A Repor t on

Bio pirac y
Prepared by:
Lhady Kris Gonzales-Dizon

Chloe Matthea Ocampo

Introduction
What is
Biopiracy ? “bio” and “piracy”,
► From the root words
biopiracy literally means “the patenting of life.”
► Genes of living organisms are basically the
“raw materials” of new biotechnologies.
► Genetic materials from plants, animals, and
other biological resources that have long been
identified and developed, are being “owned” by
companies and manufacturers through patents.
► Collection of genetic materials are usually
taken without prior consent.
How Did it All Start?
The following illustrate how early acts of biopiracy
have been committed:

► 3500 years ago, Egyptian rulers began bringing

plants home after military expeditions.

► In the last century, the British Empire instituted

regular plant collections. During the Voyage of the
Beagle, Charles Darwin simply took what
interested him and brought it home.
► The Royal Botanical Gardens took rubber trees
from Brazil, and planted them in Southeast Asia.
They took cinchona seeds from Bolivia, in violation
of national law, and planted them in India.

► Commodore Perry’s naval mission to Japan

collected a wide variety of plants to bring back to
the United States.
► More recently, during the mid-twentieth century,
Richard Schultes was able to befriend local
shamans, who allowed him to collect thousands of
voucher specimens of medicinal plants, hundreds
of which had never previously been identified
taxonomically.
Kinds of Biopiracy

Traditional Knowledge Biopiracy

This kind of biopiracy covers the unauthorized
use of common traditional knowledge, whether
acquired by deception or on the basis of exploitative
transactions. Various patents can claim traditional
knowledge in the form it was acquired, or cover a
refinement or an invention based on it.
Genetic Resource Biopiracy
This type of biopiracy is about the
unauthorized extraction and use of widespread
resources and of those found only in one location.
It also covers authorized extraction of resources
on the basis of exploitative transactions. Patents
claim the resource itself, even derivatives or
purified versions of it.
Famous Cases
Banaba and other medicinal plants (Philippines)

Japan has been patenting the country’s native

plants with medicinal properties, such as banaba,
saluyot, sambong, lagundi, and takip kuhol. These
plants have been the subject of patent claims there.

Pharmaceutical firms in Japan have started to

process these plants as medicines and claimed the
knowledge as their own, when in fact, the healing
properties of these herbs have been known in the
Philippines for ages.
Bitter gourd (Thailand)

Since Thailand has a big problem with AIDS,

their national scientists have been researching for all
sorts of ways to help relieve the suffering the victims
experience, and maybe even prevent against the
infection of the HIV virus.

One team was focused on bitter gourd

(Momordica spp.), and they found certain compounds
in it that work against HIV. Later on they found out
that American scientists have copied their research
and have already patented the active Map-30 protein
from a native strain of bitter gourd.
Enola Bean (Mexico)

This bean is a variety of Mexican yellow bean,

so called after the wife of the man who patented it for
the variety's distinct shade of yellow in 1999. The
patent-holder subsequently sued a large number of
importers of Mexican yellow beans, causing economic
damage to more than 22,000 farmers in northern
Mexico who depended on sales of this bean. A law
suit was filed on behalf of the farmers, and on April
14, 2005 the US-PTO ruled in favor of the farmers. An
appeal was heard on 16 January 2008, and the patent
was revoked in May 2008.
Hoodia Cactus (South Africa)

The Hoodia Cactus originates from the Kalahari

Desert of South Africa. For generations it has been known to
the traditionally-living San people as an appetite
suppressant. In recent years, from 2004 onward, there has
been sensationalist media coverage of the cactus. A wide
variety of products have been produced since then.

Ilang-ilang (Philippines)

Yves St. Laurent, a fashion institute which has been

importing Ilang-ilang flowers from the Philippines, have
stopped doing so and put up its own plantations in Africa
instead. It has also secured a patent on its perfume formula
based on this native Filipino species.
Neem Tree (India)

In 1995 the U.S. Department of Agriculture and

a pharmaceutical research firm received a patent on a
technique to extract an anti-fungal agent from the
Neem tree (Azadirachta indica), which grows
throughout India. Indian villagers have long
understood the tree's medicinal value. Although the
patent had been granted on an extraction technique,
the Indian press described it as a patent on the Neem
tree itself. Legal action by the Indian government
followed, with the patent eventually being overturned
in 2005.
 The pharmaceutical company involved in the
Neem case argued that traditional Indian
knowledge of the properties of the Neem tree had
never been published in an academic journal. In
response to this, India has been translating and
publishing ancient manuscripts containing old
remedies in electronic form to protect the country's
heritage from being exploited by foreign companies.
Plao-noi (Thailand)

The healing properties of Plao-noi (Croton

sublyratus) has been recorded in Thailand’s traditional
palm leaf books for centuries. Yet Sankyo, the second
largest pharmaceutical firm in Japan, was awarded a
patent in Tokyo on this famous Thai herbal plant. In
1975, a team of researchers from Sankyo and the
Department of Forestry collected samples of Plao-noi
in a province in the south of Bangkok. Sankyo brought
the samples to the lab, extracted its active ingredient
which they called "Plaonotol"—named after the plant
itself — and applied for a patent. The company
cultivates and sells it in tablet form as "Kelnac", to
treat ulcers.
Rosy Periwinkle (Madagascar)

The Rosy Periwinkle case dates from the

1950s. The Rosy Periwinkle, while native to
Madagascar, had been widely introduced into other
tropical countries around the world. This meant that
researchers could obtain local knowledge from one
country and plant samples from another. The use of
the plant as a cure for diabetes was the original
stimulus for research, but cures for cancer were the
most important results. Consequently, different
countries are reported as having acquired different
beliefs about the medical properties of the plant.
Why is There a Need to
Stop Biopiracy?
► Because of the patenting of biological materials,
the locals of the affected countries would have
less, if not none at all, access to those new
developments which is possibly their original idea
or discovery in the first place. Those who are
granted the patents would have exclusive rights to
their “inventions” and can therefore raise the
prices if they choose to.
► By having the license to do whatever they please,
patent owners can also hinder the local production.
This can have a large impact on the livelihood of
those concerned; the ones who are normally free to
use as much of the crops or produce as they need
are banned from manufacturing such goods.
Therefore, if those goods are a source of income for
them, they would lose much of the profits that they
usually get.
► Patent owners can prohibit farmers from
breeding such plant and animal varieties as well. In
doing so, they have also taken away privileges that
the indigenous people have rightfully earned
themselves.

► As the patent owners benefit from the information

and materials that they do not actually “own”, the
indigenous people who have long been developing
and cultivating these resources get nothing. They do
not have a choice unless knowledge of the materials
has been proven traditional and the patent has been
canceled.
Actions Taken Against
Biopiracy
 Bioprospecting Contracts
To minimize the detrimental effects of
biopiracy and to “legalize” such transactions, there
is the so-called “bioprospection contract.” With this
contract, economic income or royalties would be
provided to the local communities concerned while
the patent owners generate earnings. However, the
fairness of these contracts has been a subject of
debate.
 Unethical bioprospecting contracts and
breaking the contract can be viewed as new forms
of biopiracy, and would therefore bring about
certain consequences.

► Patents can be cancelled once traditional

knowledge of such biological material is proven
to be of traditional knowledge, or known in a local
community for a long time.
► A collector or researcher must agree to
provide an equitable share of benefits to the
locals concerned before he or she could obtain
biological samples. Failure to do so may deny
him or her access to such samples.
► If there is no “prior informed consent” of taking
biological materials from a local community,
profits can be taken from the researcher and the
affected locals can retrieve such in the court. The
researcher would not be able to pass on
illegitimate samples to collaborators and other
third parties, as well.
► If the rules of bioprospecting have been
violated, the patent owner would be labeled as a
“biopirate.” By having this title, one can instantly
lose his or her credibility and this can lead to a
chain of unfortunate occurrences. It may also
cause him or her to be sent to jail.
 Patent Law
In the United States, patent law is used to
protect “isolated and purified compounds” that were
newly discovered and invented. A patent is the
exclusive rights given to a person so that others will
be prohibited in making, using, or selling the
invention.
One common misunderstanding is that
pharmaceutical companies patent the plants they
collect. While obtaining a patent on naturally
occurring organisms is not possible, patents may
be taken out on specific chemicals isolated or
developed from plants.
 Convention on Biological Diversity
The 1993 Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) establishes sovereign national rights over
biological resources and commits member
countries to conserve them, develop them for
sustainability, and share the benefits resulting from
the use. Sustainable use of biological resources
means finding new drugs, crops, and industrial
products, while conserving the resources for future
studies. Sovereign rights would be tempered by
providing access to genetic resources, in exchange
for a share of the benefits, including access to
biotechnology.
Conclusion