Walk in the Woods, Trees Will Teach You

Walk in the Woods, Trees Will Teach You

...by Michael A. Bengwayan (written for the Ecologist)

One nice, soft morning , the sun was up quicker than I thought so after a run, I decided to walk. There were silhouetted reflections on the dry road as soon as each breeze breathed so I was awash with fresh calm air that started to dry my wet shirt. The day was as smooth as morning water.

Overhead, the sky was blue, carrying big white cotton clouds reminiscent of a giant feather bed but on the horizon Cumulus cauliflower-like clouds threatened the afternoon. The leaves of the Alnus japonica were in full form while the young pine trees' fascicles were starting to clamber up.

The leaves of a pine tree are evergreen needles, which grow from the branches in bundles (fascicles). The number of needles in each bundle is a key to pine tree identification. For example, the Benguet pine (Pinus insularis) has needles of mostly three but in rare cases four to five. Spruce pine (Pinus glabra) which I observed in the US has needles in bundles of twos, while the eastern white pine (Pinus globrus) has bundles of five needles each emerging from its branches. The needles differ in length and texture, with some long and rigid. others, like our Benguet pine, soft but taut.

I walked the road leading to Longlong Communal Forest in La Trinidad, Philippines. I just passed a small orchard that had a half a dozen orange and coffee trees. Before the road forked, I entered the forest fringes and ran smack into highbush blueberry shrubs.

The blueberries to my left and were just entering full blossom and a wild strawberry in front of me was in full flower. There were perhaps fifty painted lady butterflies that have been attracted to the nectar, now in full swing, on the berry blossoms.

They danced from pink blossom to blossom, staying long enough to collect the sweet juice and unintentionally carrying pollen that will help to produce fruits. This yearly ritual is a perfect example of symbiosis between a plant an animal. The butterfly needs the nectar for survival, the berry needs the pollination for future generations.

There was a time before flowering plants when spore producing plants dominated the plant world. Some ferns, horsetails, and clubmoss plants were huge. These plants, known as allies, could reach tree size; some being hundreds of feet tall.

During the Carboniferous era, some 370 million years ago, these plants were the primary botanical residents on a very volatile Earth. This volatility helped to form their reproductive system that utilized spores that fell onto the soil. These spores grew into nonchlorophytic plants that developed beneath ground level.

It was these nonchlorophytic plants that bred and formed the green vascular plant that rooted itself in the earth and grew into this warm, even hot, carbon filled atmosphere. It is the remains of these plants from which we get our crude oil and gas reserves today. The advantage these plants had was the earthen buffer during their breeding cycle. Subterranean development of each new plant was a decided advantage in an era of volcanoes, earth quakes, and a heavy gaseous atmosphere.

About a hundred and fifty million years later flowering plants appeared. The atmosphere was much more settled; insects, mammals, and birds abound and dinosaurs rule but will completely disappear in the next five, or so, million years. The earth, as we know it today, has begun. Codependent relationships between plants and animals continue to develop, ever so slowly, and the blueprint was set for what we have today.

All of these strange and overwhelming facts run through my head as I stared at the wild strawberry blossoms. I was witnessing nothing less than a miracle and I am awed that what seems so simple is the result of the most complicated series of events imaginable.

The wisdom of our planet is found in its sheer ability to change with time; almost endless time considering our planet is four and a half billion years old.

One recent change is the tremendous decline in honey bees. These imported bees ae our primary pollinators for the last fifty years but as I stand here I can see a few bumble bees, a few mason bees, and a few miner bees along with the painted lady butterfly working the nectar in the apple blossoms.

We are likely all aware that there has been a world wide bee colony collapse when it comes to the honey bee populations. It is a matter of grave concern for those in agriculture.

While it is true that many crops are wind pollinated, for instance almost everything in the grass family like corn, it is also true that many of our flowering crops are dependent on natural insect pollinators. Bee colony collapse has been going on for about ten years. It has been the subject of serious study.

Some of the planet’s best ecologists and entomologists have been dedicating their careers to solving this mystery and we still do not know the cause.

One major theory suggests that honey bees have lost their genetic diversity. This may have been caused by large bee breeders that took over the markets and lessened the genetic stock. Another theory blames the collapse on pesticides and herbicides.

One study within the pesticide theory suggests that bees are getting lost and not returning to their hive because the chemicals somehow impact their homing instincts and leave the bees in a state of confusion. There is no absolute proof of the cause of this terrible malady yet but it is very serious turn of events and should not be taken likely.

The fact is that for millions of years wild bees did all of the necessary pollination for the natural world. These creatures can do the job for at least some of our crops, unless of course, wild bees become effected by whatever is causing bee collapse as well. New evidence points to this being a very real possibility. In Great Britain scientists have documented a strong decline in bumble bee populations, likely caused by insecticides.

I took a deep breath and looked around me. The blossoms, all pink and white, filled the air with a sweet aroma. Wild bees and butterflies flew from flower to flower in pursuit of their nectar. The sky was blue. The trees were all green. And the birds are were chirping.

And at that precise point in time I was happy to appreciate the moment. Life is beautiful.

But I can’t stop wondering what the future holds for these plants that depend on insect pollinators for future generations.

Be A Part of Nature, Not Apart From It

 Be A Part of Nature, Not Apart From It

When we live with nature it's like constantly being in school. We are in an environment that is always teaching. We are constantly being reminded that there are laws, Natural Laws, which are running the universe. Once we know these laws and we drift from them, we start to live our lives in a different way. Soon we become discontent, selfish and disrespectful. Then, we get in trouble. If our lives have become this way, it can be reversed by going back to nature to be among our teachers.

My Passion with Passion by ....Michael A. Bengwayan, Ph. D.

My Passion with Passion

....Michael A. Bengwayan, Ph. D.

As we near the Christian calendar of Passion, I focus on one of my favorite fruits--passion fruit.

If you have been to my house, one of my garages is totally covered by the sour yellow passion fruit. Down where my lemons and oranges grow, I have three more varieties, including the red one.

Passion fruit by any other name is still the same. Passion fruit, a perennial woody creeper which is indigenous to the tropical regions. In the Cordillera region of the Philippines, it is locally known as "masap" or "masaplora". In other countries, it is known as passiflora, apricot vine, maracuja, Grenadilla, purple granadilla, and yellow passion fruit, with related species in fragrant granadilla, red granadilla, sweet calabash and banana passion fruit.

Why the name 'passion'? It was the Catholic missionaries in South America who gave it the name and the biblical explanations associated with the fruit. The corona threads of the passion flower were seen as a symbol of the crown of thorns, the five stamens for wounds, the five petals and five sepals as the ten apostles (excluding Judas and Peter) and the three stigmas for the nails on the cross.

Sour-sweet fruit
The passion fruit is small and round with a hard, smooth purple or yellow casing which becomes lumpy when ripened. Inside the fruit is a delicious, sour-sweet yellow pulp that contains black, edible seeds. Passion fruit is tropical, almost growing wild and is used to make refreshing beverages, desserts, confectionery, icing, sauces and ice cream.

The purple passion fruit is common in southern Brazil, making its way there from Paraguay and northern Argentina. In Hawaii, seeds of the purple passion fruit, brought from Australia, were first planted in 1880 and the vine came to be popular in home gardens. Today, the purple passion is mainly cultivated in Africa and India.

Yellow passion
The yellow passion fruit is cultivated in Peru, Brazil and Ecuador.
It is common in Jamaica where it grows easily, requiring about 35 inches of rain annually. The plant does not grow well in intense heat. The yellow form has generally larger fruit than the purple, but the pulp of the purple is less acidic, richer in aroma and flavour, and has 35-38 per cent more juice than the purple variety. The origin of the yellow passion fruit is unknown, but it is believed that it originated in the Amazon region of Brazil.

Clinging vine
The vine, especially the yellow form, is fast-growing and will begin to bear in one to three years. Passion fruit vines can be used in containerised gardens and grow well indoors, with some maintenance by regular watering to keep a vine flowering and fruiting almost continuously. If water supply is inadequate, fruits may shrivel and fall prematurely.

The vine will cling to almost anything for support and can grow up to 15-20 feet with a lifespan of five to seven years. The vine can be trained into an attractive arbour with regular pruning to keep the vines within bounds. The vines are usually shallow-rooted and should benefit from a thick layer of organic mulch. Passion fruit vines will also require regular fertilising.

Pollination of flowers
Amid the green and glossy foliage, you may find beautiful white, fragrant flowers with purple to pink crown, born at each node on the new growth.The passion fruit leaves are hairless and lobed. The flowers of the yellow form are perfect for sterilisation. Carpenter bees are the most efficient purveyors of pollination, much more so than honey bees. Wind is ineffective because of the heaviness and stickiness of the pollen. The flowers can also be hand-pollinated.

GROW YOUR OWN PASSION FRUIT
So you want to grow your passion fruit? It can be easily added to your front - or backyard garden. The next time you eat the fruit, secure the seeds for propagation. Seeds planted in beds half an inch to one inch deep soon after removing them from the fruit will germinate in 10-20 days: Seeds that are cleaned and stored will germinate a slower rate.

Seedlings may be transplanted when they are 10 inches high for the best yield. A more technical procedure is to plant cuttings of matured vines hastening rooting with hormones. Agriculturists use grafting for perpetuating hybrids and to reduce the incidence of disease.

When the fruit is ripe, it will quickly turn from green to yellow or deep purple and they can be picked when they change colour before they fall to the ground. The fruit is sweetest when slightly shrivelled.

Storage
Bag it: The fruits should be washed and gently dried in bags. They should last two to three weeks at 50F.
Freeze it: Both the fruit and the juice freeze well. For ease of use, frozen passion fruit can be retrieved and blended with citrus and many other fruit flavours.

NUTRITIVE VALUE
✓ Passion fruit is loaded with nutrients and a moderate amount of calories. Most important, passion fruit is free of fat and cholesterol.
✓ It is high in vitamin C and vitamin A, which protect the immune system and guard against cancer.
✓ It's rich in iron and its absorption is enhanced by the presence of vitamin C.
✓ High in potassium content and helps with stroke prevention.
✓ Rich in B vitamins and magnesium for healthy skin, nerves and muscles.
✓ Rich in fibre from the edible seeds.

Medicinal value
The medicinal value of passion fruit was discovered when the Spanish explored South America and found that passion fruit was used as a sedative in native folk medicine. The Spanish took the passion fruit to Europe where the leaves were used for sleep-inducing medicine.

Anti-cancer: Passion fruit is known for its richness in phytochemicals such as passaflorine, carotenoids, scopoletin, carotenoids and theobromine. Passion fruit is known for its anti-cancer effect. Researchers at the University of Florida have found that yellow passion fruit extracts can kill cancer cells in vitro. The phytochemicals which are responsible for this effect are carotenoids and polyphenols. The juice and the leaves also contain alkanoids, including harman, which is known for lowering blood pressure. It also has sedative and antispasmodic properties.

Sedative
 The passion fruit flower is a mild sedative and is sometimes used as a hallucinogen. Passion flower has been used in the treatment of nervous and easily excited children, insomnia, gastrointestinal disorders, menopausal problems and bronchial asthma.

Killing a Mountain : A Lesson for Itogon and Trekkers to Mount Ulap

Killing a Mountain : A Lesson for Itogon and Trekkers to Mount Ulap
by Michael A. Bengwayan, Ph.D.

Every month, every year, thousands of hikers and trekkers take the overly-trailblazed path to Mount Ulap, Ampucao, Itogon, Benguet, Philippines contributing to the coffers of the town, pockets of locals and bringing undescribed human satisfaction by the awesome beauty and wonder that the experience provides.

Unknown, however, is that humans are impacting negatively not only to the landscape but also to the small wildlife that remain or make Mount Ulap their seasonal stamping grounds, because of the unlimited ecological disturbance taking place.

Bird and insect-life, ground crawlers and creepers ranging from centipedes, woodlouse to moles, cloudrats and civet cats are disturbed away from the sanctuarial habitats in gullies and sheetbanks of Mount Ulap because of heavy human traffic on the trails and at the peak.

The natural pathways of these small mountain denizens are disturbed and destroyed once these are crisscrossed by humans and or disturbed by human activity of more than ten people per hour. As such, these small wildlife are driven out of their habitats and often die trying to seek and establish new homes.

Unlimited and unrestricted human invasion of Mount Ulap also prevent birdlife from making it their temporary refuge and resting place, especially by migratory birds escaping the Siberian cold from November to February annually.

With regards flora, the remaining grass, sedge and weed species are trampled upon by thousands of shoes and boots, making reproduction of these species impossible, thus killing a genetic chain to evolution.

Pollution is also setting in. trash and litter are slowly piling up in many niches, nooks and crevices where tourists irresponsibly leave these.

The challenge now is for the local municipal government and environment and tourism departments of the government to treat Mount Ulap more as a natural reservation rather than just a tourist site. These government instrumentalities must be more ecologically-responsive.

They must find balance between long term ecological integrity and providing visitors with quality experiences and learning opportunities at the same time increase education and understanding of how humans impact on natural landscapes, flora and fauna to better manage sensitive areas such as wildlife corridors and primary habitats of Mount Ulap.

They can start by making a no nonsense sustained reforestation activity of Mount Ulap to stabilize the physical landscape and offer habitat for wildlife.

To treat Mount Ulap as a golden goose is fine. But humans must have that ethical responsibility of not killing it.
Shame.

Indigenous Peoples, Beware of Biopirates! By Michael A. Bengwayan

Indigenous Peoples,  Beware of Biopirates! 

By Dr. MICHAEL A. BENGWAYAN

Beware! There are pirates on the loose. Not on the seas but on land. 

They are not after gold, war booty or kegs of rum. They are after life. 

These pirates are swashbuckling silently but recklessly in Asia with incalculable stakes for humankind. One where a handful of genomic companies and their pharmaceutical partners are rushing to privatize plants, animals and human genes and their products. 

The commodity they seek to exploit is not gold but biological information. The raw material they need is human DNA: the blueprint of human life, plant, and animal genes. They are the gene hunters and have invaded the Philippine shores.

Because of massive profits, more and more big corporations are being engaged in bioprospecting and biopiracy using knowledge and biological resources of Third World communities.

Bioprospecting oe biopiracy is the exploration, extraction and screening of biological diversity and indigenous knowledge for commercial, genetic and biochemical purposes. It is done by multinational firms and governments of developed countries , with covert cooperation from scientists within victim nations. They patent and map chromosomes of genetic resources without informing, consulting and acknowledging and duly compensating the sources.

Today, as dusk hovers over Philippine forests, a dawn has just began on the country’s biodiversity. The nation’s non-timber forest products, resources, minerals, agricultural and medicinal plants and indigenous knowledge and the indigenous people themselves, are being looted by monopoly companies that make millions of dollars patenting and selling plant, animal and human germplasm. 

The most widely known case of biopiracy in the country is the theft of a soil microorganism, isolated from a soil in a cemetery in Iloilo by a Filipino scientist Abelardo Aguilar. Aguilar, who hailed from Iloilo made the discovery when working with Eli Lilly Co., one of biggest pharmaceutical firms in the United States. He named the soil isolate Ilosone in honor of Iloilo. Eli Lilly made use of Iloson to produce the world-known anti-biotic erythromycin and promised Aguilar a hefty share as well as royalties from the earnings. Aguilar never received any cent from his former company even with the Philippine government’s intervention. Today, erythromycin earns for Eli Lilly, which now owns the patent for the soil isolate, some 120 millions dollars yearly.

Lately, a stunning biopiracy which is shrouded with obscurity, perhaps because of the involvement of government scientists, is the discovery of a pain-killing Philippine snail and its having patented by another foreign company. Considered as the most powerful pain-killer ever discovered, 1,000 times stronger than morphine, a drug called SNX 111 is a product of peptides from the Philippine sea snail (Conus magus). It was pirated with the help of researchers from a government state university for the US-based pharmaceutical Neurex Inc. and University of Utah. To date, it is reported that sales have reached 80 million dollars annually with nary a cent for the Philippines.

SNX-111 is worth more outside the United States as it is highly in demand in hospitals, drugstores and battlefields that dot so many spots in the world today. Neurex has likewise patented the use of the snail toxins to treat victims of stroke under US patent numbers 5,189,020, 5,559,095 and 5,587,454.

Warner Lambert, perhaps the largest American international pharmaceutical company, has now entered into a marketing deal with Neurex to market the pain-killer. Another medical company, the US-owned Medtronic which specializes in medicinal plants, has signed a contract with Neurex to sell the SNX111 pain killer. Neurex itself is going into pesticide formulation using the Philippine sea snail.

The controversial twist in the discovery is that Filipino scientists collaborated with their University of Utah counterparts to form and finance a private company called Gene Seas Asia to capitalize in the commercial value of the seas snail.

As a result, it is obvious that Gene Seas Asia and its connections have  siphoned and circumvented public funds to promote private research for private individuals, and eventually, private income. Ironically, Filipinos who will avail of the pain-killer at a high cost, will be buying something they have always owned.

Absurd as it may be , Filipinos, especially Ilocanos who are fond of “pinakbet”, they might be buying their ampalaya or bitter melon (Momordica charantia) in the future from American seed companies. That is because ampalaya is now owned by the United States government after patenting it with US patent numbers 5,484 , 889 for the US National Institute of Health; JP6501089 for the US Army and ; EP 552257 for the New York University .

And that is not all,. A decoction from ampalaya, “talong (Solanum melongena) and “lomboy” or rose apple tree (Suzgium cumini) has been discovered to remedy diabetes and is now owned by a US firm. No thanks to the government’s turtle-paced medical science and technology program. Both vegetables and fruit are known to have diabetic remedies but the US pharmaceutical company Cromak Research Inc., New Jersey beat the Philippine government to the draw. The diabetic remedy was granted US patent number 5,900,240, preventing the Philippines from making any similar drug decoction from crops its originally owned.

In the late 1980s, the Philippine yew tree (Taxus sumatrana) found only in Mount Pulag, Benguet was patented by scientists from a US university. The tree contains taxol, a cancer-curing derivative. The biopirates were able to gain permit from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Cordillera region office to collect tree samples in Mount Pulag.

Humanity In a Bottle

Today, humanity is in a bottle. Human tissues are being owned by companies through human tissue piracy and tissue culture. Tissue culture is the reproduction of a microorganism, plant and animal cells in the laboratory. The culture of human cells is crucial for the biotechnology industry. When kept under proper conditions, “immortalized” human cells can produce in perpetuity and provide an infinite quantity of cells that contain the unique DNA of the original tissue donor or “tricked donor” as in the case of indigenous people who gave away a part of their lives without their knowing.

Through bio-informatics, the business of the genomic companies, where proprietary, high-tech computer methods for collecting, editing, analyzing and storing DNA are used , genes are sequenced to create a set of instructions to produce bits of DNA from a given tissue sample from a donor.

Such technology allows scientists to grow replacements for human organs or pieces of organs. But it also allows the monopolization of human tissue by the powerful biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies who have the technology and equipment to control the ownership, use and sale of important human tissues.

Every October, dubbed by the United Nations as Month of Indigenous Peoples in the World, much of the exploitation against natives peoples are remembered—from the crops and plants they nurtured for food and medicine—to human tissues. There is a tissue piracy in the country as widespread as among indigenous peoples of Micronesia, Papua New Guinea, Pacific and South Atlantic countries and those in the east China sea.

In 2005,   two bared that some Ifugao tribespeople were lured into sharing their blood to foreign scientists who posed as medical researchers. Nothing was heard from the scientists after they collected blood and hair samples from the ethnic people.

Followingly, the Baguio based United Nations (UN) accredited Indigenous Peoples International Center for Policy Research and Education or Tebtebba Foundation, reported that Aeta people displaced by the Mount Pinatubo eruption in Zambales were tricked into giving blood samples to a foreign medical team who presented themselves as aid workers.

All these brings to mind the spectre of the initial success of the US project US$3 billion Human Genome Organization (HUGO) where human genetic variation has been mapped, human tissues—including cells and their components—are becoming critical areas for investigation for treatment of diseases but at the same time, pose intense ethical concerns.

Some plants and several animals have been “remade’ by science to the outrage of people and communities who nurtured these. But tinkering with humanity has created a worldwide uproar.

 The pattern is similar as in other countries. In September, 1994, Sequana Therapeutics, a genomic company based in California announced that its has extracted 300 samples from 300 inhabitants in an isolated island in Tristan de Cunha in South Atlantic. The information from the gathered DNA has led the company to be able to locate, identify and patent the genes or genes that predispose people to asthma.

The company obtained the DNA samples through its collaboration with the Samuel Lunenfield Research Institute of Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, one Canada’s premier biomedical research facilities. As in the Philippines, the researchers collected blood, hair, tissue and even urine samples. The asthma research was supported by AstraZeneca, the combined British and Swedish medical and food giant which has patents of more than 300 plant and animal life forms. 

In 1996, Hagahai tribespeoples in Papua New Guinea were tricked by an American anthropologist to give blood, tissue and hair samples in exchange of soap, candies and chocolates. Unknown to the Hagahais, their tissues were used to create an anti-leukemia drug; the tribe’s blood contained HTLV-1 which is resistant to the illness. The Hagahais, through interceding NGOs sued to the World Court and have been compensated recently for the theft of their tissues but the patent remains with Jenkins and her company. 

One thing is certain. There is a widespread attempt to commit genetic piracy among indigenous peoples. In the process, it results to violation of the fundamental human rights of the people. 

Incyte Pharmaceuticals, for example, a genomic company based in California, describes itself as both a biotech company and a software company, with the ability to collect vast volumes of biological information. Access to their private genome database is sold to giant pharmaceutical companies such as Upjohn and Pfizer. Incyte calls itself a “one-stop shopping for genes.”

The reputable Bio/Technology magazine claims that Incyte has already identified 35,000 unique human genes—roughly one third of the human genome, and that Incyte has the capacity to process 3,000 genes per day. This means that the company can start duplicating certain human characteristics and in fact has applied for the patenting of 40,000 DNA templates.

Gene hunters analyze inheritance patterns of DNA markers from individuals who are affected by a particular disease. The intention is to find cure for human disorders.

Kevin Kinsella, Chief Executive Officer of the Sequan Therapeutics defended their biopiracy acts by explaining recently to the San Diego Union Tribune “Of all the tools in the armamentarium of modern gene discovery, none is more potentially more powerful than that of having the disease gene in hand…We can now find the genes for the common complex disorders that affect majority of people in Western countries.”

But the issue is more complex and controversial than a simple claim to “heal the humanity”. Vicky Tauli-Corpuz of Tebtebba Foundation and chair of the UN Volunteer Fund for Indigenous Peoples says “the patenting of life forms is nothing but an extension of the Western concept of private property and of monopoly capitalism “. “Commodifying life forms”, she says, “ is not only sacrilegious and immoral. It also alienates indigenous peoples’ communal worldviews on wildlife resources and life processes.. We the indigenous people cannot agree to commodifying and privatizing or appropriating for a single individual or corporation what we have communally shared for generations”.

Indeed, no matter how socially desirable the goals of genomic companies may seem, acts of genetic piracy and violation of fundamental human rights are being committed. It is also a grand deception of the people who are willing under “informed consent” to make a contribution to science that may someday improve human condition because they are not informed of the products derived from their DNA. Also, they are deprived of the information that one day, they will lose control of their genetic material once it is removed from their bodies.

Now indigenous peoples say they have enough and are saying “STOP” to the commercialization of their plants, resources, knowledge and of their bodies. There is growing worldwide opposition to the granting of patents on biological materials such as genes, plants, animals and humans. Farmers and indigenous peoples are outraged that plants that they developed are being 'hijacked' by companies. Groups as diverse as religious leaders, parliamentarians and environment NGOs are intensifying their campaign against corporate patenting of living things. 

There is growing public outrage that these companies are being granted patents for products and technologies that make use of the genetic materials, plants and other biological resources that have long been identified, developed and used by farmers and indigenous peoples, mainly in countries of the South. 

Whilst the corporations stand to make huge revenues from this process, the local communities are unrewarded and in fact face the threat in future of having to buy the products of these companies at high prices. 

The transnational corporations are racing one another to manufacture pharmaceutical and agricultural products, the main ingredients of which are the genetic materials of the medicinal plants and food crops of these local communities. The firms are also collecting other living things, ranging from soil microorganisms to animals and the genes of indigenous people, which they use for research and making new products. 

These companies are rushing to apply to patent the new products containing the collected genetic materials, so as to prevent competitors from using them. They can then reap larger profits from being able to hike up prices for the products, or by charging royalties to other firms wishing to use the technology. 

There is much at stake in this great race of companies to patent ahead of their rivals, for the coming century is already being termed 'the age of biology', when products derived from biological materials are expected to increasingly replace those made from metals and chemicals. 

The genes of living organisms are the basic 'raw materials' of the new biotechnologies. The 'Gene Rush' has thus become a new version of the old 'Gold Rush', in the scramble for future profits. 

The knowledge and use of 'biodiversity' resides with farmers and indigenous people, which have shared their knowledge and plants freely. Yet through patent applications, the companies are now claiming the exclusive right to produce and sell many 'modified' plants and animals, which have been manipulated to contain selected foreign genes. 

Third World communities are concerned that in future they will have to pay high price for these materials, which in the first place they (more than any other party) had after all developed. 

The knowledge, innovation and efforts of these communities are not acknowledged (and indeed are discarded) when the legal 'intellectual property rights' systems grant patents on genetic and biological materials and on living organisms to corporations. This injustice is being fought at different levels by farmers, indigenous people and public interest groups. The following are some of the actions by various groups around the world. 

Some groups have recently filed legal petitions or test cases to challenge patents already granted. 

* In Washington in September 1995, more than 200 organisations from 35 countries filed a petition at the US Patent and Trademark Office calling for the revocation of a patent given to W R Grace company to use a pesticide extract from the neem tree. They argue that the company has wrongfully usurped an age-old biological process used by millions of farmers in India and other countries for generations. The legal challenge is led by the US group Foundation on Economic Trends led by Jeremy Rifkin, with other key petitioners being the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resources Policy (RFSTNRP) and the Karnataka Farmers' Union (both from India), the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), and the Third World Network. 

* In Brussels another legal petition was filed in June 1995 at the European Patent Office against a patent it had granted to W R Grace for a method that extracts the neem oil for use in controlling fungi on plants. The three opponents, European Member of Parliament Magda Alvoet, Indian scientists Vandana Shiva of the RFSTNRP, and IFOAM President Herve la Prairie, argue that the patent was wrongly given as the claims for the technique lacked novelty, inventiveness and clarity. The petition argues that the invention is now new as the patented method for extracting neem oil is a standard method used for many decades, whilst the anti-fungi effects of neem oil have been known in India for centuries and thus cannot be considered a 'discovery' as claimed by the company. 

* In March 1995, the Swiss Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, ruled that the manzana variety of the camomile plant may not be patented. It revoked the patent that the Swiss patent office had granted in 1988 to the German pharmaceutical company Degussa/Asta Medica on its manzana variety. The case had been brought to court by a Swiss farmer Peter Lendi, president of the Bio-Herb Growers' Association. 

* In February 1995, the European Patent Office withdrew key parts of a patent granted to a Belgian company (Plant Genetic Systems) and a US company (Biogen Inc.) for genetically engineered herbicide resistant plants. The patent was for plant cells made resistant to glutamine synthetase inhibitors by genetic engineering, and originally covered not only the gene which had been moved from a bacteria to various plants but also all plant cells and plants which contain the gene. After a challenge by Greenpeace, the Patent Office's Appeal Board ruled the patent may only cover genetically engineered genes and plant cells but cannot extend to a whole plant, its seeds and future generations of plants grown from the cells. The decision seems to imply that in Europe, patenting of genes and cells is permissible but not of seeds andplants. The limits thus set on patenting will have serious implications for the biotechnology industry. 

Meanwhile, there have been activities by many different groups, including farmers, indigenous people, parliamentarians, religious leaders, and NGOs opposing the patenting of all life-forms, or living things. 

In India, farmers' movements led by M D Nanjundaswamy of the Karnataka Farmers' Union, are campaigning against the patenting of seeds and plants and the operation of foreign grain companies in the country. In 1993, half a million farmers rallied in Bangalore to protest against the implications of the Uruguay Round treaty on intellectual property rights, which opens the door to patenting of genetic materials, seeds and plants. 

*Indigenous peoples' groups have held regional meetings in South America, Asia and the Pacific, to voice their opposition to the granting of patents to companies on plants and their genes. Also, at the UN Women's Conference in Beijing, 118 indigenous groups from 27 countries signed a declaration demanding 'a stop to the patenting of all life forms' which is 'the ultimate commodification of life which we hold sacred.' They also demanded that the Human Genome Diversity Project be stopped and a rejection of patent applications for human genetic materials. 

Parliaments have joined in the fight by opposing proposed laws that would legalise patents on life. In March 1995, India's Upper House of Parliament forced the government to defer indefinitely a patent amendment bill to bring the Indian Patent Act in line with the World Trade Organisation's treaty on intellectual property rights. The bill would have allowed for the patenting of life forms. 

Also in March, the European Parliament voted against the European Commission's proposed directive on 'legal protection of biotechnological inventions'. The directive would have allowed for patenting of biological materials and microbiological processes, with only some restrictions. 

In May 1995, leaders of 80 religious faiths and denominations (including the Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish faiths) held a joint press conference in Washington announcing their opposition to the patenting of genetically engineered animals and human genes, cells and organs. 'We believe that humans and animals are creations of God, not humans, and as such should not be patented as human inventions,' they said in a signed statement. The leaders have launched an educational campaign to raise theological concerns over the patenting of life. Religious groups in other countries are also taking up the issue. 

Environment and development NGOs have also been increasingly active. Groups like RAFI and GRAIN have been carrying out educational activities and also carrying out lobbying in the Biodiversity Convention. A coalition of 14 United States groups in May signed a joint statement after a conference at Blue Mountain. 'As part of a world movement to protect our common living heritage, we call upon the world and the US Congress to enact legislation to exclude living organisms and their component parts from the patent system,' says part of the Blue Mountain Declaration. 

The campaign against life patenting is likely to spread, with more actions taken up by public interest groups at national level, and increased networking among these groups. 

At international level, the World Trade Organisation and the Biodiversity Convention are two critical fora for setting principles and legal frameworks on the patenting of biological materials and life forms. 

The WTO's trade-related intellectual property rights (TRIPs) agreement will have the most decisive influence over national laws. TRIPs has ambiguous language in its clause on living organisms: patenting of microorganisms is compulsory, plants and animals can be excluded, but protection of one kind or another is required for plant varieties. This clause is up for review after four years, and is already on the agenda of the WTO's trade and environment committee. The outcome of the review process will be of crucial importance. 

The Biodiversity Convention is presently more 'friendly', in recognising 'farmers' rights' to their knowledge over the use of biodiversity. The rights of indigenous people are also likely to enter the Convention's future agenda. The treaty's references to intellectual property rights is finely balanced between recognising the need to implement IPRs and the need to ensure that IPRs do not block the sustainable use of biodiversity. 

The challenge for those campaigning against life patents is to ensure that the WTO does not make it compulsory for member countries to patent living organisms, and to develop within the Biodiversity Convention the case against biopiracy and concrete measures to counter it. 

There is an urgent need for an international protocol to protect the rights of human subjects from patent claims and unjust commercial exploitation. In February 1995, a United Nations Development Program (UNDP) supported workshop co-sponsored by the Philippines-based SEARICE came out with a strong demand that “there should be a system of protection and recognition of indigenous peoples’ resources and knowledge, one which conforms to indigenous peoples’ worldview and contain formulas that will prevent the appropriation of ourselves and resources by countries of the North and others.’

“Indigenous peoples are willing to share their knowledge with humanity, provided they are informed how, when , and where it is used.”, they added.

Internationally, the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) oversees regulations governing human genetic research. But CIOMS guidelines does not give special concern on genetic research. It does not cover ethical standards which should prevent researchers from having their integrity distorted and invalidated because they patent life forms for money.

The issue of life patenting  must be brought to the attention of the International Court of Justice in the Hague. This means the issue of life patenting can mobilize public opinion and engender political debate at the highest and most visible judicial level./Dr. MICHAEL BENGWAYAN

Top of Form

Top of Form