InherencyAlthough promising, marine bioprospecting is low in the
status quo due to regulatory issues and no federal mandate Global
Ocean Commission 10 -- Bioprospecting and marine genetic resources
in the high seas, pg. 1,
http://www.globaloceancommission.org/wp-content/uploads/GOC-paper04-bioprospecting.pdfMarine
bioprospecting the search for novel compounds from natural sources
in the marine environment has increased rapidly in recent years.
Much of the increase in activity may be attributed to technological
advances in exploring the ocean and the genetic diversity it
contains. Much of the marine biome remains under-investigated and
the prospect for new and unique findings is high, particularly in
the microbial realm1 . It can therefore be expected that the rate
of discovery will continue to increase as technology develops. The
problem of how to conserve and sustainably use marine biological
diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) is one of
the most controversial topics now under discussion in international
fora. There are no clear international rules in place specifically
addressing bioprospecting in these areas. Furthermore, since very
few States have the necessary technological and intellectual
know-how to carry out bioprospecting, the discussion has also
focused on the need for an access and benefit-sharing regime to
improve equitable use of high seas resources. From the perspective
of the biotechnology industry, there are concerns that the current
uncertain and unpredictable legal and regulatory framework may
hamper the flow of ideas and products from the marine biome and
inhibit future research, development and commercialisation of novel
compounds to treat disease.
PlanPlan: The United States federal government should
substantially increase its exploration of the Earths oceans for the
purpose of developing new pharmaceuticals. Disease
New zoonotic diseases are inevitable they will go globalKaresh
et al 12 - Dr William B Karesh, Prof Andy Dobson DPhil, Prof James
O Lloyd-Smith PhD, Juan Lubroth DVM h, Matthew A Dixon MSc i, Prof
Malcolm Bennett PhD j, Stephen Aldrich BA k, Todd Harrington MBA k,
Pierre Formenty DVM l, Elizabeth H Loh MS a, Catherine C Machalaba
MPH a, Mathew Jason Thomas MPH m, Prof David L Heymann MD i n
(1/12/2012, "Ecology of zoonoses: natural and unnatural histories,"
www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61678-X/fulltext,
ADL)More than 60% of human infectious diseases are caused by
pathogens shared with wild or domestic animals. Zoonotic disease
organisms include those that are endemic in human populations or
enzootic in animal populations with frequent cross-species
transmission to people. Some of these diseases have only emerged
recently. Together, these organisms are responsible for a
substantial burden of disease, with endemic and enzootic zoonoses
causing about a billion cases of illness in people and millions of
deaths every year. Emerging zoonoses are a growing threat to global
health and have caused hundreds of billions of US dollars of
economic damage in the past 20 years. We aimed to review how
zoonotic diseases result from natural pathogen ecology, and how
other circumstances, such as animal production, extraction of
natural resources, and antimicrobial application change the
dynamics of disease exposure to human beings. In view of present
anthropogenic trends, a more effective approach to zoonotic disease
prevention and control will require a broad view of medicine that
emphasises evidence-based decision making and integrates ecological
and evolutionary principles of animal, human, and environmental
factors. This broad view is essential for the successful
development of policies and practices that reduce probability of
future zoonotic emergence, targeted surveillance and strategic
prevention, and engagement of partners outside the medical
community to help improve health outcomes and reduce disease
threats. This is the first in a Series of three papers about
zoonoses Introduction Pathogens shared with wild or domestic
animals cause more than 60% of infectious diseases in man.1 Such
pathogens and diseases include leptospirosis, cysticercosis and
echinococcosis, toxoplasmosis, anthrax, brucellosis, rabies, Q
fever, Chagas disease, type A influenzas, Rift Valley fever, severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Ebola haemorrhagic fever, and
the original emergence of HIV.26 Zoonotic diseases are often
categorised according to their route of transmission (eg,
vector-borne or foodborne), pathogen type (eg, microparasites,
macroparasites, viruses, bacteria, protozoa, worms, ticks, or
fleas), or degree of person-to-person transmissibility.7 The
greatest burden on human health and livelihoods, amounting to about
1 billion cases of illness and millions of deaths every year, is
caused by endemic zoonoses that are persistent regional health
problems around the world.2 Many of these infections are enzootic
(ie, stably established) in animal populations, and transmit from
animals to people with little or no subsequent person-to-person
transmissionfor example, rabies or trypanosomiasis. Other zoonotic
pathogens can spread efficiently between people once introduced
from an animal reservoir, leading to localised outbreaks (eg, Ebola
virus) or global spread (eg, pandemic influenza). Zoonoses made up
most of the emerging infectious diseases identified in people in
the past 70 years which, although relatively rare compared with
endemic zoonoses, are a substantial threat to global health and
have caused economic damage exceeding hundreds of billions of US
dollars in the past 20 years.8, 9 Apart from the appearance of a
pathogen for the first time in human beings, the distinction
between endemic and emerging zoonoses can be viewed as temporal or
geographical. An endemic disease in one location would be regarded
as an emerging disease if it crossed from its natural reservoir and
entered the human or animal populations in a new geographical area,
or if an endemic pathogen evolved new traits that created an
epidemic (eg, drug resistance). Key messages Nearly two-thirds of
human infectious diseases arise from pathogens shared with wild or
domestic animals Endemic and enzootic zoonoses cause about a
billion cases of illness in people and millions of deaths every
year, and emerging zoonoses are a rising threat to global health,
having caused hundreds of billions of US dollars of economic damage
in the past 20 years Ecological and evolutionary perspectives can
provide valuable insights into pathogen ecology and can inform
zoonotic disease-control programmes Anthropogenic practices, such
as changes in land use and extractive industry actions, animal
production systems, and widespread antimicrobial applications
affect zoonotic disease transmission Risks are not limited to
low-income countries; as global trade and travel expands, zoonoses
are increasingly posing health concerns for the global medical
community Ecological, evolutionary, social, economic, and
epidemiological mechanisms affecting zoonoses' persistence and
emergence are not well understood; such information could inform
evidence-based policies, practices, and targeted zoonotic disease
surveillance, and prevention and control efforts Multisectoral
collaboration, including clinicians, public health scientists,
ecologists and disease ecologists, veterinarians, economists, and
others is necessary for effective management of the causes and
prevention of zoonotic diseases Transmission of pathogens into
human populations from other species is a natural product of our
relation with animals and the environment. The emergence of
zoonoses, both recent and historical, can be considered as a
logical consequence of pathogen ecology and evolution, as microbes
exploit new niches and adapt to new hosts. The underlying causes
that create or provide access to these new niches seem to be
mediated by human action in most cases, and include changes in land
use, extraction of natural resources, animal production systems,
modern transportation, antimicrobial drug use, and global trade.
Although underlying ecological principles that shape how these
pathogens survive and change have remained similar, people have
changed the environment in which these principles operate.
Domestication of animals, clearing of land for farming and grazing,
and hunting of wildlife in new habitats, have resulted in zoonotic
human infection with microorganisms that cause diseases such as
rabies, echinococcosis, and the progenitors of measles and smallpox
that had historically affected only animal populations through
changes in contact and increased transmission opportunities from
animals to people.1012 As human societies have developed, each era
of livestock revolution presented new health challenges and new
opportunities for emergence of zoonotic pathogens.13 In the past
few decades, accelerating global changes linked to an expanding
global population have led to the emergence of a striking number of
newly described zoonoses, including hantavirus pulmonary syndrome,
monkeypox, SARS, and simian immunodeficiency virus (the animal
precursor to HIV). Some of these zoonoses, such as HIV, have become
established as substantial new human pathogens that circulate
persistently without repeat animal-to-person transmission. SARS
could have established, but was contained by rapid global response
to its emergence;14 other zoonoses, such as Ebola virus and Nipah
virus, have not become established because of local control efforts
or their intrinsic inability to transmit efficiently between
people. However, others such as hantavirus pulmonary syndrome,
which is enzootic in rodents in many locations, cause sporadic and
infrequent clusters of infections in human beings.15 In all cases,
these emerging zoonoses are defined by their relatively recent
appearance (or detection) in a population or, in some cases, an
amplification of transmission that increases the incidence,
prevalence, or geographical distribution of previously rare
pathogens.15 Emergence of a zoonosis depends on several factors
that often act simultaneously to change pathogen dynamics. The
capacity of a pathogen to transmit or spread in a population is
commonly quantified by the basic reproduction number, or R0 (panel
1). In addition to inherent properties of the pathogen, factors
affecting emergence or spread include environmental factors or
changes in land use, human population growth, changes to human
behaviour or social structure, international travel or trade,
microbial adaptation to drug or vaccine use or to new host species,
and breakdown in public health infrastructure.17 With more than a
billion international travellers every year, infected individuals
could potentially spread zoonotic diseases anywhere in the world.
Thus, with the emergence of new infectious diseases and the chronic
presence of known zoonotic diseases in many low-income and
middle-income countries that might or might not be adequately
diagnosed or reported, zoonoses are increasingly relevant to the
global medical community.
Zoonoses cause human extinction different from other
diseasesQuammen, award-winning science writer, long-time columnist
for Outside magazine, writer for National Geographic, Harper's,
Rolling Stone, the New York Times Book Review and others,
9/29/2012(David, Could the next big animal-to-human disease wipe us
out?, The Guardian, pg. 29, Lexis) Infectious disease is all around
us. It's one of the basic processes that ecologists study, along
with predation and competition. Predators are big beasts that eat
their prey from outside. Pathogens (disease-causing agents, such as
viruses) are small beasts that eat their prey from within. Although
infectious disease can seem grisly and dreadful, under ordinary
conditions, it's every bit as natural as what lions do to
wildebeests and zebras. But conditions aren't always ordinary. Just
as predators have their accustomed prey, so do pathogens. And just
as a lion might occasionally depart from its normal behaviour - to
kill a cow instead of a wildebeest, or a human instead of a zebra -
so a pathogen can shift to a new target. Aberrations occur. When a
pathogen leaps from an animal into a person, and succeeds in
establishing itself as an infectious presence, sometimes causing
illness or death, the result is a zoonosis. It's a mildly technical
term, zoonosis, unfamiliar to most people, but it helps clarify the
biological complexities behind the ominous headlines about swine
flu, bird flu, Sars, emerging diseases in general, and the threat
of a global pandemic. It's a word of the future, destined for heavy
use in the 21st century. Ebola and Marburg are zoonoses. So is
bubonic plague. So was the so-called Spanish influenza of
1918-1919, which had its source in a wild aquatic bird and emerged
to kill as many as 50 million people. All of the human influenzas
are zoonoses. As are monkeypox, bovine tuberculosis, Lyme disease,
West Nile fever, rabies and a strange new affliction called Nipah
encephalitis, which has killed pigs and pig farmers in Malaysia.
Each of these zoonoses reflects the action of a pathogen that can
"spillover", crossing into people from other animals. Aids is a
disease of zoonotic origin caused by a virus that, having reached
humans through a few accidental events in western and central
Africa, now passes human-to-human. This form of interspecies leap
is not rare; about 60% of all human infectious diseases currently
known either cross routinely or have recently crossed between other
animals and us. Some of those - notably rabies - are familiar,
widespread and still horrendously lethal, killing humans by the
thousands despite centuries of efforts at coping with their
effects. Others are new and inexplicably sporadic, claiming a few
victims or a few hundred, and then disappearing for years. Zoonotic
pathogens can hide. The least conspicuous strategy is to lurk
within what's called a reservoir host: a living organism that
carries the pathogen while suffering little or no illness. When a
disease seems to disappear between outbreaks, it's often still
lingering nearby, within some reservoir host. A rodent? A bird? A
butterfly? A bat? To reside undetected is probably easiest wherever
biological diversity is high and the ecosystem is relatively
undisturbed. The converse is also true: ecological disturbance
causes diseases to emerge. Shake a tree and things fall out.
Michelle Barnes is an energetic, late 40s-ish woman, an avid rock
climber and cyclist. Her auburn hair, she told me cheerily, came
from a bottle. It approximates the original colour, but the
original is gone. In 2008, her hair started falling out; the rest
went grey "pretty much overnight". This was among the lesser
effects of a mystery illness that had nearly killed her during
January that year, just after she'd returned from Uganda. Her story
paralleled the one Jaap Taal had told me about Astrid, with several
key differences - the main one being that Michelle Barnes was still
alive. Michelle and her husband, Rick Taylor, had wanted to see
mountain gorillas, too. Their guide had taken them through
Maramagambo Forest and into Python Cave. They, too, had to clamber
across those slippery boulders. As a rock climber, Barnes said, she
tends to be very conscious of where she places her hands. No, she
didn't touch any guano. No, she was not bumped by a bat. By late
afternoon they were back, watching the sunset. It was Christmas
evening 2007. They arrived home on New Year's Day. On 4 January,
Barnes woke up feeling as if someone had driven a needle into her
skull. She was achy all over, feverish. "And then, as the day went
on, I started developing a rash across my stomach." The rash
spread. "Over the next 48 hours, I just went down really fast." By
the time Barnes turned up at a hospital in suburban Denver, she was
dehydrated; her white blood count was imperceptible; her kidneys
and liver had begun shutting down. An infectious disease
specialist, Dr Norman K Fujita, arranged for her to be tested for a
range of infections that might be contracted in Africa. All came
back negative, including the test for Marburg. Gradually her body
regained strength and her organs began to recover. After 12 days,
she left hospital, still weak and anaemic, still undiagnosed. In
March she saw Fujita on a follow-up visit and he had her serum
tested again for Marburg. Again, negative. Three more months
passed, and Barnes, now grey-haired, lacking her old energy,
suffering abdominal pain, unable to focus, got an email from a
journalist she and Taylor had met on the Uganda trip, who had just
seen a news article. In the Netherlands, a woman had died of
Marburg after a Ugandan holiday during which she had visited a cave
full of bats. Barnes spent the next 24 hours Googling every article
on the case she could find. Early the following Monday morning, she
was back at Dr Fujita's door. He agreed to test her a third time
for Marburg. This time a lab technician crosschecked the third
sample, and then the first sample. The new results went to Fujita,
who called Barnes: "You're now an honorary infectious disease
doctor. You've self-diagnosed, and the Marburg test came back
positive." The Marburg virus had reappeared in Uganda in 2007. It
was a small outbreak, affecting four miners, one of whom died,
working at a site called Kitaka Cave. But Joosten's death, and
Barnes's diagnosis, implied a change in the potential scope of the
situation. That local Ugandans were dying of Marburg was a severe
concern - sufficient to bring a response team of scientists in
haste. But if tourists, too, were involved, tripping in and out of
some python-infested Marburg repository, unprotected, and then
boarding their return flights to other continents, the place was
not just a peril for Ugandan miners and their families. It was also
an international threat. The first team of scientists had collected
about 800 bats from Kitaka Cave for dissecting and sampling, and
marked and released more than 1,000, using beaded collars coded
with a number. That team, including scientist Brian Amman, had
found live Marburg virus in five bats. Entering Python Cave after
Joosten's death, another team of scientists, again including Amman,
came across one of the beaded collars they had placed on captured
bats three months earlier and 30 miles away. "It confirmed my
suspicions that these bats are moving," Amman said - and moving not
only through the forest but from one roosting site to another.
Travel of individual bats between far-flung roosts implied
circumstances whereby Marburg virus might ultimately be transmitted
all across Africa, from one bat encampment to another. It voided
the comforting assumption that this virus is strictly localised.
And it highlighted the complementary question: why don't outbreaks
of Marburg virus disease happen more often? Marburg is only one
instance to which that question applies. Why not more Ebola? Why
not more Sars? In the case of Sars, the scenario could have been
very much worse. Apart from the 2003 outbreak and the aftershock
cases in early 2004, it hasn't recurred. . . so far. Eight thousand
cases are relatively few for such an explosive infection; 774
people died, not 7 million. Several factors contributed to limiting
the scope and impact of the outbreak, of which humanity's good luck
was only one. Another was the speed and excellence of the
laboratory diagnostics - finding the virus and identifying it.
Still another was the brisk efficiency with which cases were
isolated, contacts were traced and quarantine measures were
instituted, first in southern China, then in Hong Kong, Singapore,
Hanoi and Toronto. If the virus had arrived in a different sort of
big city - more loosely governed, full of poor people, lacking
first-rate medical institutions - it might have burned through a
much larger segment of humanity. One further factor, possibly the
most crucial, was inherent in the way Sars affects the human body:
symptoms tend to appear in a person before, rather than after, that
person becomes highly infectious. That allowed many Sars cases to
be recognised, hospitalised and placed in isolation before they hit
their peak of infectivity. With influenza and many other diseases,
the order is reversed. That probably helped account for the scale
of worldwide misery and death during the 1918-1919 influenza. And
that infamous global pandemic occurred in the era before
globalisation. Everything nowadays moves around the planet faster,
including viruses. When the Next Big One comes, it will likely
conform to the same perverse pattern as the 1918 influenza: high
infectivity preceding notable symptoms. That will help it move
through cities and airports like an angel of death. The Next Big
One is a subject that disease scientists around the world often
address. The most recent big one is Aids, of which the eventual
total bigness cannot even be predicted - about 30 million deaths,
34 million living people infected, and with no end in sight.
Fortunately, not every virus goes airborne from one host to
another. If HIV-1 could, you and I might already be dead. If the
rabies virus could, it would be the most horrific pathogen on the
planet. The influenzas are well adapted for airborne transmission,
which is why a new strain can circle the world within days. The
Sars virus travels this route, too, or anyway by the respiratory
droplets of sneezes and coughs - hanging in the air of a hotel
corridor, moving through the cabin of an aeroplane - and that
capacity, combined with its case fatality rate of almost 10%, is
what made it so scary in 2003 to the people who understood it best.
Human-to-human transmission is the crux. That capacity is what
separates a bizarre, awful, localised, intermittent and mysterious
disease (such as Ebola) from a global pandemic. Have you noticed
the persistent, low-level buzz about avian influenza, the strain
known as H5N1, among disease experts over the past 15 years? That's
because avian flu worries them deeply, though it hasn't caused many
human fatalities. Swine flu comes and goes periodically in the
human population (as it came and went during 2009), sometimes
causing a bad pandemic and sometimes (as in 2009) not so bad as
expected; but avian flu resides in a different category of menacing
possibility. It worries the flu scientists because they know that
H5N1 influenza is extremely virulent in people, with a high
lethality. As yet, there have been a relatively low number of
cases, and it is poorly transmissible, so far, from human to human.
It'll kill you if you catch it, very likely, but you're unlikely to
catch it except by butchering an infected chicken. But if H5N1
mutates or reassembles itself in just the right way, if it adapts
for human-to-human transmission, it could become the biggest and
fastest killer disease since 1918. It got to Egypt in 2006 and has
been especially problematic for that country. As of August 2011,
there were 151 confirmed cases, of which 52 were fatal. That
represents more than a quarter of all the world's known human cases
of bird flu since H5N1 emerged in 1997. But here's a critical fact:
those unfortunate Egyptian patients all seem to have acquired the
virus directly from birds. This indicates that the virus hasn't yet
found an efficient way to pass from one person to another. Two
aspects of the situation are dangerous, according to biologist
Robert Webster. The first is that Egypt, given its recent political
upheavals, may be unable to staunch an outbreak of transmissible
avian flu, if one occurs. His second concern is shared by influenza
researchers and public health officials around the globe: with all
that mutating, with all that contact between people and their
infected birds, the virus could hit upon a genetic configuration
making it highly transmissible among people. "As long as H5N1 is
out there in the world," Webster told me, "there is the possibility
of disaster. . . There is the theoretical possibility that it can
acquire the ability to transmit human-to-human." He paused. "And
then God help us." We're unique in the history of mammals. No other
primate has ever weighed upon the planet to anything like the
degree we do. In ecological terms, we are almost paradoxical:
large-bodied and long-lived but grotesquely abundant. We are an
outbreak. And here's the thing about outbreaks: they end. In some
cases they end after many years, in others they end rather soon. In
some cases they end gradually, in others they end with a crash. In
certain cases, they end and recur and end again. Populations of
tent caterpillars, for example, seem to rise steeply and fall
sharply on a cycle of anywhere from five to 11 years. The crash
endings are dramatic, and for a long while they seemed mysterious.
What could account for such sudden and recurrent collapses? One
possible factor is infectious disease, and viruses in
particular.
Exploration is vital to biodiscovery and developing new cures
for diseasesNRC, 03 (Committee on Exploration of the Seas, National
Research Council Exploration of the Seas: Voyage into the Unknown
National Academies Press
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10844)Justification for a
New Ocean Exploration Program The ocean supports uswhether we live
in land-locked or coastal communitiesin myriad ways. Living
resources provide food, and exploration of marine biological and
chemical diversity has led to the discovery of drugs to treat
cancer and infections. Oil and natural gas extracted from the
oceans have already been used to meet much of the energy needs of
our societies. With the application of new technology to locate,
extract, and exploit potential ocean resources, such as methane
hydrates, renewable ocean energy, and seafloor minerals, the value
of the oceans to society will continue to expand. Improved
understanding of the oceans is necessary to better manage our
living marine resources. The oceans provide a very large portion of
Earths food supply (Figure 2.1; Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, 1998). The Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations estimated capture fisheries (primarily
marine) produced 83 million metric tons of fish in 2001.
Approximately 16 kg (or 36 pounds) of fish per person on Earth were
either captured or produced in that year. Appropriate fisheries
management depends a great deal on knowledge of fish stocks,
distribution, and life histories. Additional information about
ocean circulation patterns, chemistry, seafloor terrain and fish
distributions, for instance, should assist attempts to improve
fisheries management. Marine organisms also supply a host of unique
compounds for medical uses. The ancient horseshoe crab (Limulus
polyphemus) supplies blood used in common toxin-screening tests,
and its eyes continue to provide researchers with a model of how
vision works. The nerve cells of the long- finned squid (Loligo
pealei) include giant axons that are used by neuro- biologists as
an analogue to understand mammalian neurobiology. These cells are
approximately 100 times the diameter of a mammal axon, allowing
experimentation and analysis that would otherwise be exceedingly
difficult or impossible. Discodermolide, a compound extracted from
marine sponges, has been shown to stop the growth of cancer cells
in laboratory tests. The discovery of microorganisms within deep
ocean sediments that could inhibit cancer cell growth has opened a
door to the search for new compounds for use in medicine (Figure
2.2) (Mincer et al., 2002; Feling et al., 2003). These examples are
among the hundreds of uses for marine organisms and com- pounds.
Vast numbers of organisms remain to be discovered, and they will
yield additional important benefits for humankind. Responsible
exploitation of the genetic diversity of life in the ocean,
including new and existing fisheries, requires a thorough
understanding of those resources and their variability over time.
As the human population expands, so will the need for energy and
mineral resources. In 2002, the coastal zones of the United States
provided 25 percent of the countrys natural gas production and 30
percent of the U.S. oil production (Minerals Management Service,
2003). The Minerals Management Service estimates the majority of
undiscovered gas and oil is in coastal areas albeit in deeper and
deeper water on the continental slope. The oceans sustain a large
portion of Earths biodiversity in complex food webs; microbial
life; extreme, deep habitats including within the sea- floor, and
hydrothermal vents; and dynamic coastal environments. Indeed, the
midwater environment of oceans harbor an ecosystem whose biomass is
larger than that of the terrestrial biota. The complex biological
systems both rely on and support the global cycling of carbon and
nutrients, and they are estimated to sustain half of all
carbon-based life on this planet Appreciation for the role of the
oceans in global climate patterns and change continues to grow
(Sutton and Allen, 1997; Rahmstorf, 2002). The oceans regulate
climate by absorbing solar energy and redistributing it via global
circulation patterns resulting in identifiable systems of climate
and weather. Our knowledge of interannual climate variations has
improved to the point that scientists are now be able to forecast
El Nino climate distur- bances months in advance (Chen, 2001). With
all of the benefits the oceans provide come potentially harmful
sometimes disastroushazards to human health. Tsunamis, for example,
are legendary in their power to devastate coastal communities
(e.g., Satake et al., 1995). In the United States, a single
hurricane can cause billions of dollars of damage; Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 2003), and coastal erosion threatens
to destroy 25 percent of dwellings within 150 m of the coast (Heinz
Center, 2002). Major earthquake faults offshore coastal states in
the western United States are among the most potentially hazardous
in the world given the concentrations in population and economic
productivity. Although more difficult to estimate in monetary
terms, water pollution and marine habitat degradation decrease the
aesthetic value and the biotic richness of our coastal waters.
Habitat degradation also threatens human health: viruses, bacteria,
and infectious diseases that can be transmitted to human
populations contaminate coastal waters (National Research Council,
1999). Finding: The oceans play a critical role in the maintenance
of the ecosystems of the Earth. Resources contained in the oceans
currently supply much of the worlds food and fuel supply, and
maintain global climate patterns. The oceans harbor as yet
undiscovered organisms new searches for life continue to discover
previously unknown organ- isms. Only a portion of the potential of
the oceans has been tapped. Recommendation: As was true when the
International Decade of Ocean Exploration (1971-1980) was proposed
and supported, ocean exploration remains a necessary endeavor to
identify and fully describe the resources the oceans contain and
uncover processes with far- ranging implications for the study of
Earth as a whole. The pace at which we discover living and
nonliving resources and improve our understanding of how the oceans
respond to chemical, biological, and physical changes must
increase.
Medicines found through marine bioprospecting help to cure even
the most fatal of diseases.Nelson 12 (Emily Rose Nelson, R.J.
Dunlap Marine Conservation Program Intern,
http://rjd.miami.edu/conservation/drugs-from-the-deep-ocean-bioprospecting,
December 14th 2012)Oceans cover over 70% of the earths surface.
Some of the greatest biological diversity in the world is found in
the seas. Over 200,000 species of invertebrates and algae have been
identified, and this number is estimated to be only a small
fraction of what is yet to be discovered. This immense biodiversity
yields great chemical diversity. When working with potential
pharmaceuticals this becomes extremely important, more chemically
diverse substances are more suitable. The field of marine natural
products is just over 40 years old and already over 15,000 chemical
compounds have been identified as having biological function. Many
of these chemicals have cancer fighting potential. Many sessile
organisms emit chemicals to prevent others from evading their
space. Often times these chemicals are used to slow and prevent
cell growth of surrounding sponges, etc. It is believed that the
same chemicals these organisms let out when competing for space can
be used to stop the uncontrolled division of cancer cells. Cancer
treatment compounds have advanced quite a bit due to funding from
the National Cancer Institute. Discodermolide is a polypeptide
isolated from deep water sponges (Discodermia). This substance
stops the reproduction of cancer cells by disrupting the
microtubule network (partially responsible for movement of cells).
Bryostatin, a substance released by some bryozoans, is believed to
be particularly useful against leukemia and melanoma. The Caribbean
mangrove tunicate produces a compound (Ecteinascidin-743 or ET-743)
that has been tested in humans for the treatment of breast and
ovarian cancers and found to be effective. While cancer fighting
treatments have received the most attention, discoveries have been
made in many areas. Increased understanding of the highly specified
modes of activity of these chemicals and their roles in the natural
world allows scientists to better understand their use to humans.
Many of these compounds are on the route to approval, and in the
near future we will start to see a surge of marine pharmaceuticals.
Filter feeders are constantly circulating water and small organisms
through their system, thus they are continually exposed to
parasites and disease causing bacteria. The chemicals they use to
defend themselves could also be of use to humans. Ziconotide, a
cysteine rich peptide, has been found to fight against neuropathic
pain. These toxins, derived from the cone snail, are approximately
1,000 times more powerful than morphine. The sponge Petrosia
contignata produces a strong anti-inflammatory with the potential
for asthma treatment. Another group of anti-inflammatories comes
from Caribbean soft corals and sea whips. These are used to reduce
swelling and skin irritation. The use of marine chemical resources
does not stop with pharmaceuticals. They can also be found in
nutritional supplements, cosmetics and more. It is clear that the
ocean has enormous medicinal potential. Unfortunately there are a
number of obstacles preventing this potential to be reached in
full. One of the biggest problems is simply the lack of supply.
Underwater compounds are more difficult to reach than those on
land. SCUBA and submersibles make it easier to access these
resources, however, oceanographic expeditions are quite expensive.
Also, in order to use these compounds effectively collections need
to be done in very large quantities. Large scale harvests are often
deemed ecologically unsound. Because collection is almost always
not an option alternatives such as aquaculture and chemical
synthesis can be used. Aquaculture has been completed successfully,
however it is difficult because little is known about the
invertebrates. Chemical synthesis is thought to be the ideal
solution, giving pharmaceutical companies ultimate control.
However, this process is extremely costly, complex, and has a very
low yield.Another complication deals with political boundaries. The
most diverse regions are located in areas of developing countries.
These are precisely the areas that the more developed nations wish
to explore. Developing nations are often nervous about being used,
and thus hesitant to allow exploration. National and international
regulations regarding access and extraction of natural resources
are then discussed. This presents difficulty when placing value on
a natural resource, including any value added to the resource
through its use as a pharmaceutical and the value it has initially
in the ecosystem.Because of these difficulties, many pharmaceutical
candidates remain untouched. On the bright side, currently there
are large databases of chemical compounds. Our understanding of
biological activity linked to these compounds is increasing. At the
same time knowledge of human diseases is increasing at rapid speed.
We can combine this knowledge and apply it to drug discovery and
disease treatment.
Science LeadershipThe race for scientific leadership is on
innovative science is vital to solving global impacts.Colglazier,
13 (E. William, Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of
State, Remarks on Science and Diplomacy in the 21st Century,
8/20/13, http://www.state.gov/e/stas/2013/213741.htm)In 2010 the
U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International
Development released a strategic blueprint to chart the course of
the next four years. In this first Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review, it was stated: Science, engineering,
technology, and innovation are the engines of modern society and a
dominant force in globalization and international economic
development. The significance of this observation has been
emphasized repeatedly to me over the past two years in
conversations with representatives of many countries about science
and technology. I have been struck by the fact that nearly every
country has put at the very top of its agenda the role of science
and technology for supporting innovation and economic development.
This observation has been true for countries at every level of
development not only for countries like Germany, Japan, China,
India, Brazil, South Korea, and Singapore, but also for countries
like Mexico, Colombia, Chile, South Africa, Indonesia, Czech
Republic, Malaysia, and Vietnam. They are all seeking insights
regarding the right policies and investments to help their
societies to become more innovative and competitive to ensure a
more prosperous future for their citizens. Why does nearly every
country now have a laser-like focus on improving its capabilities
in science, technology, and innovation in order to be more
competitive in this globalized, interconnected world? My guess is
that most countries see two trends clearly: (1) science and
technology have a major impact on the economic success of leading
companies and countries and (2) the scientific and technological
revolution has been accelerating. If countries do not become more
capable in science and technology, they will be left behind. The
upside is great if they can capitalize on the transformative
potential of new and emerging technologies. As one example, the
information and communication technology (ICT) revolution has shown
the potential for developing countries to use new technologies to
leapfrog over the development paths taken by developed countries,
such as with mobile phones in Africa. Countries also recognize that
almost every issue with which they are confronted on the national,
regional, and global level has an important scientific and
technological component. This is true whether the issue concerns
health, environment, national security, homeland security, energy,
communication, food, water, climate change, disaster preparedness,
or education. Countries know they have smart, creative,
entrepreneurial people. They believe their people can compete, even
from a distance, if the right investments are made and the right
policies are implemented. And they know that to become more capable
in science and technology and to create innovation and
knowledge-based societies, they must collaborate with the world
leaders in science and technology. New and emerging technologies
have also affected the trajectory of fundamental science and
engineering research by creating new capabilities for exploring and
understanding the natural world. We are only at the beginning of
exploiting the potential of these new capabilities. This is another
reason for the acceleration of the scientific and technological
revolution, progressing at such an incredibly rapid pace that it is
hard to imagine, much less predict, what new transformative
possibilities will emerge within a decade. Scientists are not much
better at predicting the future than anyone else. I am very envious
of young people who will see amazing developments in their
lifetimes. As renowned computer scientist Alan Kay said, The best
way to predict the future is to invent it.The US is at risk of
losing its edge in science leadership - acting now is keyAkst, 14
(Jef AkstSenior Editor at The Scientist Magazine; "Slipping from
the Top?: Experts and the American public worry that the country is
at risk of losing its global leadership position in scientific
research"; The Scientist Magazine;
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/31845/title/Slipping-from-the-Top-/;
March 14th, 14)The United States is still a global leader in
science and technology research, but the country must act now to
avoid losing its edge. This was the overall consensus among two
panels of experts, which included National Institutes of Health
Director Francis Collins, assembled today (March 14) by
Research!America, a nonprofit public education and advocacy
alliance. I do think America continues to be a place where boldness
and innovation and creativity are encouraged, Collins said. But
there are warning signs, he added, such as the facts that the
country is now ranked 6th in the world with regard to the
proportion of its gross domestic product that is invested in
research and development and that young high school students score
relatively poorly in math and science compared to teens in other
nations. If efforts are not taken to reverse these trends, Collins
warned, we might see America lose their commitment to supporting
research at the level that it will take to maintain that
competitiveness.Science diplomacy is a vital tool in achieving
growth and minimizing war.Colglazier, 13 (E. William, Science and
Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State, Remarks on Science
and Diplomacy in the 21st Century, 8/20/13,
http://www.state.gov/e/stas/2013/213741.htm)Science diplomacy helps
other countries to become more capable in science and technology.
One might worry that this creates more capable competitors, but I
believe that it is in the interest of technologically advanced
societies like in the U.S. and Europe to encourage more
knowledge-based societies worldwide that rely upon science. The
only way to stay in the forefront of the scientific and
technological revolution, which is where I want the U.S. to be, is
to run faster and to work with the best scientists and engineers
wherever they reside in the world. That is why I support more
global scientific engagement by the U.S. with leading scientists
and engineers around the world. The approach that I favor was
captured well in the title of an article in the October 2012 issue
of Scientific American: A measure of the creativity of a nation is
how well it works with those beyond its borders. I believe that the
world has a special opportunity in this decade since so many
countries are focusing on improving their capabilities in science
and technology and are willing to make fundamental changes in
investments and policies so they can build more innovative
societies. If we can minimize wars and conflicts with skillful
diplomacy, the potential is there for more rapid economic growth,
faster expansion of the middle class, and increased democratic
governance in many countries as well as increased trade between
countries. This is an optimistic scenario. A range of future
scenarios, including some that are quite pessimistic, are laid out
in the fascinating report Global Trends 2030, published by the U.S.
National Intelligence Council in 2012.(8) I believe that we can
make the hopeful scenario a reality. Science diplomacy is one of
our most important tools in achieving the desired outcome.War would
cause global environmental catastrophes, including famine, warming
and ecosystems collapseRobock 10 (Massive absorption of warming
sunlight by a global stratospheric smoke layer would rapidly create
Ice Age temperatures on Earth. The cold would last a long time;
NASA computer models predict 40% of the smoke would still remain in
the stratosphere ten years after a nuclear war. Nuclear Darkness
LANGUAGE NUCLEAR WEAPONS EXPLAINED HIROSHIMA GLOBAL NUCLEAR ARSENAL
HIGH-ALERT NUCLEAR WEAPONS WAR CONSEQUENCES SOLUTIONS SUPPORT THIS
WEBSITE What is nuclear darkness?
(http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/hundredfiftytonessmoke/)
A.B.)Half of 1% of the explosive power of US-Russian nuclear
weapons can create enough nuclear darkness to impact global
climate. 100 Hiroshima-size weapons exploded in the cities of India
and Pakistan would put up to 5 million tons of smoke in the
stratosphere. The smoke would destroy much of the Earth's
protective ozone layer and drop temperatures in the Northern
Hemisphere to levels last seen in the Little Ice Age. Shortened
growing seasons could cause up to 1 billion people to starve to
death. A large nuclear war could put 150 million tons of smoke in
the stratosphere and make global temperatures colder than they were
18,000 years ago during the coldest part of the last Ice Age.
Killing frosts would occur every day for 1-3 years in the large
agricultural regions of the Northern Hemisphere. Average global
precipitation would be reduced by 45%. Earth's ozone layer would be
decimated. Growing seasons would be eliminated. A large nuclear war
would utterly devastate the environment and cause most people to
starve to death. Deadly climate change, radioactive fallout and
toxic pollution would cause already stressed ecosystems to
collapse. The result would be a mass extinction event that would
wipe out many animals living at the top of the food chains -
including human beings. It only takes a few minutes to start a
nuclear war that would leave the Earth uninhabitable. The U.S. and
Russia keep hundreds of missiles armed with thousands of nuclear
warheads on high-alert, 24 hours a day. They can be launched with
only a few minutes warning and reach their targets in less than 30
minutes. A single failure of nuclear deterrence could cause these
weapons to be launched in less time than it takes to read this
page. No person or nation has the right to start a war which could
destroy the human race. Nuclear weapons must be dismantled and
abolished. A draft treaty, or Nuclear Weapons Convention, already
exists which would ban nuclear weapons and ensure their
elimination. We can and must make this happen.
US led science leadership solves all impactsFederoff 8 (Nina,
science and technology adviser to the Sec of
State,http://www.gpo.gov/f...10hhrg41470.htm)
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss
science diplomacy at the U.S. Department of State. The U.S. is
recognized globally for its leadership in science and technology.
Our scientific strength is both a tool of ``soft power''--part of
our strategic diplomatic arsenal--and a basis for creating
partnerships with countries as they move beyond basic economic and
social development. Science diplomacy is a central element of the
Secretary's transformational diplomacy initiative, because science
and technology are essential to achieving stability and
strengthening failed and fragile states. S&T advances have
immediate and enormous influence on national and global economies,
and thus on the international relations between societies. Nation
states, nongovernmental organizations, and multinational
corporations are largely shaped by their expertise in and access to
intellectual and physical capital in science, technology, and
engineering. Even as S&T advances of our modern era provide
opportunities for economic prosperity, some also challenge the
relative position of countries in the world order, and influence
our social institutions and principles. America must remain at the
forefront of this new world by maintaining its technological edge,
and leading the way internationally through science diplomacy and
engagement. The Public Diplomacy Role of Science Science by its
nature facilitates diplomacy because it strengthens political
relationships, embodies powerful ideals, and creates opportunities
for all. The global scientific community embraces principles
Americans cherish: transparency, meritocracy, accountability, the
objective evaluation of evidence, and broad and frequently
democratic participation. Science is inherently democratic,
respecting evidence and truth above all. Science is also a common
global language, able to bridge deep political and religious
divides. Scientists share a common language. Scientific
interactions serve to keep open lines of communication and cultural
understanding. As scientists everywhere have a common evidentiary
external reference system, members of ideologically divergent
societies can use the common language of science to cooperatively
address both domestic and the increasingly trans-national and
global problems confronting humanity in the 21st century. There is
a growing recognition that science and technology will increasingly
drive the successful economies of the 21st century. Science and
technology provide an immeasurable benefit to the U.S. by bringing
scientists and students here, especially from developing countries,
where they see democracy in action, make friends in the
international scientific community, become familiar with American
technology, and contribute to the U.S. and global economy. For
example, in 2005, over 50 percent of physical science and
engineering graduate students and postdoctoral researchers trained
in the U.S. have been foreign nationals. Moreover, many
foreign-born scientists who were educated and have worked in the
U.S. eventually progress in their careers to hold influential
positions in ministries and institutions both in this country and
in their home countries. They also contribute to U.S. scientific
and technologic development: According to the National Science
Board's 2008 Science and Engineering Indicators, 47 percent of
full-time doctoral science and engineering faculty in U.S. research
institutions were foreign-born. Finally, some types of
science--particularly those that address the grand challenges in
science and technology--are inherently international in scope and
collaborative by necessity. The ITER Project, an international
fusion research and development collaboration, is a product of the
thaw in superpower relations between Soviet President Mikhail
Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan. This reactor will
harness the power of nuclear fusion as a possible new and viable
energy source by bringing a star to Earth. ITER serves as a symbol
of international scientific cooperation among key scientific
leaders in the developed and developing world--Japan, Korea, China,
E.U., India, Russia, and United States--representing 70 percent of
the world's current population. The recent elimination of funding
for FY08 U.S. contributions to the ITER project comes at an
inopportune time as the Agreement on the Establishment of the ITER
International Fusion Energy Organization for the Joint
Implementation of the ITER Project had entered into force only on
October 2007. The elimination of the promised U.S. contribution
drew our allies to question our commitment and credibility in
international cooperative ventures. More problematically, it
jeopardizes a platform for reaffirming U.S. relations with key
states. It should be noted that even at the height of the cold war,
the United States used science diplomacy as a means to maintain
communications and avoid misunderstanding between the world's two
nuclear powers--the Soviet Union and the United States. In a
complex multi-polar world, relations are more challenging, the
threats perhaps greater, and the need for engagement more
paramount. Using Science Diplomacy to Achieve National Security
Objectives The welfare and stability of countries and regions in
many parts of the globe require a concerted effort by the developed
world to address the causal factors that render countries fragile
and cause states to fail. Countries that are unable to defend their
people against starvation, or fail to provide economic opportunity,
are susceptible to extremist ideologies, autocratic rule, and
abuses of human rights. As well, the world faces common threats,
among them climate change, energy and water shortages, public
health emergencies, environmental degradation, poverty, food
insecurity, and religious extremism. These threats can undermine
the national security of the United States, both directly and
indirectly. Many are blind to political boundaries, becoming
regional or global threats. The United States has no monopoly on
knowledge in a globalizing world and the scientific challenges
facing humankind are enormous. Addressing these common challenges
demands common solutions and necessitates scientific cooperation,
common standards, and common goals. We must increasingly harness
the power of American ingenuity in science and technology through
strong partnerships with the science community in both academia and
the private sector, in the U.S. and abroad among our allies, to
advance U.S. interests in foreign policy.Bioprospecting and ocean
exploration can provide new opportunities, put America into a
greater leadership positionRosenberg 08 (Dr. Andrew, Senior Vice
President, Science and Knowledge, humannature,
http://blog.conservation.org/2011/06/u-s-ocean-policy-should-lead-the-way-for-global-reform/)At
Conservation International, we know that while humans are mostly
confined to the quarter of the planet covered by land, we are
surrounded and sustained by vast oceans. In addition to supporting
incredible biodiversity, oceans provide benefits to people in the
form of food, energy, recreation, tourism and desirable places to
live. They are also a tremendous economic driver, generating an
estimated 69 million jobs and over $8 trillion dollars in wages per
year in the United States alone. From renewable energy sources like
wave and wind power to offshore aquaculture and deep-sea
bioprospecting, our oceans and coasts provide new opportunities for
technology developers, manufacturers, engineers and others in a
vast supply chain to discover, innovate and develop new economic
opportunities around the globe. America can lead this global
innovation. Unfortunately, the health of our oceans is in serious
decline; in too many places, coastal water quality is poor,
fisheries are stressed, habitats for ocean life are degraded and
endangered marine species are struggling to recover. Disasters such
as last years BP oil spill have damaged the oceans and their
inhabitants, which in turn has stressed the communities and
industries that depend on healthy oceans. To turn the tide, our
national, state and local leaders must make a commitment to more
coordinated management of ocean resources. Our decisions must be
based on sound science, and scientific work must be a funding
priority in order for us to gain the benefits the oceans can
provide. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative recently released
Americas Ocean Future, a report that calls on leaders to support
full and effective implementation of our nations first national
ocean policy the National Policy for Stewardship of Ocean, Coasts
and Great Lakes which was established by President Obama in July of
2010. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the national ocean policy
has the potential to act as a catalyst for long-awaited and
important reforms, including enhanced monitoring, assessment and
analysis of the condition of our ocean ecosystems, how they affect
and are affected by human activity and whether management
strategies are achieving our environmental, social and economic
goals. Using these tools to better understand our oceans will help
us to more effectively manage these resources and strengthen
coastal economies and communities across the country. As a member
of the Joint Initiatives Leadership Council and an advisor to the
Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, I believe that monitoring what
is happening in our oceans is critical to understanding how the
physical, biological, chemical and human elements of ocean
ecosystems interact. The Joint Initiative report recommends fully
supporting an ocean observation system that would integrate data
from sensors at the bottom of the ocean, from buoys on the oceans
surface and from satellites with remote sensing technology high
above the Earth. The report also emphasizes the importance of
better integrating the study of our planets climate and ocean
systems. We need to have a better understanding of how climate
change affects the health of our oceans and marine life in order to
develop strategies to mitigate negative consequences on ocean
ecosystems and coastal communities. The report notes that
information about climate impacts will be particularly important
for coastal areas with infrastructure that is vulnerable to rising
sea levels and strong coastal storms, including communities with
naval facilities and transportation and energy infrastructure near
the coast. The development of expanded and improved science,
research and education around our oceans is a sound investment in
improving our economy. The data and information collected from
research activities will be used to inform coastal development,
promote sustainable and safe fishing practices, and develop vibrant
marine-based recreation and tourism. And promoting the education of
our next generation of marine scientists will help us compete in a
global economy increasingly driven by scientific and technological
innovation. Our oceans are in crisis, and our national economy is
suffering the decline of this important economic engine. For every
year that we wait to institute a national ocean policy, we lose
jobs and income that rely on healthy oceans, and miles of healthy
coastlines for Americans to enjoy. We can do better by supporting
the science and policy changes that continuously improve our
stewardship of the 70 percent of the world that is our oceans.
SolvencyPlan doesnt disrupt ecosystems and biosynthesis means we
only need to collect specimens once Imhoff 11 (Johannes, Antje
Labes, Jutta Wiese, Biotechnology Advances, Volume 29, Issue 5,
Marine Biotechnology in Europe,
http://www.sciencedirect.com.turing.library.northwestern
.edu/science/article/pii/S0734975011000346)
In contrast to the macroorganisms that are directly taken from
the habitat (sometimes in large amounts), microorganisms are not
even seen in the environmental sample but need enrichment and
cultivation techniques to make them available for laboratory
approaches. Therefore, only tiny amounts of the original sample
(such as a piece of sponge, coral, sediment or other) are needed.
Environmental damage by harvest from the habitat is avoided. Fig. 4
illustrates the path of isolation of microbes from the marine
habitat in order to gain bioactive compounds for further drug
development. Once bacteria and fungi have been brought into pure
culture, straightforward procedures are available to cultivate them
in larger volumes, to chemically analyze the natural products and
identify the compounds, as well as to optimize the production by
strain selection and elaboration of the optimal physico-chemical
conditions for production. This includes design and development of
the fermenta- tion process and selection of strains from a larger
panel of similar strains that produce the desired compound as well
as strain improvement by random or directed genetic manipulatioa
Though these methods need to be adapted to each bacterium and each
process separately, straightforward ways to do so are available.
Additional improvement of the biosynthetic abilities of the
producing strains is possible by combinatorial biosynthesis, which
has emerged as an attractive tool in natural product discovery and
development. Genetic engineering may be used to modify biosynthetic
pathways of natural products in order to produce new and altered
structures (Floss, 2006). This is of great advantage for the
establishment of reproducible processes for the synthesis of
desired natural products. Oceans are good for bioprospecting and
advancements in technology make it possible to explore
thoroughly.Global Ocean Commission 13 [A series of papers on policy
options, prepared for the third meeting of the Global Ocean
Commission, November 2013The marine realm contains a very rich
variety of organisms, many of which remain undescribed. Because of
their high biological diversity, marine ecosystems are particularly
suited for bioprospecting, a process that aims to identify and
isolate natural compounds from genetic material. Today, about
18,000 natural products have been reported from marine organisms
belonging to about 4,800 named species. The number of natural
products from marine species is growing at a rate of 4% per year.
The increase in the rate of discoveries is largely the result of
technological advances in exploring the ocean and the genetic
diversity it contains. Advances in technologies for observing and
sampling the deep ocean, 2 such as submersibles and remotely
operated vehicles (ROVs), have opened up previously unexplored
areas to scientific research. Coordinated scientific efforts such
as the Census of Marine Life3 have also given added impetus to
scientific research, resulting in many new and exciting
discoveries. At the same time, developments in molecular biology,
including high throughput genome sequencing, metagenomics and
bioinformatics, have increased our capacity to investigate and make
use of marine genetic material.
Bioprospecting is incredibly advantageous; leads to development
of new medicineJakarta 01 (Trips, CBD and Traditional Medicines:
Concepts and Questions. Report of an ASEAN Workshop on the TRIPS
Agreement and Traditional Medicine, Jakarta, February
2001)Bioprospecting can be defined as the systematic search for and
development of new sources of chemical compounds, genes,
micro-organisms, macro-organisms, and other valuable products from
nature. It entails the search for economically valuable genetic and
biochemical resources from nature. So, in brief, bioprospecting
means looking for ways to commercialize biodiversity. Lately,
exploration and research on indigenous knowledge related to the
utilization and management of biological resources has also been
included into the concept of bioprospecting. Thus, bioprospecting
touches upon the conservation and sustainable use of biological
resources and the rights of local and indigenous communities.
Bioprospecting, if well managed, can be advantageous, since it can
generate income for developing countries, and at the same time it
can provide incentives for the conservation of biological resources
and biodiversity. In addition, it can lead to the development of
new products, including for example new medicines. On the other
hand, if not well managed, bioprospecting may create a number of
problems, including environmental problems related to unauthorized
(over-) exploitation, and social and economic problems related to
unfair sharing of benefits -or the total absence of benefit
sharing- and to disrespect for the rights, knowledge and dignity of
local communities.