72
3
to exploitation. In some cases, bioprospecting is the starting point for both win-win
and biopiracy narratives. As presented above, the agreement between INBio and
Merck has been presented as a win-win. According to a biopiracy narrative of this
case, the agreement implies that a multinational company, Merck, gains access to
Costa Rica’s genetic resources, while the country itself gains little and the indigenous peoples get nothing, even though they are entitled to compensation
(Kloppenburg and Rodriguez 1992; Mooney 2000).
Shaman Pharmaceutical’s win-win narratives have also been met with biopiracy narratives that we might regard as counternarratives, to use a term from Roe
(1991, 1995). According to these narratives, Shaman underpaid traditional
knowledge. Moreover, involved patents and Shaman’s cooperation with major
pharmaceutical companies have been spotlighted as elements of exploitation of
peoples in the Global South.
For example, Shaman’s win-win narrative on the dragon blood tree has been
met by a counternarrative. Viki Reyes of GRAIN felt that in this case, the payment for traditional knowledge was problematic. In a series of pamphlets entitled BioPirates, RAFI and Cultural Survival Canada included Shaman’s
bioprospecting for the dragon blood tree arguing that Shaman acquired millions of dollars of venture capital in the USA, while the Quichua people of
Jatún Molino in Ecuador received less than three thousand dollars from
Shaman, much of which was pay for work and services (RAFI and Cultural
Survival Canada 1997; Reyes 1996).
This biopiracy narrative also focused on Shaman’s patents. According to the
narrative, the company claimed an exclusive monopoly on a biochemical, despite
its use being commonplace knowledge among several indigenous peoples of the
Amazon area, such that it should not have been patentable (Reyes 1996).
Bioprospectors have presented many win-win narratives in scientific journals in
the fields in which the bioprospectors themselves work. On the other hand, biopiracy narratives have often appeared in newsletters and on websites of the key organizations involved in the biopiracy discourse.
The actor gallery of win-win narratives consists of actors who contribute to the
conduct of an activity with beneficial consequences. In contrast, the actor gallery
of biopiracy narratives consists of actors who either are exploiters or have been
exploited.
Elliott (2005) distinguishes between two basic types of narrative storylines. A
progressive narrative relates progress, achievement and success, while a regressive
narrative relates deterioration or recession. The win-win and biopiracy narratives
correspond to these two types.
We have now provided examples of a group of win-win narratives on bioprospecting as well as a group of biopiracy narratives. Within each group, we have
seen that there are similarities in the structures of the narratives. We have, in other
words, found two metanarratives.
Chapter 3 · Discourses and Narratives on Environment and Development: The Example…
3
to exploitation. In some cases, bioprospecting is the starting point for both win-win
and biopiracy narratives. As presented above, the agreement between INBio and
Merck has been presented as a win-win. According to a biopiracy narrative of this
case, the agreement implies that a multinational company, Merck, gains access to
Costa Rica’s genetic resources, while the country itself gains little and the indigenous peoples get nothing, even though they are entitled to compensation
(Kloppenburg and Rodriguez 1992; Mooney 2000).
Shaman Pharmaceutical’s win-win narratives have also been met with biopiracy narratives that we might regard as counternarratives, to use a term from Roe
(1991, 1995). According to these narratives, Shaman underpaid traditional
knowledge. Moreover, involved patents and Shaman’s cooperation with major
pharmaceutical companies have been spotlighted as elements of exploitation of
peoples in the Global South.
For example, Shaman’s win-win narrative on the dragon blood tree has been
met by a counternarrative. Viki Reyes of GRAIN felt that in this case, the payment for traditional knowledge was problematic. In a series of pamphlets entitled BioPirates, RAFI and Cultural Survival Canada included Shaman’s
bioprospecting for the dragon blood tree arguing that Shaman acquired millions of dollars of venture capital in the USA, while the Quichua people of
Jatún Molino in Ecuador received less than three thousand dollars from
Shaman, much of which was pay for work and services (RAFI and Cultural
Survival Canada 1997; Reyes 1996).
This biopiracy narrative also focused on Shaman’s patents. According to the
narrative, the company claimed an exclusive monopoly on a biochemical, despite
its use being commonplace knowledge among several indigenous peoples of the
Amazon area, such that it should not have been patentable (Reyes 1996).
Bioprospectors have presented many win-win narratives in scientific journals in
the fields in which the bioprospectors themselves work. On the other hand, biopiracy narratives have often appeared in newsletters and on websites of the key organizations involved in the biopiracy discourse.
The actor gallery of win-win narratives consists of actors who contribute to the
conduct of an activity with beneficial consequences. In contrast, the actor gallery
of biopiracy narratives consists of actors who either are exploiters or have been
exploited.
Elliott (2005) distinguishes between two basic types of narrative storylines. A
progressive narrative relates progress, achievement and success, while a regressive
narrative relates deterioration or recession. The win-win and biopiracy narratives
correspond to these two types.
We have now provided examples of a group of win-win narratives on bioprospecting as well as a group of biopiracy narratives. Within each group, we have
seen that there are similarities in the structures of the narratives. We have, in other
words, found two metanarratives.
Chapter 3 · Discourses and Narratives on Environment and Development: The Example…