Biopiracy: Crying wolf or a lever for equity and conservation?

Wynberg, Rachel

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2022.104674

Cited by 19 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, innovation scholars could help navigate a path forward in an increasingly polarized debate in which one person's bioprospecting —that is, the collection, research, and commercialization of biodiversity for new products (Neimark, 2017)—is another person's biopiracy —that is, the systematic theft of traditional knowledge and nature (Neimark, 2017). Wynberg (2023) outlines how Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS), a central approach to addressing biopiracy by protecting biodiversity and strengthening the rights of Indigenous peoples, has created more problems than it seeks to resolve: it remains disconnected from, and ignorant of the struggles faced by Indigenous peoples, and instead serves as a mechanism to justify ‘business as usual’ in which benefits are highly skewed towards industry partners who have market dominance. To remedy this, innovation scholars could explore how the ABS approach and resultant Benefit Sharing Agreements (BSAs) could be improved, especially under institutional developments including the UN's Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework and the recent COP‐15 agreement that seek to ensure that the ‘traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of Indigenous peoples guides decision‐makingto realize a world living in harmony with nature’ (UNEP, 2022:5).…”

Section: Agenda For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, innovation scholars could help navigate a path forward in an increasingly polarized debate in which one person's bioprospecting-that is, the collection, research, and commercialization of biodiversity for new products (Neimark, 2017)-is another person's biopiracy-that is, the systematic theft of traditional knowledge and nature (Neimark, 2017). Wynberg (2023) outlines how Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS), a central approach to addressing biopiracy by protecting biodiversity and strengthening the Business model innovation (Zott & Amit, 2010) Dynamic capabilities (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000;Teece et al, 1997) Barriers to innovation (Hadjimanolis, 2003;, Forthcoming) Communities of practice (Brown & Duguid, 1991) Social practice theory (Reckwitz, 2002) B. Ethics of biocultural innovation Organizational perspective 7.…”

Section: Agenda For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Open innovation (Chesbrough & Crowther, 2006;Randhawa et al, 2016) Co-creation (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004) Biopiracy (Wynberg, 2023) Bioprospecting (Millum, 2010) Hyperownership (Safirin, 2004) C. Quantifying biocultural innovation Organizational perspective 11. Quantifying and sharing value.…”

Section: Agenda For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Biocultural innovation: Innovating at the intersection of the biosphere and ethnosphere

Vassallo

Banerjee

Prabhu

2023

J of Product Innov Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientists, economists, and politicians increasingly recognize that Indigenous peoples possess invaluable knowledge and practices that have the potential to drive innovation to solve critical global challenges. Indeed, thousands of important drugs—including lifesaving cancer treatments—have their origins in centuries old Indigenous knowledge and practices. Similarly, Indigenous practices have fueled the fast‐growing regenerative agriculture industry that is able to yield windfall profits while sequestering carbon and enhancing biodiversity. Referred to in policy circles as biocultural innovation—a form of innovation that occurs at the intersection of the biosphere and ethnosphere—hundreds of diverse examples from a wide array of industries have been documented outside of the innovation literature. However, innovation scholars have yet to recognize or embrace biocultural innovation. We argue that this major oversight hinders practice and leaves untapped potential for solving issues such as slow or unsustainable economic growth, ecological decline, and inequality. To address this gap, we provide a clear definition of biocultural innovation, differentiate it from other innovation domains, and establish its conceptual foundations. Informed by economic theorizing that views the ethnosphere and biosphere as assets, we propose that these assets share four traits: functionality, potentiality, vulnerability, and inseparability (“FPVI shared traits”). Due to their immense biocultural diversity, we assert that these assets carry an “option value” representing enormous innovation potential that can be converted, conserved, or constructed to solve global challenges (the “3Cs”). We conclude by identifying promising avenues for future research on biocultural innovation and a call for action on how to unlock economic and social value while supporting biocultural assets and Indigenous rights.

show abstract

Section: Agenda For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Agenda For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biocultural innovation: Innovating at the intersection of the biosphere and ethnosphere

Vassallo

Banerjee

Prabhu

2023

J of Product Innov Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the agreements have succeeded in distributing finances and, in part, recognising traditional knowledge holders, evidence suggests they have also been highly fraught and contested, often with ambivalent outcomes. 15 Moreover, harvesters continue to receive a low price for wild resources, such as medicinal plants 16 , linked largely to inequities in global and national trade chains. Such cases point towards the complexities of realising social justice in practice, even with supportive policies in place.…”

Section: Boxmentioning

confidence: 99%

The sustainable use of wild species benefits biodiversity and human well-being in South Africa

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed how the sustainable use of wild species benefits people and nature, and which policies work best to prevent unsustainable exploitation. In the context of an accelerating and alarming biodiversity crisis, the assessment findings have important implications for South Africa, a megadiverse country with a population that relies extensively on the use of wild species for food, energy, medicine, and income, amongst many other purposes. This Commentary reflects on implications of the IPBES assessment for South Africa, drawing on insights from local contributing authors.

show abstract

“…This includes ecological bene ts, as the genetic variability of a species can play a crucial role in its adaptive capacity and resilience to environmental pressures 8,9 , such as ocean warming 10,11 , acidi cation 10 , or decreases in salinity levels 12 . As most attributes of organisms are encoded within genes, marine genetic resources also bear value to humanity and to Indigenous and local communities more speci cally as a source of nutrition 13 and an important element in socio-cultural practices 14,15 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conducting marine genetic research for whom? Mapping knowledge flows from science to patents

Dunshirn,

Zhvikoplias

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine genetic resources hold great value for biotechnological innovation and sustainability-oriented research. However, studies indicate that intellectual property rights pertaining to these resources are concentrated in a handful of companies and countries, triggering contentious international debates. This paper highlights an overlooked dimension: scientists and their affiliated countries as central actors in the provision of marine genetic research. We introduce a dataset of 23,417 marine genetic studies and trace patent references to these studies. Our analysis reveals that molecular biological research, oftentimes on bacterial species, attracts the most patenting interest. Some countries own relatively more patents than they provide in science, with the U.S. benefiting the most from available research. Science by G77 researchers has seen limited uptake in patents. These findings aim to inform international biodiversity regimes, such as the UN treaty on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ), on how to more equitably distribute marine genetic resources’ economic, socio-cultural, and ecological benefits.

show abstract

Biopiracy: Crying wolf or a lever for equity and conservation?

Cited by 19 publications

References 37 publications

Biocultural innovation: Innovating at the intersection of the biosphere and ethnosphere

Biocultural innovation: Innovating at the intersection of the biosphere and ethnosphere

The sustainable use of wild species benefits biodiversity and human well-being in South Africa

Conducting marine genetic research for whom? Mapping knowledge flows from science to patents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About