Should governments be able to prevent scientific research on indigenous plants and animals? Do world citizens have the right to access to plants and plant products from other countries that can be used to treat or cure diseases? Consider competing interests and determine when different parties should prevail in such disputes.
Suggested completion date: October 17, 2008
Posts
18 comments:
I do not think governments should be allowed to prevent scientific research of indigenous plants and animals. I also believe world citizens should have the right to access plants and plant products from other countries that can be used to treat or cure diseases. The only reason governments are getting involved is because they want money. They want money for the plant that being used in the research as well as any medications that are produced from it. It is only fair for a country to want profit from its own materials. However I think governments should worry about payment once medication’s come out and not hold up researcher’s work. If these plants and or animals can save people’s lives the research should not be held up a moment longer.
Amanda Rhoades
EDDIE. PRATT
10/24/08
BIOTHICS-SCENARIO #5
Until 1970’s, biodiversity was considered to be part of the “ common
heritage of humankind.” Under this regime biological resources are treated as belonging to the public domain and are not owned by any individual, group, or state. South America is general rich in biodiversity, but it has contributed this asset
voluntarily or involuntarily, without cost in the spirit of the common heritage.
Eddie-
I wish plants and animals were public domain but I think everything evolves around money, unfortunately. Imagine if people were able to freely perform research studies and lives were saved.
Amanda Rhoades
Biological specimens, both plant and animal, belong to mother earth. Period. My answer is no entities should own them. We human should respect bio-diversity, countries should lookout for delicate balance, and government should protect the resources from ruthless profit seekers.
Ladies and gentleman, with this topic I urge you to explore with different mindset thinking.
Before we jump right into Paradise Lost (money, laws, government), and Utopia (happy, life, sharing), let us examine two different economic models: based on consumption or based on scarcity. You guessed it right! The world is running on a consumption based model, more so with the capitalism. “The more the better” concept. Indeed, it has dark side.
Greed, misconstrued capitalism’s best friend is greed. This human nature can convert people and corporation into pigs. When misused we all know how ugly it can be. I call it capitalistic cannibalism - do whatever even with baby food - the recent example!
You see, fierce capitalism justify everything under the sun in a name of economy. Likewise anything that indicates potential profit will be targeted for mass production.
On the other hand, scarcity is about respecting nature as it is. A culture of less consume and extend usage. It requires mutual respect. For example If, a particular healing plants only grow in specific area above 10,000 ft, let it be. Adapting concept of scarcity of raw material enable the best way to practice "fair and equitable sharing of their benefits." This noble idea supports biological specimens, both plant and animal, and become an integral part of human life.
The mutual beneficiaries of the genetic resources are human and mother nature. How about advocating this noble concept? Genetic resources belong to mother earth.
JWK
Amanda
When there a profit it always greed. It take money for research, and the government will do right once the revenue are met.But health
care is big business.
ep
I think that charging for genetic resources is like setting up a toll booth in the middle of a road you didn't build and feel you have a right to charge people to use it. Admittedly drug companies make a lot of money with genetic manipulation, but they are doing the work. They are building the road so to speak and they should be able to recoup their investment. This is about greed pure and simple. Country X should develop their own pharmacutical industry if they want to take advantage of the local biodiversity. If they don't, the discovery will never be made and we can all sit in our caves and scratch our behinds.
Greg Dawson
I believe that this restriction is purely money motivated. I know that some will say that it is because of the enviroment and researchers are endangering the plants and that if they are found to be effective then the plants run a risk of becoming scarce, but realistically this is all about the money. I think that its citizen should be able to access something that freely grows in thier own country especially. I think that if the countries weren't able to place a price on the plants they would want rights to make a profit if a drug was found to be effective if it came from one of the plants that was founf in their countries.
M Longtin
In response to Greg Dawson:
Great analogy!! "I think that charging for genetic resources is like setting up a toll booth in the middle of a road you didn't build and feel you have a right to charge people to use it." I think you hit the nail right on the head!
MLongtin
I don’t think that individuals should have the right to prevent research on indigenous plants and animals, nor do I see why they would want to besides greed. There are people dying all over the world of cancers, AIDS, and malaria just to name a few. Why would anyone want to prevent a cure for this? I do agree that there should be a monetary value given to the country, or farmer if a cure is obtained from their “seed”. However, how much is fair? They did provide the “seed” for uncountable cures, but they didn’t do the research, or develop the cure. Although it is understandable that a country would want recognition and even a monetary value for a product that without them we wouldn’t have, it is disgusting that cures and treatments are being held up because of greed. It is honestly disgusting.
Kayla Parent
Greg---
You are absolutely right! What a great analogy by the way! This is absolutely about greed and power. Who is going to charge $600,000 as an application fee?!? Taking your scenario, it’s like charging someone to drive up to the window of the toll booth and then charging them to drive on the “toll road” that hasn’t been built yet. Ridiculous.
Kayla Parent
Michelle Camping
11-15-2008
I think the countries are getting greedy. I do think in all fairness they should share in the profits but not with all these rules. The other countries benifit from these scientist, thier drugs may save thier lives. I think they should make sure that they aren't harming the growth if that is a factor, but should be allowed to keep up thier research.
Michelle Camping
11-15-2008
I agree with Amanda. Goverments do profit from it already. Just let the scientist do thier work
I can see reasons why a country should be able to control the use of its indigenous plants and animals for research, due to ecological reasons, however, in this case, it seems that all that country X is concerned about is making a profit. If a plant is able to cure a certain type of cancer, that should be the main priority. The country should not be allowed to delay research on a plant that could potentially cure an incurable disease just because they are afraid they will not profit from it. There should be some sort of agreement that if a country researches a plant from another country and comes up with a medication, then both countries should make money from it.
Erin
I believe it is wrong for a governments to be able to prohibit study of specimens. I think especially if it can help certain types of conditions or diseases plants should be able to be tested with. I do not agree with letting just anyone getting a hold of specimens once i is known that they might help a certain condition. I think they should only be available for scientists which can then make some type of concentrate or whatever they might need to do to make that specific specimen last for a longer period and not become extinct.
I do see why the country may not want their plants to be exposed and what not but the fact that they might be prolonging studies to help cure or help things is just selfish and wrong. I think they need to look at a different picture and possibly just make it a more difficult course to obtain the specimens but not take so long. That way the scientists who are trying for them, you know they are serious about it.
Commenting on A.Rhoades
I agree and disagree with what was said. I do believe it is wrong for the country to try to hoard their own things but I disagree with allowing citizens to have access to the specimens. I do think that it is mainly about money but if anyone could have specimens then wouldn't many become extinct and then there would be people s.o.l. for it. I think letting the scientists do research is good because we have come to a technology these days where they can replicate things if need be and try to work with a little (or big) about of certain things.
It is incredible stupid that possible cures are out there but because of politics we may never get to them. In this current day and age everyone is worried about their share of the pie and not the overall wealth of the population. These countries restrictions are based on the "where is my share" attitude and are preventing the discovery of what could be something great. I understand where the countries are coming from because they don't want to see someone take something off of their land and make a lot of money off of it. The simple solution is to work out an agreement with the researcher that if they make a lot of money off of this particular plant then the country should get a share. Then everyone could benefit from it. You never know if a third world country is holding a plant that could cure cancer. If so, it could turn their country completely around to their benefit. If you lighten the restrictions and agree to work with the researcher it is a win-win situation.
Joe King
I think most of us are in agreement that country x should allow the study as long as they have some way of gaining value from it if it becomes highly wanted/
Joe King
I think that in the instance that it might save lives or even improve lives that the plant should be allowed to be taken and studied. It seems to me the main concern and factor from this country does not serve the interest of medicine but instead that of financial gain. Yes, if profits are made then they could be put to beneficial use like protecting the land where such plant life my exist. Further more, if the concern that someone is making more money than another... profits should be placed within organizational fund that pays the way for more medical research and needed facilities. This could be used for the greater good and not just a dollar in someone's pocket.
Post a Comment