Introduction
Policies implemented under globalization of the twentieth century, characterized by the creation of the Bretton Woods Institutions, have made a great impact on what the face of global capitalism currently looks like. Some of these institutions—the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO, formerly the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT)—all currently dictate how the global economy is run. “Patents” now belong to broader label of “intellectual property”, signaling that knowledge is now seen as property (Shiva, 2000). The consequence of this has been that in the current era everything, particularly seeds used in agriculture, medicinal plants, and animals used for medicine and food, is seen as a free-for-all for corporations looking to make more profits. In the global economy, multinational pharmaceutical corporations are the top players when it comes to the exploitation of medicinal plants in the name of “advancement." This exploitation has been made possible through intellectual property rights (IPR) regimes (Shiva, 2000).
These IPR regimes were created by corporations based mainly in the United States and Europe, and they have been globalized under the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) of the WTO (Shiva, 2000). Wanting to keep TRIPS policies in favour of the West, the United States silenced pleas coming from the global South to revise it (Shiva, 2000). This is not surprising, however, as TRIPS is embedded into the capitalist system, a system reliant on inequality. Within the global capitalist system, the winners are yet again the wealthy from the global North, while the poor from the global South are the ones who suffer most.
In this paper, I will set out to prove that international intellectual property rights laws are immoral because they allow pharmaceutical corporations to steal and patent plants native to developing countries. I will also show how the patenting of drugs creates monopolies that make it difficult for the world’s poorest to access certain drugs, and how these laws promote the destruction of biodiversity through biotechnological "inventions." Additionally, I will give solutions to these problems throughout this paper, but stress that these solutions are within the global capitalist framework and not able to create structural change.
What is Biopiracy? Why is it a Problem?
According to Pat Mooney, president of the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI, now the ETC Group), the definition of biopiracy is "…the use of intellectual property systems to legitimize the exclusive ownership and control of biological resources and knowledge, without recognition, compensation or protection for contributions from indigenous and rural communities…” (as cited in Delgado, 2002, p. 299). Due to international intellectual property rights laws under the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, pharmaceutical corporations are able to patent any compounds that are of use to them as their own invention, and this prevents the home country of the plant from legally claiming royalties from the sale of the drug (Zakrzewski, 2002). According to Samath, while it could be argued that these countries should patent drugs made from their indigenous plants, they usually neither possess the equipment nor the capital to do so (as cited in Zakrzewski, 2002). The profits which pharmaceutical corporations make from herbal plants from the global South are not insignificant, either. According to Butler, the drugs created from herbal plants in the United States alone have an estimated value of over 30 billion USD annually (as cited in Zakrzewski, 2002).
A possible way of ensuring that developing countries get their share of profits generated by the manufacturing of drugs would be for them to use the unspecific language of TRIPS to their advantage. Since, according to TRIPS, developing countries are forced to either patent or create an "effective" sui generis system, the meaning of "effective" can be defined by these countries themselves. According to Kaur Plahe and Nyland (2003), this sui generis system could even be modeled after Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement which states that biotechnology should be "to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technology and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare," further legitimizing it. I highly doubt that this kind of system would actually work, however, while legally pharmaceutical companies may be made to give fair compensation under a system such as this, some may not do so, and it is unlikely that they will get punished for not doing so. This is because, as stated earlier, developed countries have more of a say in the WTO than developing countries. In addition to this, equally exemplary of the power that the global North has in international agreements such as this, European and North American member states may form an alliance to vote to change TRIPS. These changes could include making the language of the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement more specific, therefore allowing the global South even less independence in assuring that they are not exploited. Further, these solutions would occur within the framework of capitalism, and would not really equal the playing field, or ensure that the biodiversity is protected. Biotechnology in and of itself threatens biodiversity.
The Monopolization of Drugs by Pharmaceutical Corporations
In addition to globalized intellectual property rights laws allowing multinational pharmaceutical companies to legally steal from rural and/or indigenous areas of the global South, they also allow pharmaceutical companies to have a monopoly over their finished products, therefore restricting the poorest from accessing drugs which may mean the difference between life, and death. For example, the AIDS medication Azidothymidine (AZT) is usually used along with one or more other drugs as a standard way of ensuring that an AIDS patient can extend their life expectancy (Gewertz and Amado, 2004). The issue with this medication, however, is that a pharmaceutical corporation called GlaxoSmithKline owns the patent over it, and is able to change the price of it when they see fit (Gewertz and Amado, 2004). Due to this monopoly in which GlaxoSmithKline holds over AZT, most people suffering with AIDS cannot afford it. According to the African Development Forum, if in sub-Saharan Africa 50% of those diagnosed with AIDS were given AZT therapy, it would cost over 80 billion dollars, while anti-retroviral therapy would cost over 50% of the GDP of many nations in the area (as cited in Gewertz and Amado, 2004). Pharmaceutical companies have reduced the price of anti-HIV medications, yet most AIDS patients can still not afford them (Gewertz and Amado, 2004). What else can be done to force the pharmaceutical industry to change its ways?
Although these corporations may argue that they will not be able to stay in business if they are to lower the prices of their drugs too much, something has to be done so as to make sure that those who need medications most are able to access them. If local governments and/or global health organizations were to provide more subsidies to the pharmaceutical corporations, the price of drugs would theoretically decrease (Gewertz and Amado, 2004). Also, pharmaceutical corporations need to assume greater moral responsibility and allow the licensing of patented drugs to occur at reduced or even better, marginal costs (Gewertz and Amado, 2004). Even if these strategies were to be practiced globally, however, they are not radical enough to create unlikely structural changes which will make medications affordable for everyone. The status quo will likely continue since the poorest nations do not have much of a chance to voice their concerns in the international sphere, and because the middle class has become so accustomed to the consumer goods in which capitalism provides. Due to this, it is unlikely that they will want to have an uprising which will put life as they know it in jeopardy.
The Threat to Biodiversity Posed by Intellectual Property Right Laws
The globalized intellectual property laws which allow the pharmaceutical industry to operate in the manner it does are not just detrimental to humans, but also to the natural environment. Biological corridors refer to the integration of multiple developing countries into a strip of land by which multinational pharmaceutical corporations, as well as other types of multinational corporations, can target for raw materials (Delgado, 2002). The strange aspect of this process is that Environmental Non-Government Organizations (ENGOs), organizations which claim to be protectors of the natural environment, were the creators of it. Many multinational corporations (MNCs) give donations to ENGOs such as Conservation International (CI), an organization which operates in more than 23 countries, and according to Conservation International itself, acquires more than 83 million dollars per year for the biopiracy schemes it organizes for the likes of Monsanto, Intel, Pulsar, Hyseq, Bristol Squibb, Shaman and Dow Agrosciences (Delgado, 2002).
In this way, the circle of protection/exploitation of the environment is complete. MNCs want to have a good image, so they donate money to environmental non-governmental organizations which have access to conservation areas with lots of natural resources. These ENGOs, looking for more donations, will cooperate with these big bullies by helping them to exploit the very lands in which they help to protect. The problem with this, however, is that conservation efforts are in vain when pharmaceutical corporations, as well as other corporations, are exploiting plants and other resources at an ever increasing rate.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Stephen Gill, Distinguished Research Professor at York University and one of the leading Neo-Gramscian International Relations scholars, for his patience, motivation, enthusiasm, and immense knowledge. His kind words helped me to believe in myself as an academic.
Conclusion
This paper has shown how detrimental the international intellectual property rights laws under TRIPS are to the global South, as well as the environment. In line with TRIPS, the powerful pharmaceutical industry is able to go to developing countries and patent herbal medications to be used in the synthesizing of drugs from which they will pocket billions of dollars. Then, when the pharmaceutical industry puts patents on drugs, they create a monopoly which restricts the use of these treatments to only those who can afford them. In terms of the environment, these laws promote “inventions” created by the biotechnology industry (which pharmaceutical industry is part of) which involve the exploitation of nature at an ever increasing rate. Ironically, the organizations in which the majority of society trusts with conservation efforts, such as Conservation International, help multinational corporations to gain access to plants native to the global South. In return, they get funds from corporations that are currently using biotechnology and want to be viewed as a force for good. This means that while these sorts of organizations may get vast funds to protect the environment, they are mainly coming from corporations, which they team up with to do more damage with than these efforts can counteract. Various solutions to these problems have been put forth by various scholars, but even if they were implemented, they would not change the structure of the current global economy which is so reliant on inequality. In the past, creating private property was the only way in which capitalists could gain more capital, but now it is currently legal (and expected) that capitalists patent life itself! The modus operandi of capitalism is to blame for the crisis mode that the world has entered into. If drastic changes do not occur, it is likely that the world as we know it will not be around for much longer, due to the devastating effects of climate change.
References
Delgado, Gian Carlo. 2002. ‘Biopiracy and Intellectual Property as the Basis for
Biotechnological Development: The Case of Mexico’. International Journal of Politics,
Culture and Society 16 (2): 297-316.
Gewertz, Nevin M., and Amado, Rivka. 2004.’Intellectual Property and the Pharmaceutical
Industry: A Moral Crossroads Between Health and Property’. Journal of Business Ethics
55: 295-308.
Kaur Plahe, Jagjit, and Nyland, Chris. 2003. ‘The WTO and patenting of life forms: policy
options for developing countries’. Third World Quarterly 24 (1): 29-45.
Shiva, Vandana. 2000. ‘North-South Conflicts in Intellectual Property Rights’. Peace Review 12
(4): 501-508.
Zakrzewski, Peter A. 2002. ‘Bioprospecting or Biopiracy? The Pharmaceutical Industry’s Use of
Indigenous Medicinal Plants as a Source of Potential Drug Candidates’. University of
Toronto Medical Journal 79 (3): 252-254.