Some developing countries are raising accusations of “bio-piracy.” They allege that companies come into the country, extract natural resources (e.g., plants, minerals, etc.) and use them for commercial purposes, such as new pharmaceuticals, but don’t adequately remunerate the countries for their resources.
Is it fair for foreign researchers to obtain from these nations biological resources that are used to develop commercially successful, patent-protected products with little or no benefits accruing to the country where the resources were found?
No, not when it is clear that the resources really do belong to the country. And most companies provide them with royalties.
But, since disputes do arise, a group is proposing an international convention on biological diversity that would control patents on the products made from genetic material found in a developing country.
They also want to extend to the country that provided the resources, which includes plants, animals, organs, microorganisms and genes, the right to decide how patented products created from the material would be used.
In other words, these proponents want to suspend the property rights of the companies that take the financial risk of researching, making and marketing the products, making them the real “bio-pirates.”
Heavily regulating patents through an international body will profit no one. But then, that’s the point of their exercise — eliminating profits, at least for the companies.
Of course, if the scheme were to be implemented, companies likely wouldn’t extract the materials in the first place, so neither the company nor the country would benefit. If no one is bio-prospecting within a country’s borders, there simply is no success to share.
Currently, the compensation levels are decided through voluntary contract arrangements. That is a far better way to determine who gets what than an international panel of left-leaning “experts” who always seem to know what’s good — and bad — for everyone else.