The John M. Rezendes Ethics Essay Competition
MAPPING THE MORAL GEOGRAPHY: INDIGENOUS RIGHTS
The importance of natural products in the development of new pharmaceutical
compounds cannot be overstated. Researchers, such as Tyler (1994), Laird and Wynberg
(2008), and Firn (2002), point to low corporate R&D expenditures for bioprospecting – the
practice of searching for new bioactive compounds in natural sources (see Firn 2002) – and
conclude that synthetic techniques have eclipsed nature as a source for new drugs.
Nonetheless, 50% of all new small-molecule (i.e., non-peptide) drugs licensed between 1998
and 2002 were developed from natural sources (Newman et al. 2008: 117). In fact, many
drugs, such as pilocarpine, an anti-glaucoma treatment; and paclitaxel, an anti-cancer drug,
are still too complicated to be generated by modern synthetic chemistry and thus must be
harvested from nature either wholly or as precursors (ibid., Susman 2000).
Critics nonetheless rightly point out the low degrees of success apparently endemic to
bioprospecting ventures. Firn (2002) cites the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) natural
products screening program: of 18,000 extracts screened for anticancer activity, only 1%
produced a positive result. In order to increase this success rate, pharmaceutical companies
and academic researchers turn to people who have long dwelt in areas of high biodiversity
and who have developed medicinal uses for a wide range of species. The practice of using
this so-called “traditional knowledge” or TK (see Sheridan 2005, Greer and Harvey 2004) to
advance Western medicine is hardly new; it stretches back to the “discovery” of quinine by
Spanish missionaries (Newman et al. 2008: 124) and has lately led to the development of
influential drugs such as pilocarpine, developed from the Brazilian plant Pilocarpus jaborandi (Newman et al. 2008: 127); the drugs albuterol, salmeterol, and isoproterenol, all
derived from the plant genus Ephedra, a staple of Chinese traditional medicine (Chivian and
Bernstein 2008); and prostratin, a new weapon against HIV sourced originally from Samoa
Using traditional knowledge can improve the success rate of a bioprospecting venture
enormously, which translates into much lower costs for the pharmaceutical company,
presumably the reason for Firn's (2002) confusion. Farnsworth (1994) estimates that, on
average, 1 in every 10,000 synthetic molecules tested against a molecular target (i.e., a
chemical marker specific to a disease agent) will eventually become a drug, and that
sampling plants randomly will lower that ratio to approximately 1 success in 8000. But in
Crouch et al.'s (2006: 356) survey of 300 ethnomedicinal plant taxa for anti-malarial activity,
an astounding 49% showed promise, with the intent to produce one to two new drugs.
Often samples are gathered and new drugs developed without considering the rights
or interests of the indigenous communities who open their lands and cultures to foreign
bioprospectors. Although currently ethical and legal standards for the treatment of indigenous
cultures in the development of new products conflict, there still exist multiple lines of inquiry
that can guide a company's researches in indigenous societies. In this essay, I establish
indigenous cultures as legitimate interests in the process of drug development through the
creation of a framework that incorporates elements of their own moral and ethical systems.
Furthermore, I show how biopiracy – the result of violating that ethical framework – fails to
adhere to our own ethical standards, refuting Jim Chen's (2006) assertion that “there is no
such thing as biopiracy, and it's a good thing, too” (see publication title).
Although Chen (2006) proposes his definition of biopiracy flippantly, calling it a
“script,” even his critics, such as Robinson (2010) accept it. As Chen (2006: 2-3) would have
<Large northern corporation> <seeks / is developing> a highly sophisticated <plant variety / pharmaceutical product> and sends researchers to <exotic place>. After interviewing local <farmers / foragers>, the company's researchers identify a <species / variety / breed> of <life form> that seems responsible for <desirable trait>. The researchers collect a few [specimens] and collate their interviews. The samples and
the local lore inspire a successful program of <cross-breeding / genetic engineering / pharmaceutical development>, which saves the company thousands of hours and enables it to eclipse its competition. The company never shares its profits, however, with the local community from which it derived genetic resources and traditional knowledge.
However, while the question of compensation is undoubtedly what drives the biopiracy
debate, I reject this definition as excessively narrow. Instead, the question of who has the
right to exploit genetic and biological resources should be defined in terms of the concerns of
two parties: those who possess the biotechnology capable of making such resources
marketable, and those for whom the biological material constitutes a component of what
Mathewson (2004) termed a “moral geography.” As he describes it, a moral geography is
“both the actual and symbolic terrain upon which traditional societies elaborate their
customary livelihood and belief systems, and the cognate spaces in which they defend these
practices and perceptions” (11-12). This concept provides the basis for understanding and
applying indigenous systems of ethics for the treatment of that biological resource.
One well documented indigenous moral geography is that of the Māori of New
Zealand. Any plant or other biological resource that the Māori use is classified as taonga, or
treasure (Lord 2010). Taonga is not simply important physically (“this plant is part of my
livelihood”), but, as Māori researcher Aroha Mead (1994) explains, it is also important
metaphysically (“this plant is part of my way of life and is sacred to me”). Thus, the concept
of taonga enfolds three things: the physical organism or material derived from the organism
itself, the cultural significance of the organism, and the knowledge of that organism's
properties and applications. This importance has already been recognized in international
law: the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, signed between Great Britain and a coalition of Māori iwi
(tribes) establishes a precedent relating to the proper disposition of taonga: in exchange for
becoming British subjects, the Māori received affirmation of their right to sovereignty over
their traditional lands and, in the Māori version of the document, their taonga (Lord 2010).
As a consequence, modern researchers interested in studying Māori taonga, such as flax
(Phormium spp.), must receive permission from the local iwi and are often apprenticed a
member of that iwi who has responsibility for that taonga, such as a flax weaver (ibid.).
Although it would be just as dangerous to generalize using this example as it would
be to use our own ethical assumptions, in practice, many disputes over biopiracy involve an
indigenous perspective that resembles that of the Māori – they view the appropriation of their
sacred plants and medicinal knowledge as the theft of real property. For example, in the
Amazon, a British biochemist spent years among the Wapishana people studying their use of
cunani, a plant that possesses chemicals lethal to fish but harmless to humans in addition to
other ethnomedicinal plant species (Greer and Harvey 2004). He returned home and
embarked on a drug exploration program which resulted in multiple patents, outraging the
When Wapishana chiefs heard what the biochemist had done, they accused him of stealing the knowledge of their ancestors and elders in order to sell it to pharmaceutical companies. As one Wapishana woman put it, 'This knowledge has always been with the Wapishana. It's part of our heritage and now it is being taken from us without any payment.' (Greer and Harvey 2004: 103)
This incident contains elements of Chen's (2006) “script,” namely the transfer of knowledge
and resources from an indigenous people to a foreign researcher who successfully develops a
medicinal product, but the metaphysical element present in this case is completely absent
Cunani exists as a component of the Wapishana cultural knowledge and identity, and
thus the transgression (from the Wapishana point of view) also occurred on a spiritual level.
This spiritual space is one in which an indigenous culture may reject the commercialization
of a medical substance as a misuse of their heritage, either due to the lack of compensation or
because the pharmaceutical companies apply the medicine in a way that fails to observe the
proper traditions. Following the commercialization of the entheogen ayahuasca, long used in
the Amazon as a component of rituals and healing ceremonies, a group of Colombian
“shamanic healers” (Tupper 2009: 126) released a critical statement that echoes that of the
Non-indigenous people are finally acknowledging the importance of our wisdom and the value of our medicinal and sacred plants. Many of them profane our culture and our territories by commercializing yagé [the source of ayahuasca] and other plants. (ibid.)
Critics would argue that these mores are against the Western standards of plants and other
biological material as a commodity that may be bought, sold, or traded however the owners
may wish. However, Millum (2010) refutes this assertion by noting ethnomedicinal
knowledge can only be sold once. When the structures and potential uses of novel
compounds enter the scientific literature, the ability of an indigenous culture to control that
information truly ceases. Thus, the transfer of communal knowledge is not the province of
the individual, as it affects the entire the community. Furthermore, an indigenous person who
sells a plant does not realize that he is also selling the metaphysical aspect of the plant as
well, for he does not think such information can be bought and sold. As Mead (1994)
explained, for many indigenous peoples, the practice of “commodifying … knowledge” is
“too [bizarre] to even comment on” (6).
Any attempt to reject indigenous mores as incompatible with the ethical or legal
standards of developed nations denies the large body of law that attempts to come to terms
with indigenous concepts of ownership. The legal basis for protection of indigenous
knowledge grows out of the concept of Westphalian sovereignty, which states that a
sovereign nation ultimately has control over the disposition of its resources, which constitute
communal property (Brody 2010). This concept has been enshrined by the United Nations
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (ibid.). In addition to reaffirming the rights of
individual states to regulate access to their biological resources, article 8j of the CBD extends
Westphalian sovereignty to indigenous cultures by requiring that bioprospecting on
indigenous lands or which makes use of indigenous knowledge requires prior informed
consent and establishment of a benefit-sharing agreement (BSA) with the indigenous peoples
in question, subject to national legislation (ibid.).
Biopiracy, however, continues to occur due to the difficulties of enforcing national
standards internationally, especially in the face of the United States's refusal to ratify the
CBD, the only major country to have not done so (ibid.). Instead, the U.S. sponsored the
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) agreement, which is currently
binding for all WTO nations, despite the fact that it clashes with the CBD on multiple fronts,
including the patenting of biological products (GRAIN 1998). Furthermore, the United
States does not recognize foreign prior art as justification for the rejection of patents on
ethnobiological products (Chen 2006, GRAIN 1998), despite the fact that it has been used to
reject patents on ethnomedicines by foreign courts; two examples are the rejection of a patent
on cosmetic uses of extracts of the Thai vine kwao krua that have long been practiced by
indigenous healers (Robinson 2010) and the rejection of a fungicide based on the neem tree,
native to India, where its anti-fungal properties are well known, by a European court
(Sheridan 2005). Because patents granted in the United States are enforced internationally
under the TRIPS, the U.S. acts as a “patent haven” that allows companies to circumvent more
restrictive patent standards abroad (Chen 2006, GRAIN 1998).
Although the CBD is seen as a faithful attempt to recognize the rights that indigenous
peoples have long claimed (see Brody 2010, GRAIN 1998, Dhillion et al. 2002), both it and
the TRIPS, unlike the Treaty of Waitangi, represent a unilateral imposition of the developed
world's mores upon the developing world and its indigneous cultures. The CBD is less
egregious in this respect than the TRIPS, as it was ratified by those countries (Brody 2010),
but the fact remains that the CBD has been ineffective in protecting the moral geography:
even those occasions when the CBD is thought to function as intended, there is opportunity
for criticism. Such a case is the widely-hailed Merck-INBio agreement, considered by many
(see Robinson 2010, Brody 2010, Dhillion et al. 2002) to honor both the letter and the spirit
of the CBD. In the agreement, Merck gave USD 1 million in up-front costs and an additional
USD 135,000 in equipment for the preparation of samples to INBio, an NGO closely
affiliated with the Costa Rican government (Brody 2010: 59). In exchange, INBio provided a
specific number of samples and Merck was granted patent rights on all new discoveries, with
some royalties returning to Costa Rica for conservation (ibid., Dhillion et al. 2002).
However, despite this apparent success, where a developing nation was, in addition to
revenue, given the means to produce developments of its own, Dhillion et al. (2002)
criticized INBio for its environmentally-insensitive collection practices, and Posey (1996)
observed that INBio sampled on tribal lands without consent and that those tribes will not
benefit from the original agreement between Merck and INBio.
The TRIPS, on the other hand, makes no attempt to reflect the interests of indigenous
cultures, only those of pharmaceutical companies, and it was imposed unilaterally by the
[T]he TRIPS Agreement’s standards amounted to a veritable revolution in
intellectual property law from which the research-based pharmaceutical industry emerged as one of the biggest winners. Faced with a “take it or leave it decision,” all developing-country Members of the WTO … agreed to respect relatively stringent world-wide norms of patent protection no later than 2005. (Reichman 2009: 247).
Thus, both agreements are a violation of the sovereignty rights of indigenous cultures that
nation-states expect for themselves, limiting what they can do with their own resources. The
acts have, not undeservedly, brought accusations of a “new wave of [colonization]” (Mead
To defend their actions, biopiracy apologists often appeal to ethical reasoning.
However, upon examination, these explanations lack internal consistency. In her essay “The
Universal Principles of Business Ethics,” Elaine Sternberg (1999) creates a set of principles
that she argues are universal because in their absence, a business could not continue to
function. Among those principles is the right to property:
The key features of the ethical infrastructure of business are property rights and the rule of law. Property rights must be well-defined and secure. They include not just clear title to property, but the ability to exploit that property, exclude others from using it, and to transfer it, all without fear of being overridden. (29)
By taking medicinal substances from a cultural territory without the permission of its
occupants researchers deny the fundamental right of ownership and control over resources on
private lands on which the entire modern economy depends in order to function stably and
sustainably. Thus, defenders of biopiracy argue that traditional knowledge does not constitute
private property. As Chen (2006) writes, “[e]thnobiological knowledge already lies in a
public domain of sorts, albeit perhaps a very small public consisting of the members of an
indigenous tribe whose culture itself is endangered” (10). As a component of the public
domain, an indigenous people's “clear title” to their intellectual property would cease to exist.
But Chen’s (2006) claim is false: not only is a knowledge interculturally restricted, the
domain of a small group of people that may have little contact with the outside world; but it
is also intraculturally restricted: “in [some ethnomedicinal] practices, the apprentice system is
[practiced], whereby information is passed on from person to person, father to son.
frequently the information is considered highly secretive and is not documented in writing”
(Farnsworth 1994: 44). While there are certainly instances where ethnomedicinal knowledge
is a clear component of the public domain (such as the uses of kwao krua, which are
documented in Thai religious literature [Robinson 2010]), courts have a long history of siding
with indigenous peoples when patents are challenged, as mentioned above, indicating that the
developed world is capable of recognizing when an ethnomedicinal knowledge resides in the
public domain. On the other hand, in instances where the use is not clearly documented by
Western researchers, redress is much less guaranteed. The Wapishana were able to overturn
the patent on cunani, but another, on the tipir nut, also a component of their moral geography,
was allowed to stand (Greer and Harvey 2004), indicating that this TK is not as freely
Biopiracy apologists also fall back on utilitarian arguments as justification for the
theft of TK. As Chen (2006: 11) himself says, “[a] utilitarian attitude toward intellectual
property dictates a very simple answer: 'From an economic perspective, the more people who
can use information, the better.'” Thus, according to Chen, biopiracy is justifiable because it
brings benefit to us without imposing significant costs on the indigenous peoples from whose
knowledge those drugs are derived. As Chen (2006) notes later in his paper, the patenting of
a drug in the first world does not ostensibly prevent indigenous cultures from continuing to
enjoy the traditional applications of the biological compound in question, and, therefore, no
harm is done. However, in addition to the immaterial consequences of the invasion and
appropriation of the moral geography, there are clear material consequences to biopiracy: the
costly litigation to ensure that an indigenous tribe is treated according to international law,
lost royalties, and the severe risk that a new drug will lead, either directly or indirectly, to
Patents made without proper benefit-sharing arrangements bring demonstrable harm
in the form of both lost profits for indigenous cultures that are due them, and direct
competition with indigenous healers who participate in the global marketplace. An example
of the former case is that of Hoodia gordonii, long used by the San people of sub-Saharan
Africa as an appetite suppressant. It was only after extensive litigation that the San were
recognized on a patent made on “P57,” an extract of H. gordonii and promised royalties from
any future development of a P57-based product (Laird and Wynberg 2008). The high cost of
such action, though, has discouraged other indigenous peoples from challenging unfair
patents (Independent 1999). In Thailand, the patents on kwao krua – some of which were still
extant at Robinson's (2010) time of writing – if enforced locally, would prevent Thai healers
from selling their preparations, and, if enforced abroad, would prevent their export. Again, as
Robinson (2010) notes, the kwao krua patents clearly mirror descriptions of the plant's uses
in Thai religious literature and shouldn’t have been granted, but the courts needed – and
continue to wait for – a legal challenge in order to overturn them.
Furthermore, by publicizing the beneficial effects of a new compound, drug
companies ask indigenous cultures to assume significant risk to the population of the
medicine's source. Drug companies often require a steady supply of material because, as
noted above, many natural drugs are still too complicated for artificial synthesis and may
overharvest source populations. This is a risk that indigenous cultures who are contacted by
the West are often forced to take without their consent or the realization of the dangers
contact might bring. Harvesting of Pilocarpus jaborandi leaves by Merck, for example,
directly resulted in its widespread decline and endangerment (Newman 2008). Chen (2006)
addressed this by pointing to the CBD's acknowledgment of states' rights to protect native
species: “if [Pilocarpus jaborandi] bushes are indeed being overharvested for their
pharmacologically active leaves, the depletion should not be blamed on Merck & Company,”
but the government of Brazil (6), as though a drug company is not responsible for
maintaining the sources of its own product: in 1997, Merck employed over 25,000 harvesters
to gather P. jaborandi in the wild, collecting 1,200 tons of leaves for use in manufacturing
pilocarpine for the American market (Newman 2008: 127). If anything, this is a persuasive
argument as to why the state sovereignty approach of CBD enforcement is largely a failure: it
requires relatively poor states, like Brazil, who for its part, can afford to employ a mere five
people to safeguard the entire Brazilian Amazon (Greer and Harvey 2004: 108) to reserve its
biological resources for exploitation by developed nations who have the biotechnological
capabilities to do so. Protecting biodiversity is more difficult for an economically stressed
nation, and perpetuating asymmetric arrangements of the sort Chen (2006) advocates, where
source countries are unable to benefit from their own resources, will not ameliorate the
Researchers who attempt to justify biopiracy use a similar utilitarian argument. After
a scientist was criticized for going into the Amazon to search for new anti-cancer compounds
without the informed consent of indigenous societies, he defended himself by saying,
While we continue to talk and worry about biopiracy, fewer people are out there actually studying the Amazon, which is a serious form of scientific neglect. Of course biopiracy happens, but we have to balance this against not researching the rainforest at all. Ultimately that is much more damaging to mankind. (Veash 2000 in Greer and Harvey 2004)
The same utilitarian argument emerges from this statement: either we can continue to
advance science and human health in first world by causing (minimal) harm to people in the
third world, or we can allow those in the first world to continue to suffer. A utilitarian would
naturally conclude that the best solution would be to continue to go into the Amazon. But
this argument presents a false dichotomy: biopiracy is not an unavoidable side-effect of
scientific research. A royalty-sharing agreement would benefit all parties involved – the
consumers of the drug would receive its benefits, the drug manufacturers would receive
compensation commensurate with their investment, and the indigenous societies, many of
which are impoverished (Laird and Wynberg 2008), would benefit from compensation
commensurate with their contributions. The idea that royalty-sharing in and of itself is
somehow inhibitory to the research environment is completely belied by the practices of
those who recognize an indigenous culture's claim to their moral geography. For example,
the scientist who discovered prostratin established a benefit-sharing scheme to ensure that
royalties from the licensing of the patent would return to Samoa and the village where natives
had helped him make his discovery (Millum 2010). The cosmetics company Natura used
ethnobotanical knowledge to develop a line of products that are sourced sustainably and
collected using paid indigenous labor (Laird and Wynberg 2008: 78). A portion of net sales is
also allocated to community development (ibid.).
Natura's practices are evidence of a truly utilitarian business model. As Sternberg
(1999) explains, a business is ethically obligated to “maximize owner value” (15), because it
is this maximization that is not only the business's raison d'etre, but that which makes
businesses distinct from other human organization. However, Sternberg (1999) includes the
key stipulation that this maximization must occur over the long-term. Thus, when making an
ethical decision, a business or researcher must ensure that there are no (or relatively few)
long-term consequences of this act that make it harder to conduct business or research in the
future. As a result of biopiracy, the opposite is now occurring: not only are harvests of Merck
and other pharmaceutical companies actively destroying populations of medicinal plants, but
indigenous communities are restricting the ability of additional traditional knowledge to truly
enter the public domain. This phenomenon, which Greer and Harvey (2004) term “research
As a result of the biochemist's patents on extracts from cunani and tipir, one
Wapishana chief forbid future access to all researchers for any reason (Greer and Harvey
2004: 83). Similarly, following an instance in which a novel painkiller was developed from
the venom of cone snails without any of the substantial benefits returning to the Philippines,
where the snails were purchased from local fishermen, the national government passed
legislation restricting the access of future researchers to its genetic resources:
Now [a researcher studying cone snails] can only obtain the material under the authorization of the CRA [the Filipino bioprospecting regulations] with all its lengthy delays and complications … Common suspicions that commercial research may be cloaked under the guise of academic research add to the confusion. … [I]ndigenous communities are reluctant to sign forms [granting access to their knowledge and resources] because experience has taught them that signing documents means giving up rights. (Greer and Harvey 2004: 171)
Acting in a manner where the legitimate collection of information quickly crosses the line
into a commercial profit creates an atmosphere of uncertainty that is corrected through the
adoption of restrictive legislation. Crouch et al. (2006), in their search for new anti-malarial
agents, lamented the time and expense it took to create over 300 legally-mandated benefit-
sharing arrangements with local peoples, of which only one or two is expected to produce
income. By committing biopiracy, pharmaceutical manufacturers harm their own long-term
abilities to secure new drugs. Oppositely, by acting responsibly and maximizing benefits not
simply for the shareholders but for the indigenous peoples who were instrumental in
developing the product, a company can ensure a long-lasting, productive relationship
beneficial for both natives and the bottom line.
The crux of the biopiracy debate is the vast gulf that exists between theory and
practice. In theory, states have sovereignty over their biological and genetic resources, and,
where applicable, that sovereignty is extended to indigenous communities. In practice, areas
of high biodiversity often occur in the poorest countries, leaving them without the resources
to enforce these rules. In theory, the knowledge of indigenous communities should be
gathered, with their cooperation, by scientists for the advancement of human knowledge and
the human condition as a whole. In practice, these scientists, regardless of their original
motives, are pressured to find commercial applications for this knowledge, and the line
between public good and private profit is thin and blurry. In theory, comprehension of the
vast therapeutic potential harbored by the planet's rich diversity of plants and animals should
encourage conservation. In practice, the high demand for pharmaceuticals in developed
countries damages the biodiversity on which indigenous peoples rely.
In order for a truly equitable solution to be found, these gaps must be sealed shut, a
process that will not happen within the current porous legal framework. Although Chen
(2006) proposes that “it may simply be enough to ensure that alleged acts of biopiracy do not
form the basis of patents under existing intellectual property laws” (13), he oversimplifies an
exceedingly complex situation. As Bartfai and Lees (2006) argue, patents are granted to drug
companies in part to allow them to recoup the costs associated with research and
development and clinical trials without having to worry about being undercut by competitors
only liable for the cost of manufacture. Thus, a sensible amount of patent protection is
necessary to help bridge the divide between a natural product and a pharmaceutical. It then
follows that if drug companies must be able to shield their knowledge from their competitors,
it stands to reason that indigenous peoples must likewise be able to protect theirs from the
drug companies. But this must occur under the auspices of a sui generis system, not an
extension of American laws and ideas, because forcing another people into the regulatory
vehicle of a social contract of which it did not elect to join is the grossest coercive act one
cultural entity can perform on another. The pharmaceutical patent is a tool tailored to fit a
specific problem, a regulatory check on a system that would turn on and devour itself in its
absence. Indigenous protections must, in their turn, recognize the “complex cultural and
spiritual connections” (Robinson 2010: 52) between an indigenous tribe and its biological
resources. Adapting our current laws in the manner proposed would prevent legitimately
developed knowledge from becoming a pharmaceutical product, because all indigenous
knowledge would be considered, according to Chen (2006), part of the public domain and
therefore not eligible for protection. This would destroy the already-tenuous connections
between indigenous cultures and pharmaceutical companies, which, if managed equitably,
has the potential to bring enormous benefits to both sides.
Achieving a balanced management scheme necessitates an internationally binding
and internationally enforceable codification of the indigenous moral geography created by
negotiating with the indigenous tribes themselves, treating them as valued partners rather
than research subjects. The signing of the Mataatua Declaration by 150 representatives of
indigenous groups provides a start for negotiations on the terms of those who had been
slighted by the current legal atmosphere (Mead 1995). Mead (1995) summarizes the four key
aspects of the Declaration as: “recognition that indigenous peoples are exclusive guardians of
their knowledge. that they must be the first beneficiaries of it, must be respected for their
right to create new knowledge.” and “must be the ones to decide whether to protect,
promote, or develop their knowledge” (7). Researchers who commit biopiracy abnegate the
possibility of rich ecological systems in which humans have been functioning in and learning
about for thousands of years while remaining largely unknown to the Western world and its
developments. Approaching these systems in a way that violates our own standards is at best
hypocritical and at worst a return to the abuses of the colonial era.
Bartfai, Tamas and Graham V. Lees. Drug Discovery. Boston: Elsevier Inc., 2006. Print. Berlin, Brent and Elois Ann Berlin. “NGOs and the process of prior informed consent in
bioprospecting research: the Maya ICBG project in Chiapas, Mexico.” Oxford: Blackwell Publising Ltd, 2003. Print.
Brody, Baruch A. “Intellectual Property, State Sovereignty, and Biotechnology.” KennedyInstitute of Ethics Journal. 20.1 (2010): 51-73. Print.
Chivian, Eric, and Aaron Bernstein. "Threatened Groups of Organisms Valuable to
Medicine." Sustaining Life. Ed. Eric Chivian and Aaron Bernstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Crouch, Neil R., et al. “South Africa's bioprospecting, access, and benefit-sharing legislation:
current realities, future complications, and a proposed alternative.” South African Journal of Science 104 (2008): 355-66. Print.
Dhillion, Shivcharn S., et al. "Bioprospecting: Effects on Environment and Development."
AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment. 31.6 (2002): 491-93. Print.
Farnsworth, Norman R. "Ethnopharmacology and drug development." Ethnobotany and theSearch for New Drugs. Ciba Foundation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994. Print.
Firn, Richard D. “Bioprospecting – why is it so unrewarding?” Biodiversity and Conservation 12 (2003): 207-16. Print.
"Focus: Bio-Piracy - One patent law for the rich, another for the poor." Independent 28 Nov
GRAIN and GAIA. "Conflicts between the WTO regime of intellectual property rights and
sustainable biodiversity management." GRAIN. GRAIN, 01 APR 1999. Web. 14 Mar2011. <http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=24>.
Greer, David, and Brian Harvey. Blue Genes: Sharing and Conserving the World's AquaticBiodiversity. London: Earthscan, 2004. Print.
Laird, Sarah, and Rachel Wynberg. "Access and Benefit-Sharing in Practice: Trends in
Partnerships Across Sectors." The Convention on Biological Diversity. Secretariat of the CBD, 2008. Web. 14 Mar 2011.
Lord, Janice M. University of Otago. Dunedin, NZ. 12 Oct 2010. Lecture. Mead, Aroha. "Misappropriation of Indigenous Knowledge: The Next Wave of
Colonization." Otago Bioethics Report. 3.1 (1994): 4-7. Print.
Mead, Aroha. "Nga Tikanga, Nga Taonga - Cultural & Intellectual Property: The Rights of
Indigenous Peoples." GH Smith & MH Hohepa Research Unit for Maori Education,Monograph 23. Auckland: University of Auckland, 1995. Print.
Mathewson, Kent. "Drugs, Moral Geographies, and Indigenous Peoples: Some Initial
Mappings and Central Issues." Dangerous Harvest. Ed. Michael K. Steinberg, Joseph J. Hobbs, and Kent Mathewson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.
Millum, Joseph. “How Should the Benefits of Bioprospecting Be Shared?” Hastings CenterReport. 40.1 (2010): 24-33. Print.
Newman, David J., John Kilama, Aaron Bernstein, and Eric Chivian. "Medicines from
Nature." Sustaining Life. Ed. Eric Chivian and Aaron Bernstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Posey, Darrell A. "Indigenous Rights to Diversity." Environment. 38.8 (1996): 7-9,37-45.
Reichman, Jerome H. "Compulsory Licensing of Patented Pharmaceutical Inventions:
Evaluating the Options." Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics. 37.2 (2009): 247-63. Print.
Robinson, Daniel F. “Locating biopiracy: geographically and culturally situated
knowledges.” Environment and Planning. 42 (2010): 38-56. Print.
Sheridan, Cormac. “EPO neem patent revocation revives biopiracy debate.” NatureBiotechnology. 23.5 (2005): 511-12. Online.
Susman, Ed. "Going Nuts over Paclitaxel." Environmental Health Perspectives. 108.9
Sternberg, Elaine. "The Universal Principles of Business Ethics." Business Ethics in the Global Market. Ed. Tibor R. Machan. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1999. Print. Tupper, Kenneth W. "Ayahuasca healing beyond the Amazon: the globalization of a
traditional indigenous entheogenic practice." Global Networks. 9.1 (2009): 117-36. Print.
Tyler, Varro E. “Natural Products and Medicine: An Overview.” Medicinal Resources of theTropical Forest. Ed. Michael J. Balick, Elaine Elisabetsky, and Sarah A. Laird. NewYork: Columbia University Press, 1994.
Ingénieur Génie Electrique Après avoir préparé un doctorat en génie électrique en partenariat avec une entreprise (SEGULA TECHNOLOGIEAUTOMOTIVE), une école doctorale (SPIM) et une école d'ingénieur (UTBM), j'ai intégré le groupe Fives commeingénieur automaticien. Mon parcours m'a permis de développer des compétences en électricité aussi bien dans le bâtiment que dansl’alime
List of publications ALC researchers 2011 Marked names are ALC researchers. Blomstedt, Y ., Emmelin, M., Weinehall, L . (2011). “What about healthy participants? The improvement and deterioration of self-reported health at a 10 year follow-up of the Västerbotten Intervention Programme”. Global Health Action 4: 5435. Sörlin, A., Blomstedt, Y ., Lindholm, L ., Öhman, A. (20