Re: Bio-pirates raid world's genetic bank
- To: papadop@PEAK.ORG
- Subject: Re: Bio-pirates raid world's genetic bank
- From: Roberto Verzola <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: 28 Nov 98 17:35:38
- Delivered-To: email@example.com
- Delivered-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Resent-From: email@example.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"08Mn2B.A.QwB.BEAY2"@bakunix.free.de>
- Resent-Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
>In an unprecedented gesture, the scientists decided to split the royalties
>50-50 with the Kani tribe. There ensued a violent argument within the
>tribe about who was to get the money, but that's another story.
I was just wondering... If a company patents a plant with the consent
of a tribe from whom it was taken, does that mean it isn't "biopiracy"
Richard Stallman of MIT (of the Free Software Foundation fame)
suggests that "bioprivateering" is a more accurate term for the whole
thing. Whether the patent is in the name of a foreign or a local
company, whether the royalties are shared with locals or not, it is
privatization of biological materials, and it is still privateering,
in both senses of the word.