Plants and Patents: The Future of Conservation or an Enticement to “Biopiracy”?

In March 2005, the European Patent Office revoked a patent held by W. R. Grace for the extraction of a pesticide from berries of the neem tree, calling the patent application an act of biopiracy [1]. The berries of this tree have been used as an insecticide, fungicide and contraceptive by villagers in India for over 2000 years, but in 1985 an American timber importer named Robert Larsen patented a new extraction pro- cess. He sold his patent to the global chemical company W. R. Grace in 1988, which released its first neem based pesticide, “bio- neem” in 1993 [2]. To some, this is a story of the inven- tive power of the West, and of the enormous potential for the discovery of novel chemi- cal compounds locked within the world’s remaining plant spe- cies. To others, Larsen’s (and later Grace’s) failure to compensate the  a patent held by W. R. Grace for the extraction of a pesticide from berries of the neem tree, calling the patent application an act of biopiracy [1]. The berries of this tree have been used as an insecticide, fungicide and contraceptive by villagers in India for over 2000 years, but in 1985 an American timber importer named Robert Larsen patented a new extraction pro- cess. He sold his patent to the global chemical company W. R. Grace in 1988, which released its first neem based pesticide, “bio- neem” in 1993 [2]. To some, this is a story of the inven- tive power of the West, and of the enormous potential for the discovery of novel chemi- cal compounds locked within the world’s remaining plant spe- cies. To others, Larsen’s (and later Grace’s) failure to compensate the  Indian villagers for their contribution is nothing short of scandalous. 

 Although some environmental groups present the neem tree as a clear cut example of biopiracy, the reality is actually a lot more complicated. Before 1988, local villagers refined neem berries into oil and converted the waste into fertiliser, but Larsen’s process produced highly purified pesticide along with oil and fertiliser, as well as extending the shelf life of the pesticide from a few weeks to two years. In addition, the patent did not prevent Indian villagers from continuing to use neem products, nor did it prevent Indian companies from exporting their own neem-based biopesticides to the world market: currently at least four companies are doing just this [3]. Nevertheless, the case of the neem tree does illustrate the way that Western attitudes towards the owner- ship of biological resources are changing. The problem of exploitation of genetic re- sources in developing countries is not a new one. In the 19th century, plant species were viewed as a common resource, and the British Empire set up numerous botanical gar- dens to hold them in trust for the good of humanity. Many tropical countries attempted to assert their rights to native species, with little luck; Brazil for example failed to prevent the export of cinchona (the plant whose bark is used to derive quinine, an antimalarial drug) to Sri Lanka in 1860, before suffering a similar defeat when it tried to retain control of the rubber tree only a decade later [4]. Such attitudes only began to change in the latter part of the 20th century, with the 1993 UN Conven- tion on Biological Diversity (CBD) codifying this shift with an international treaty granting the rights over biological resources to the nations that hold them [5]. 

 The CBD has generated genuine benefits for local communities, such as the San Bushmen of South Africa. In 1970 the South African Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) made a collection of plants of the genus Hoodia, after being informed that the San used them to stave off hunger during long hunting trips in the Kalahari desert. CSIR isolated and patented the active ingredient in 1998 and on learning of this three years later the San hired a lawyer and successfully negotiated a deal securing them 6% of the royalties. This illustrates that acknowledging intel- lectual property rights can help support traditional cultures.  A further case involves the Kani of South West India; who exchanged information about the anti-fatigue properties of an indigenous plant with a local botanical garden in return for 50% of any future royalties. The interest from these royal- ties has been used to fund much needed self employment schemes for Kani youths [6]. 

 Many scientists and politicians believe that property rights can also contribute to conservation [7]. 57% of the top 150 US prescription drugs in 1993 were naturally derived [8] so the continued destruction of remaining rainforest ecosys- tems may represent a loss of hundreds of potential new drug products. The problem, of course, is that almost none of the financial returns from these drugs accrue to tropical nations, leaving them with little incentive to encourage conservation. Some drug companies have agreed to pay for conservation in return for the rights to research new plant compounds (a practice known as bioprospecting) - for example the landmark 1991 deal between Costa Rica and pharmaceutical company Merck [9]. Many have expressed doubts that such deals will be sufficient, especially given the exceedingly small chance of any new compounds actually making it to market (the Merck deal was only worth around $1 million, discounting royalties). Perhaps more importantly,  previous conservation work has taught us that large areas are incredibly difficult to preserve and that local schemes can be more efficient and more effective. With this in mind, one study concluded that the potential returns from bioprospecting agreements were not great enough to be able to induce local communities to conserve their land voluntarily [10]. 

Whilst the chance of any given plant compound even- tually being developed into a viable drug is vanishingly small, the investment into researching potential molecules is huge, probably amounting to more than $50 billion per year [11]. Programmes that aim to increase the proportion of research money spent in a plant’s country of origin not only help generate greater returns from conserved areas, but create jobs that are directly dependent on them. This can help to alleviate regional poverty (one of the main factors driving conversion of natural ecosystems to agricultural land) as well as enhancing local research capabilities and giving students much needed hands-on training. This can achieve a positive feedback effect, where more research expertise leads to a greater chance of being able to find and patent a new medicine locally and a higher perceived value of virgin rainforest. By combining this approach with property rights reform, there is genuine hope for a holistic solution to two otherwise intractable problems.   

Rob Beagrie is a third year studying Biochemistry at Robinson College.