

The Convention on Biological Diversity of 1993 addressed the issues of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. However, rather than suggesting multilateral implementation, the Convention promoted bilateral deals-commercial contracts and other agreements for access to biodiversity. The Convention's language on intellectual property rights is subject to varying interpretations. As it stands, the Convention offers passive support that pits indigenous communities and countries against one another.

The first and perhaps most well-publicized example of a bilateral contract for bioprospecting occurred in 1992 between pharmaceutical giant Merck and Co. and InBio, a Costa Rican non-profit research center committed to cataloging the country's half-million insects and plants. InBio agreed to provide Merck's drug-screening programs with chemical extracts from wild plants, insects, and microorganisms. In return, Merck agreed to give InBio a two-year research budget of $1.135 million, undisclosed royalties on any resulting commercial products, and technical assistance and training for in country research. The agreement stipulates that Merck receives the exclusive rights to screen InBio's samples for medicinal properties. If a drug is developed from one of the samples, theoretically InBio (and ultimately Costa Rica) would receive royalties from drug sales. Although the Merck/InBio agreement was hailed by many as a "model" agreement for bio-prospecting, others think it is a questionable way of protecting biodiversity.

Bilateral prospecting agreements are sanctioned by the multilateral Convention on Biological Diversity. In the majority of cases, however, commercial agreements cannot be effectively monitored or enforced. Unfortunately the reality is that when indigenous peoples share information or genetic materials, they in essence lose control over such resources, regardless of whether or not they are compensated.

Two examples of such exploitation resulted from actions taken by Eli Lilly and Co. and again by Merck Pharmaceuticals. Eli Lilly removed specimens of the rosy periwinkle plant from the forest of Madagascar. Extracts from the plant led to the development of two anti-cancer drugs, which have since earned Eli Lilly approximately $ 1 00 million per year. Madagascar received nothing. In a related example, a photographer on assignment in the forests of Brazil for National Geographic Magazine recognized the potential applications for Western medicine of a tribal remedy. He sent bark and sap specimens from the tiki uba tree to Merck, which proceeded to research and develop a drug for use by Western physicians. The Brazilian tribe received neither credit nor payments from the drug.

Costa Rica's rainforests are estimated to hold 5-7% of the world's remaining biodiversity. If similar agreements were widely duplicated, the biodiversity of the South could be auctioned off for roughly $10 million per year. Merck's sales in 1992 were $8.6 billion, while Costa Rica's GNP that year was $5.2 billion. For Merck, the contract with InBio provided extremely cheap labor, access to unidentified species, and good public relations.

For the Western markets to benefit from prospecting in the tropics, it is critical that the local governments and indigenous peoples also profit. Many proponents of preserving the rainforests claim that it is for the sake of the forest dwellers. They claim that it will afford the indigenous people an income and thus monetary security. However, under close scrutiny, this theory has proven false. In reality, the sharing of benefits between Northern corporations and indigenous peoples does not occur. For the most part, the terms and conditions under which indigenous peoples might benefit financially are controlled by the northern corporations. The dream of huge profits for the indigenous peoples is just an illusion. There are several issues surrounding the controversy of ethical standards with regard to these peoples, whose land is being intruded upon. Perhaps the most critical are intellectual property rights and property rights for the land.

It is difficult for the Westerner to understand and accept the indigenous' definition of property. In indigenous systems, there is no "ownership." Their reverence to nature prohibits the assumption that one may "own" something. This poses a problem for the American legal system, which places tremendous value on the notion of private property. Furthermore, since indigenous society does not recognize personal property, the issue of intellectual property is even more complex. Indigenous knowledge is traditionally passed orally from generation to generation. It is difficult to determine who the "owner" of the knowledge is. Intellectual property rights are hard to enforce when the property in question is not owned by an individual. At the forefront of the debate, due to its inclusion in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), is the introduction of an intellectual property rights (IPR) system. Current IPR systems do not protect the rights of indigenous peoples. Under the new agreement, knowledge of the forest may be patented, thus, allowing for the appropriate compensation to all.

The current bilateral prospecting agreements fail to acknowledge the contribution of the indigenous peoples. The fact that the same medicinal compound may be found and used in various forest communities enables the bio-prospectors to claim that which they acquire from whichever country they choose-under terms most favorable to the bio-prospectors. When the time comes to commercialize a plant-based pharmaceutical, it is left up to the company's discretion to acknowledge and compensate the indigenous communities. Because of this, the royalties portion of the agreement is often very ambiguous.

Corporations need to be held accountable for their actions. There is an obvious imbalance between the financial power and legal expertise of multinational corporations and the developing countries of the South. This leaves no one to negotiate on behalf of the indigenous people. If a disagreement arises ten years from now over the origin of a plant species, or whether or not a patented product results from a natural plant extract or a synthetic version, it will most likely be left up to the corporations to decide. Their current track record for honoring such agreements leaves the indigenous communities at a tremendous disadvantage.

Several possible remedies to the current state of bio-prospecting the tropics have been suggested by U.S. -based environmental programs. To begin, it is imperative that indigenous communities have the right to say "NO" to bio-prospectors. Until more impartial agreements can be reached, many propose a temporary moratorium on further collecting. Not only are we

destroying thousands of square miles of rain forests before we even have the opportunity to catalog the inhabitant species, but it is happening at the expense of the resident indigenous communities.

A second possible solution is to disallow the patenting of living products or processes by northern corporations. While multinational corporations are free to patent bio-materials, there are no effective guidelines for recognizing the contributions of the forest dwellers. Until there is, there is no reason to permit patenting.

In fact, it appears that patenting for the brand-name pharmaceutical companies is being progressively more protected by legislation. In 1995, Congress implemented the latest round of the GATT, which resulted in increased benefits to the brand-name drug companies. Patents were extended from 17 years to a maximum of 20 years. As a result, brand-name drug companies are insulated from competition from generic companies for an additional period of two years. But in the end, it is the consumers that bear the brunt of the legislation. Restricting access to generic drugs has cost consumers appro3dmately $550 million per year. One reason generic drugs can be sold for less is that they do not have to duplicate the initial research conducted by the original manufacturer. Restricting patenting or even reducing the length of patents would help to eliminate the virtual monopoly the large brand-name pharmaceutical companies have on the market. The availability and use of generic drugs assists all people in the management of health care without sacrificing quality. The current policy results in the

transfer of billions of dollars from the pockets of consumers to producers of name-brand drugs.

Perhaps the most critical proposal is two-fold: the establishment of multilateral agreements and the organization of an indigenous-run foundation. To avoid the conflict of potential legalese confusion, an advocate for the indigenous peoples might be beneficial. The creation of such a foundation would allow the communities involved to determine the nature and funding of proposed research. Furthermore, the institution of multilateral programs such as a United Nations fund to support global conservation of biodiversity would give indigenous communities more control, and a voice over their circumstances and future.

If scientists and biologists plan to continue entering the rainforests looking for knowledge and remedies, it is necessary that they return something of value. The rainforest harvest has done nothing to preserve the forests nor to benefit the people who live in them. The pharmaceutical companies of the North need to recognize the existence of a distinctly different ethical system of the South. Not only should the multinational corporations prosper, but direct economic benefits need to be granted to the indigenous communities of the rainforests.

ENDNOTES

Jean-Pierre Kiekens, "Saving the World's Forests," Environmental News Network, 17 April 1997, 3.

John O'Nile, Presentation in EDGE series, Stanford University, 17 February 1999.

United Nations Development Programme, "Conserving Indigenous Knowledge: Integrating Two Systems of Innovation," September.

Kathy Heine, "Treasure in the jungle," Monsanto Magazine, No. 1, April 1991, 2.

Rosemary Brown, "Equity Over Exploitation: Global Guidelines for Corporate Giants," Earth Tirries, October 1994.

"U.S. Drug Company Pays a NMon for Chance to Mine Costa Rica’s 'Green Gold' for New Medicines," Science in the Rainforest, Heredia, Costa Rica, 11 December 199 1.

Stephen Corry, "The Rainforest Harvest: Who Reaps the Benefit?" Ecologist, Vol. 23, No. 4, July/August 1993.

WORKS CITED

Brown, Rosemary. 1994. Equity over exploitation. global guidelines for corporate giants. Earth Times, October.

Corry, Stephen. 1993. The rainforest harvest: who reaps the benefit? Ecologist, Vol. 23, No. 4, July/August.

Heine, Kathy. 199 1. Treasure in the jungle. Monsanto Magazine, April, No. 1.

Kiekens, Jean-Pierre. 1997. Saving the world's forests. Environmental News Network, 17 April.

Local "prospectors" seek the fruits of the forest. New Scientist, Vol. 129, No. 1757, 23 February, 199 1.

O'Nile, John. 1999. Rainforests and Deforestation. Presentation in the EDGE Series, Stanford University, 17 February.

United Nations Development Programme. 1994. Conserving indigenous knowledge: integrating two systems of innovation. UNDP. New York, September.

U.S. drug company pays a million for chance to mine Costa Rica's "green gold" for new medicines. 199 1. Science in the rainforest, 11 December.