Bio-Prospecting: Distribution, Cultural Impacts, and Conflicts

This essay on bio-prospecting delves into the uneven distribution of resources and benefits, often disadvantaging indigenous communities while enriching external experts. It examines the impacts on cultural values, using the Hawaiian taro plant as a case study, and highlights how bio-technologies can clash with local beliefs. The essay also addresses the role of social conflicts arising from lack of local involvement and the importance of respecting customary laws. Furthermore, it discusses the potential of bio-prospecting to fund and support long-term conservation efforts, emphasizing the value of natural resources and the incentives for communities to preserve them, citing examples from pharmaceutical scenarios. The essay concludes by emphasizing the need for ethical practices and community involvement to ensure sustainable and equitable outcomes.

Running head: Bio-Prospecting 1
Bio-prospecting
Name
Institution

Bio-Prospecting 2
Bio-Prospecting
Likely Distribution Outcomes
According to Neimark and Vermeylen (2017), in bio-prospecting exercises, there are
various forms of uneven distribution of resources or unfair benefits enjoyed by those who are
less entitled to the same. Apparently, the experts who have gained a lot of finances continue to
dominate the field and charge huge amounts of money for their skills while the indigenous
people are paid less since they have less professional experience despite hosting the plants their
whole lives. In an example given by the Hawaiian reading, the local people were denied rights to
know about licensing of some groups of people to have rights to use plants they had been
custodians to (Gugganig, 2017). In addition, they were denied basic jobs in similar projects and
the opportunities given to professionals from outside of the region (Gugganig 2017). Neimark
and Vermeylen (2017), claimed that in some cases the local people lacked information on the
same due to lack of knowledge of the benefits they are entitled to as a result of hosting the
natural resources in their geographical areas. Apparently, the biggest beneficiaries of the projects
are the rich people in the business while the societies who are more entitled to them get very
little.
Impacts on Cultural Values
Gugganig (2017) indicates that for the Hawaiian people, taro plant was an essential
symbol of their heritage from the time of origin of their society. As such, it was used by many
farmers for diverse reasons most importantly honored for cultural reasons. However, a learning
institution acquired rights of control of the people who were allowed to grow the same
(Gugganig, 2017). The practice was seen as a major violation of their cultural rights considering
their efforts over the years to preserve it. Apparently, many communities in ancient times
acknowledged the work of creation of organisms to higher mysterious powers hence when two
organisms are bred to result into a different new creature; they create the impression that
scientists are playing god (Gugganig, 2017). Additionally, there have been cases where the
discussion of introducing genetically engineered crops in different countries has either been
postponed or rejected due to the local people failure to want to be a part of these practices in
respect to their cultural beliefs (Gugganig 2017). As such, the cultural values impacts on the bio-

Bio-Prospecting 3
technologies result from the crashes with the beliefs and the extent in which the changes are
understood by the local people.
Project Impacts on Existing Social Conflicts
When scientists involve the local people on matters concerning the activities carried out
in the localities they are traditionally mandated to protect, social cohesion is witnessed between
the different groups. However, lack of involvement in similar activities leads to conflicts
(Guggaging 2017). Robinson (2013) indicated that in instances of friction between different
stakeholders, there are laws that can be used to solve these problems. Before undertaking
practices involving collecting samples from the fields, the scientists ought to extensively
research on the community in which the resources are located. There are specific laws followed
by the communities in relation to the collection of medicinal plants in the fields in regard to
specific individuals that are allowed to carry out the practice as well as other taboos surrounding
the entire process (Robinson, 2013). Consequently, if the laid out procedure does not follow the
cultural method, there is a possibility to intensify the conflicts. Where the customary laws and
the state laws are in harmony, a possibility of occurrence of conflicts is minimized since
scientists are more likely to abide by them hence legislative bodies ought to consult with
societies while drafting them. Consequently, determination of whether or not the project will
solve or increase the social conflict will be determined by the manner in which the parties carry
themselves.
Potential to Fund and Support Long-term Conservation
Isla (2005) describes the natural resources as self-generating such that without excessive
use, they can be used over long period of time without depleting or compromising their potential
to be as useful in future. Davidov (2013) gives an example of a pharmaceutical scenario in a
movie showing a specific flower that was endemic to the Amazonian rainforest with a specific
component for cancer treatment which was later discovered to be resulting from a certain insect
that the flower interacted with. The discovery aided in the synthesis of the specific compound as
well as empowered the push for the conservation of the habitat for long-term preservation of the
same and for the entire industry (Davidov 2013). As such, preservation of an essential medicinal
product is necessary for the monetary value derived from the drug as well as the attention

Bio-Prospecting 4
accorded the same in the conservation industry since it attracts more stakeholders willing to
invest in the same. Brad (2017) indicated that the values derived are not only limited to financial
benefits, but rather all inclusive incentives for communities to preserve their resources.
References
Brad C. (2017) Lecture Notes Class 21.
Davidov, V. (2013). Amazonia as pharmacopeia. Critique of Anthropology, 33(3) 243-262.
Gugganig, M. (2017). The Ethics of Patenting and Genetically Engineering the Relative Haola.
Ethnos, 82(1), 44-67.
Isla, A. (2005). Conservation as enclosure: An ecofeminist perspective on sustainable
development and biopiracy in Coasta Rica. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 16(3), 49-61.
Neimark, B. D., & Vermeylen, S. (2017). A human right to science?: Precarious labor and basic
rights in science and bioprospecting. Annals of the American Association of Geographers,
107(1), 167-182.
Robinson, D. F. (2013). Legal geographies of intellectual property, ‘traditional’ knowledge and
biodiversity: experiencing conventions, laws, customary law, and karma in Thailand.
Geographical Research, 51(4), 375-386.