e93biocolonialism

BIOCOLONIALISM: A NEW THREAT TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

Let's Make a DNA Deal: Gene hunters pay to find out about diabetes among the Sandy Lake Ojibway-Cree (Globe and Mail, 7 December 1998).
Totems and Taboos: Researchers are already acquiring blood samples from an Apache tribe in Oklahoma to study disease resistance and susceptibility (New Scientist, 29 August 1998).
Patent Pending: The Race to Own DNA - Guaymi tribe was surprised to discover they were invented (The Seattle Times, 27 August 1995).
NIH Jumps into Genetic Variation Research (The Scientist, 19 January 1998).

These headlines give you a glimpse of some of the activities and issues arising in the field of biotechnology, which can be considered the merging of technology, biology, and the market.

The immense resources of technology-rich countries are being pooled in global collaborations in order to carry out genetic research, and other publicly and privately funded researchers are carrying out independent activities in this field. These efforts, combined with increased technological capabilities for genetic sequencing, are fuelling a worldwide effort to collect genetic samples from plants that produce foods or medicines, from animals, and from diverse human populations. The genetic resources that have nurtured the lives of indigenous societies for centuries are at risk of being stolen.

Human Genetic Diversity
The first initiative to raise concern amongst indigenous peoples was the Human Genome Diversity Project, a global research project initiated in 1992. Today, human genetic diversity research is widespread, and indigenous peoples are the subjects of evolutionary genetic research and studies on differences in how populations react to various pharmaceutical products (pharmacogenetics), to name just two. The so-called "genomics" industry, both public and private, craves the genetic resources that flow through our veins.

The field of molecular biology is progressing at such a speed that it has outpaced the development of new policies and laws to effectively address the legal, social, and ethical concerns that genetic research raises for society. Scientists and bioethicists hold regular conferences to discuss ethical issues such as genetic discrimination in the workplace, the genetic screening of unborn children, human cloning and animal organ transplants into humans. They also discuss the unique questions raised around carrying out genetic research on indigenous peoples. But indigenous peoples are rarely at the table to represent our own views.

Manipulating a World View
Genetics as a discipline has little rega-- inserting foreign genetic material into an organism, or adding or deleting genes -- can permanently alter life forms that have evolved naturally for thousands of years. This contrasts sharply with an indigenous worldview. For us, all life is sacred even at the molecular level, and as such, has its own integrity. The genetic manipulation of life forms and the crossing of species barriers both contradict indigenous values.

Several scientists have also voiced concern about the unpredictable nature of genetic engineering and potentially harmful impacts on other organisms and the environment. "Recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering] faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on the earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms, the products of some three billion years of evolution," according to Dr. George Wald, 1967 Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Higgins Professor of Biology at Harvard University.

Current bioethical protocols fail to address the unique conditions raised by population-based research, including genetic variation studies, in particular with respect to processes for group decision-making and cultural world views. In this context, one of the challenges of ethical research is to respect collective forms of review and decision making, while at the same time upholding the traditional model of individual rights.

Basic standards for research involving human subjects require that the benefits of the research at least equal the risks. Most population-based genetic research cannot meet this requirement because indigenous peoples are not the intended beneficiaries of the studies. As a result, researchers often offer other benefits unrelated to the genetic research, such as short-term medical attention, technology transfer, training opportunities for students, or promises of royalties for any commercial products developed.

Patenting Genes
Much of current genetic research is driven by a strange twist in patent law. Patent laws grant a limited "intellectual property right" to the holder of a patent. Patents are usually granted for new inventions, as a means of recognizing the inventor's innovation in creating new things, such as mousetraps and toasters. But they were never intended to be granted for the "discovery" of life forms. Under the current law, however, even our own genes can be patented.

The US Patent and Trademarks Office (PTO) actually approved a patent on the cell lines of a Hagahai man from Papua New Guinea. The patent was granted to the US Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institute of Health (NIH) in March of 1994. In late 1996, the NIH abandoned the patent. However, the Hagahai cell line is now available to the public at the American Type Culture Collection as "ATCC Number: CRL-10528, Organism: Homo Sapiens (human)" for US$216 per sample.

Today, the US PTO continues to grant patents for human genes and the genetic materials of other life forms. It is the prevailing model for the protection of intellectual and property rights worldwide, and the model that is currently advocated in international trade agreements and by the World Trade Organization. Patents on life forms are likely to be a problem in the future unless citizens groups and other public advocates manage to secure legislation prohibiting them.

What Can Indigenous Peoples Do?
As indigenous peoples begin to take a more critical look at genetics, many have voiced their concerns and are speaking out against some of the negative aspects of biotechnology. Since 1993, a movement against genetic theft, or biopiracy, has been gathering steam around the world. Those opposed to the corporate control of science and genetic resources include a broad range of people, from indigenous peoples to shareholder activists and from students to tenured professors.

The challenge we face is to ensure that the research will be conducted under the utmost ethical standards and that genetic information will be used wisely. There are many things that indigenous peoples can do to this end.

First and foremost, indigenous peoples must regulate any activity that may potentially result in the extraction of genetic resources from themselves or their territories. Since there are no special laws but only ethical practices to regulate the activities of scientific researchers in the field, tribes must exercise their own sovereign power to regulate these activities. This can be done by enacting local laws that regulate every aspect of research within tribal jurisdictions. (A model tribal ordinance is available on the IPCB website at www.ipcb.org).

Tribal leaders can also demand that federal spending priorities are shifted away from genomic research and towards programmes and services that produce viable outcomes and benefits for indigenous communities. For instance, instead of allocating federal funding for non-beneficial research such as the search for the "binge-drinking gene", funding should be spent on proven strategies such as addiction treatment programmes. Likewise, instead of diverting precious resources towards searching for the "diabetes gene(s)", funding should be allocated to nutrition, exercise and lifestyle programmes.

Tribal leadership can advocate at the federal level for improvements in policies regarding funding and research projects. For instance, genetic researchers and their funders frequently fail to consult with tribal governments, assuming instead that individual informed consent is all that is necessary to carry out their research in an ethical manner. When the research impacts the entire community, which is always the case if it is "population" or "race-based", tribal leaders should demand protocols that respect tribal rights to consultation and sovereign authority. Such protocols should be adopted, and enforced, by the federal agencies carrying out or funding research.

In addition to regulating research, tribes can also develop and implement policies regulating or preventing the introduction of genetically manipulated organisms within tribal jurisdictions, including Indian-owned land and leased land. They can educate nearby landowners about GMOs in order to help prevent the migration of genetic "pollution" onto tribal land. Declarations that tribal land and resources are life patent-free zones are also possible.

The education of tribal community members should be a priority for indigenous peoples concerned about biocolonialism, because until community members are aware of the issues they remain vulnerable to abuses from unethical research practices. Community education and outreach can be achieved through forums, workshops and community radio programmes on the topics of genetic research and biocolonialism.

The issue of biocolonialism has come knocking at our doors. Like all other unwanted advances of colonization within our lives and territories, genetic prospecting is a reality and is here to stay. Much of life's genetic diversity exists among our peoples and within in our territories. It flourishes where lands have not been clear-cut to make way for the expansion of cities, farming, or ranching activities, and where small-scale crop diversity rather than large-scale monocropping is the norm. Researchers know very well that this is where they will find the genetic diversity, both human and plant, needed for their research projects. Talking about these issues is the first step towards protecting the genetic resources of tribal peoples and ensuring that the wisdom of our ancestors is brought to bear on something that is sure to impact our future.

Debra Harry, Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism.

Debra Harry is Northern Paiute, from Pyramid Lake, Nevada. She serves as the Executive Director of the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism. She also serves on the board of the Council for Responsible Genetics based in Cambridge, Maryland.