Talk:Bioprospecting

message: What about genetic resources taken from a country post-CBD with no traditional knowledge attached to the resource. E.g. Fungi isolated from Grevillea in Australia, taken to the US without access or benefit sharing with potential for the next antibiotic (against Bacillis anthracis (cause of anthrax) and plasmodium (malaria). Can that be classed as biopiracy?  11:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently that is not biopiracy, but a part of the wider definition of bioprospecting. The only way something wouldn't be biopiracy is if the people who had the traditional knowledge were compensated. But it's so illogical, nations and peoples move, change borders, die out, transfer knowledge to other people and so on, how are you supposed to know which indigenous people had the original idea? For that matter, how do you compensate them? 216.249.60.116 (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cases with no traditional knowledge involved

message: I am noting that a lot of people who are calling this article 'POV' aren't familiar with how IP works on an international level - it's not a criticism, it's a statement and I hope it is taken as such. I would request that people actually read through the external links on this article before inserting their own POV into this discussion. Ideally, I agree with how the intellectual property laws should work - but the fact is that these laws do not, at present, work the way that all those inserting POV claims are discussing. The Enola Bean is a blaring example. Brazil's creation of drugs for HIV being disputed is another example. The facts are there, and while the term may be considered strong by many, the phrase is in use in academic papers around the world.
One person claims that this entry is allowing people to move their political agenda forward, and yet... nobody has dealt with the facts regarding actual cases. Folks, if you want to call this POV - fine - but address the facts, and know the topic, please. The way the system actually works is obviously - based on fact - not the way you think it should work. Which is sort of the whole point. :-)
I'm removing the POV notice now. Address the facts, and understand the actual cases, please. --TaranRampersad 18:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The "POV" issue

message: :* unauthorised use of biological resources
Although I am aware that development of biological warfare, abusive animal testing, hunting endangered species and recently human cloning are illegal and thus unauthorized, the article does not look like mean these.
Can anyone give an example of use that would require authorisation (propably from goverment body)?
:* unauthorised use of traditional communities' knowledge on biological resources
This sounds like unauthorised use general knowledge being wrong in some sense.
Many companies exploit e.g. the day-and-night cycle or that the best grocerry near our block is Tom's.
So, because noone authorises use of traditional knowledge, this can not be sign of an activity and so should be deleted.
:* unequal share of benefits...
Would be 50:50 share of income equal?  Rubbed down to "not sharing of benefits ..."
These flaws in definition make term "biopiracy" vague. Can someone fix this? Without this, fixing rest does not have a sense.
I looks to me like this article in general being WP:POV duplicate of  GMO#Controversy and Controversy paragraphs in related articles.
If nobody determines the scope of "biopiracy", I would suggest merging with GMO or something alike.
--Alvin-cs | Talk 13:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unauthorised use is actually a business term in this. Like using software without authorization. I do sort of agree that this could be rolled into controversies, as you point out, but it is a term used in the United Nations and people do look for this entry because they want to find out what it is.--TaranRampersad 17:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I'm going to throw my hat into the ring and say this article is POV.  To start with, just examining this bullet point:
patenting of biological resources with no respect to patentable criteria (novelty, non-obviousness or inventive step and usefulness or industrial applicability).
Is biopiracy a critique on the exploitation of markets or one of the patent law system?  Patenting of isolated and purified substances has repeatedly been upheld by courts in the United States.  So that's hardly "with no respect to patentable criteria."
Not to mention the scenario is entirely POV.  I mean, what the heck is the point?  Couldn't one construct a totally unsympathetic scenario too?  Consider the alternative: local group realizes westerners have commericial interest in a plant compound used to successfully treat AIDS, and, to prevent their magic from being lost, decide to burn the plant before the compound could be isolated.  Yay for biopiracy!
What is with people writing "encyclopedia" articles for their favorite political issue?   Mmmbeer 04:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're injecting your POV. Your experience is apparently only based on U.S. interpretation of laws. I strongly suggest you do more research; you won't need it for the bar but you will need it to help hammer out a better article on Biopiracy. Thus, inherently, you are injecting your own POV - so it is somehow appropriate that you keep adding 'NPOV' when you edit.
There is a world outside of the United States. Get used to it. --65.199.203.228 05:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More POV 

message: For a view on the other side of the biopiracy debate I have been recommended Paul Heald, "The Rhetoric
of Biopiracy", 11 Cardozo J. Int'l & Comp. LJ 519 (2003). It's a somewhat controversial article but quite famous and is known for being one of the most pursuasive arguments "for" biopriacy. This is all second hand information as I don't know all that much about the topic myself, so take it for what its worth. I hope to try to look it up one of these days when I can find the time. -- PullUpYourSocks 12:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be downloaded here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=285177#PaperDownload (warning: Firefox apparently doesn't work). Rasmus (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This link works better: here. Mmmbeer 18:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Do please consider the use of biopiracy in the title of the above-cited SSRN article -- "Rhetoric of Biopiracy" -- which argues against sui generis protection for indigenous knowledge; I think this shows that biopiracy is pretty well established in usage, and people will look for an article with this title. When they find it, though, they should be told in the lead paragraph that the term is controversial; the article should then present both sides fairly and accurately. See the proposed revision, below.  NPOV doesn't mean that a point of view you disagree with got into the article (or even its title); it means that the presentation is one-sided. (I think it is one-sided, and I've made a suggestion (below) for fixing it (at least in the lead paragraph)Bryan 16:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countervailing opinion 

message: 'Biopiracy refers to the patentingprivatization and unauthorized use of biological resources [Indigenous knowledge|indigenous biomedical knowledge] by foreign entities (including corporations, universities and governments) without compensatory payment. Since no consensus exists that the patenting of indigenous knowledge actually amounts to piracy, some believe this term is too biased to be used. However, it is well established in the literature.  outside of a country which has pre-existing knowledge. This privatization and use is sometimes claimed to be predatory. Particular activities usually covered by the term are...
Rationale:
* Biopiracy isn't about the appropriation of resources; it's about the appropriation and privatization (by means of patents) of knowledge
* It is important to mention 'without compensatory payment' -- if payment were made, presumably, we wouldn't call it 'piracy'. Bryan 16:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We do seem to be crossing paths today!   --Thanks for these very helpful comments. What do you think of this?
'Biopiracy is a loaded term that refers to the appropriation, generally by means of patents,  of  [Indigenous knowledge|indigenous biomedical knowledge] by foreign entities (including corporations, universities and governments); such appropriations are said to be a form of piracy when indigenous peoples (or their advocates) believe that adequate compensation has not been paid. 
For example, in 1995 the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a pharmaceutical research firm received a patent on a technique to extract an antifungal 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; the result was widespread public outcry, which was echoed throughout the developing world.  
In part due to biopiracy's perceived resemblance to colonialism, in which Western governments were seen to extract natural resources from colonized countries without paying due compensation, it is often presented -- as the term biopiracy obviously suggests -- as a form of predation, which is practiced by richer nations upon the poorer. Although few would advocate biopiracy, defenders of the patent system point out that, in the absence of patents, pharmaceutical companies would have little incentive to develop modern medications from indigenous knowledge, which means that the medical benefits of this knowledge would be denied to millions of people worldwide. Bryan 00:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed revision of lead paragraph

message: The lack of balance in the item brings disrepute to Wikipedia.  Other contentious issues in the globalization debate are well and fairly represented.  The range of account of the meaning of Biopiracy is narrow, the inherently political nature of concept by those who coneived it is inadequately discussed, the range of sources and links is skewed. An immediate improvement would be source Graham Dutfield on www.Sci.Dev.Net "Bioprospecting: legitimate research or 'biopiracy' " where he presents a balanced picture on the evolution of the term "Biopiracy". ao
:Problem with above comment: no date or author attached. I assume the comment applies to an outdated version of the article, unless its author returns with a dated comment and states otherwise. Caravaca 08:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the whole term is a red herring.  The real issue is trying to own a naturally-occuring form of life (not just a single plant) the same way Stephen King owns his copyrights.  This doesn't make a lot of practical sense and is only enforceable with heavy-handed tactics like sneaking unto fields to gather evidence or burning illegal crops.  It's as insane as trying to charge someone with theft for 'stealing' your sunlight by flying over your solar cells.  75.70.89.124 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance 

message: I'm not going to quibble about the inclusion of the example in the introductory paragraph, but I have to wonder if it's appropriate to footnote that something was widely reported but have it link to a very peculiar site.  One questionable source != widely reported.  Also, I'm not doubting the veracity of the statement, it may have been. mmmbeerT / C / ? 01:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment. "Widely reported" means: I've read a lot on the topic and IMHO the failure to compensate the indigenous people in the Rosy Periwinkle case verges so strongly on "common knowledge" in the field that nobody (else) particular bothers to explicitly state it or supply sources any more. "Common knowledge" in my view is knowledge which no longer requires any footnotes at all. But I put one in all the same! How many more sources would you like? Caravaca 08:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "very peculiar site": Living Rainforest is not a peculiar site! It looks to me like a museum/information centre with real staff, a real building and a school-orientated educational mission that goes out of its way to be informed, informative, impartial and simple. In my view, it's much better than an web-only source. Could your comment have anything to do with the UK being a long way from Wisconsin?! [warning: humour] But seriously, I can add more sources. Or would you like to suggest one? Caravaca 08:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Widely reported"... 

message: I've changed some of the text about vincristine since strictly speaking it wasn't accurate. Vincristine is used in chemotherapy for several types of cancer, none of which is specifically a "children's cancer". Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia often does affect children, but also adults over the age of 50. Hodgkin lymphoma mostly affects young adults and people over 60; non-Hodgkin lymphoma incidence increases with age. It's also not correct to speak of vincristine as a "cure". Firstly, it's used only as one component of a therapy regime, not on its own, and secondly, while the long-term survival rates can be good, "cure" is far too strong a term to be used unqualifiedly. Kay Dekker 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vincristine 

message: This article is currently in serious need of vigorous NPOV editing. The problems start with the title, and go on from there. 
A better title than Biopiracy and bioprospecting might be a good start: "biopiracy" is clearly a self-evident Bad Thing and as such this term is solely used by its opponents, and "bioprospecting" clearly a self-evident Good Thing, and this term therefore solely used by its supporters. 
Perhaps "Biopiracy controversy"? Or "Controversy over commercialization of traditional remedies"?
If no-one can come up with a more neutral title, the same article cannot deal with both, since two opposing biases are loaded right into the title. We should perhaps consider unmerging the two articles. 
The Anome (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've now moved this article to commercialization of traditional medicines, something which I hope both sides can agree on as a neutral name for the subject of the article, rather than using the weighted terms of "bioprospecting" or "biopiracy". -- The Anome (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I had the same thought. But then you must consider the dubious usage of 'traditional'. I think the move from Bioprospecting and biopiracy was a step down when it comes to exactness. I thought the fact that both were included in the title resolved the NPOV issue (and the NPOV issue isn't really so strong, as the terms appear in a plethora of contexts, some weighted, some not). That's why I moved it to 'Bioprospecting and biopiracy' in the first place.Yeago (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 2010 May 24*
Renaming in this case, to match this article. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 17:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant category rename proposed

message: Someone more experienced with wiki-editing than me should look at that section. The following contains what appears to be an attempt at a link to articles for India and Nepal but isn't formatted correctly: "...anti-fungal agent from the neem tree (Azadirachta indica), which grows throughout [[India][Nepal]]; Indian villagers have long understood the tree's medicinal value." Help? Thanks!
208.125.237.242 (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format editting needed in the "Neem Tree" section 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
* Support using the established term in the field, that is more succinct and judges less too. According to this article, "bioprospecting" is broader than the "commercialization of indigenous knowledge", and can include using parts of that "knowledge" or none at all. Shrigley (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The cases seem to be in no specific order.  Neither alphabetical, nor by date.  It would be nice to have them sorted by the date of each plant's first patents filing.  75.70.89.124 (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sort by year?  Request for edit 

message: Several of the bare URLs listed in the references section are either dead links or links to pages that have since changed. Please consider using more verifiable sources such as reports or newspaper or journal articles that can be more easily retrieved. Animalparty (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link rot 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bioprospecting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413132944/http://www.unilever.com.au/sustainability/nutrition/ to http://www.unilever.com.au/sustainability/nutrition/
*Added  tag to http://www.ghanaweb.com/public_agenda/article.php?ID=5062
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060418041208/http://www.biodiv.org:80/doc/info-centre.shtml to http://biodiv.org/doc/info-centre.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060425201122/http://www.biodiv.org:80/doc/lists/bib-art-cbd.pdf to http://biodiv.org/doc/lists/bib-art-cbd.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041224233949/http://www.activistmagazine.com:80/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=127 to http://www.activistmagazine.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=127
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070318062301/http://twnside.org.sg:80/ to http://www.twnside.org.sg/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070709054650/http://www.etcgroup.org/en/issues/biopiracy.html to http://www.etcgroup.org/en/issues/biopiracy.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030625011109/http://www.alternet.org:80/story.html?StoryID=16057 to http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16057
*Added  tag to http://ip.aaas.org/tekindex.nsf/TEKPAD?OpenFrameSet
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Bioprospecting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050418042121/http://crop.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/44/3/968 to http://crop.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/44/3/968
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140430032944/http://www.csw.ucla.edu/publications/newsletters/2010-2011/article-pdfs/Apr11_Foster.pdf to http://www.csw.ucla.edu/publications/newsletters/2010-2011/article-pdfs/Apr11_Foster.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.ghanaweb.com/public_agenda/article.php?ID=5062
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biodiv.org/doc/info-centre.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biodiv.org/doc/lists/bib-art-cbd.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060418041208/http://www.biodiv.org/doc/info-centre.shtml to http://biodiv.org/doc/info-centre.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.activistmagazine.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=127
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bioprospecting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110023325/http://www1.american.edu/TED/enola-bean.htm to http://www1.american.edu/TED/enola-bean.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130623025334/http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/32433/1/114581.pdf to http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/32433/1/114581.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051013101935/http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/mexico/biopiracy.pdf to http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/mexico/biopiracy.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A couple of references for the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library
Sen S, Chakraborty R. Traditional Knowledge Digital Library: a distinctive approach to protect and promote Indian indigenous medicinal treasure. Current Science (00113891). May 25, 2014;106(10):1340-1343.
Kidd, Ian James. (2012). Biopiracy and the Ethics of Medical Heritage: The Case of India's Traditional Knowledge Digital Library. Journal of Medical Humanities, 33(3), 175-183. Kangarooth (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional Knowledge Digital Library