77
3
plant medicines, and instead of a traditional role, their work was based on first aid
training within the modern health sector related to births (Svarstad 2003).
In addition, the Shaman narrative included a listing of ten authors of the
research paper dealing with the collection expedition (Richter et al. undated). Of
the ten, two (Richter and Ali) worked for Shaman. Seven were Tanzanian participants in the expedition, and one was a prominent traditional healer in the visited
area. We interviewed five of the Tanzanians listed as authors to find that none of
them had contributed to the manuscript. One did not know about the manuscript
at all. An American consultant living in Tanzania had organized the expedition.
He had contributed extensively to the paper, but was not included in the list of
authors. Shaman had sought to use the list of authors to convey the impression of
equality in the cooperation between the company and ‘authentic’ collaborators in
Tanzania. Finally, the manuscript was never published, and probably this was due
to disagreements between Shaman and some of the ‘authors’.
In conclusion, what we learned in the field about the case showed that there was
no basis for confirming Shaman’s win-win narrative. Was this then an example of
biopiracy supporting the idea that bioprospecting should generally be rejected as
an economic activity in the Global South? We do not believe that bioprospecting
provides a good source of potential income for Tanzania or for traditional healers.
As discussed above, the lack of income is not due to patenting, as contended in the
biopiracy discourse. Nor in this case can it be said to be due to lack of ethics on the
part of the bioprospector, who after all donated more than they needed to in order
to gain access to biological resources and traditional knowledge. On the other
hand, a principal cause why the win-win narrative did not materialize—in fact in
accordance with the win-win discourse—is that the Tanzanian public administration had not established the necessary institutional framework to enable and regulate this type of economic activity.
Even though the pharmaceutical industry remains committed to bioprospecting, this industry currently seems to have become less interested in traditional
knowledge. In looking at bioprospecting around the world for the last few years, it
is almost impossible to find incidents in which this activity provided any substantial income for people who have contributed with traditional knowledge. Some
researchers contend that there are two exceptions. One is that the Kani tribes of the
state of Kerala in India are to receive a considerable share of the income from a
company that sells a natural medicine based on their knowledge. The other is that
the San people of southern Africa have negotiated with the multinational companies Phytoharm and Unilever for their share of the income from a weight reduction
extract made from the Hoodia plant. The San are an indigenous people of an arid
area who traditionally have used Hoodia as an appetite suppressant (Wynberg and
Laird 2007; Wynberg et al. 2009).
Thus, income from bioprospecting has not provided the treasure trove for tropical countries that many delegates to the international biodiversity negotiations in
the 1990s hoped for. An important reason is that corporations do not seem to
depend on continuous supplies of biodiversity samples for their development of
new products. Another reason is the international campaigns against the activity
based on the biopiracy discourse. This may have avoided many cases of exploita3.7 · Tracking American Gene Hunters in Tanzania
3
plant medicines, and instead of a traditional role, their work was based on first aid
training within the modern health sector related to births (Svarstad 2003).
In addition, the Shaman narrative included a listing of ten authors of the
research paper dealing with the collection expedition (Richter et al. undated). Of
the ten, two (Richter and Ali) worked for Shaman. Seven were Tanzanian participants in the expedition, and one was a prominent traditional healer in the visited
area. We interviewed five of the Tanzanians listed as authors to find that none of
them had contributed to the manuscript. One did not know about the manuscript
at all. An American consultant living in Tanzania had organized the expedition.
He had contributed extensively to the paper, but was not included in the list of
authors. Shaman had sought to use the list of authors to convey the impression of
equality in the cooperation between the company and ‘authentic’ collaborators in
Tanzania. Finally, the manuscript was never published, and probably this was due
to disagreements between Shaman and some of the ‘authors’.
In conclusion, what we learned in the field about the case showed that there was
no basis for confirming Shaman’s win-win narrative. Was this then an example of
biopiracy supporting the idea that bioprospecting should generally be rejected as
an economic activity in the Global South? We do not believe that bioprospecting
provides a good source of potential income for Tanzania or for traditional healers.
As discussed above, the lack of income is not due to patenting, as contended in the
biopiracy discourse. Nor in this case can it be said to be due to lack of ethics on the
part of the bioprospector, who after all donated more than they needed to in order
to gain access to biological resources and traditional knowledge. On the other
hand, a principal cause why the win-win narrative did not materialize—in fact in
accordance with the win-win discourse—is that the Tanzanian public administration had not established the necessary institutional framework to enable and regulate this type of economic activity.
Even though the pharmaceutical industry remains committed to bioprospecting, this industry currently seems to have become less interested in traditional
knowledge. In looking at bioprospecting around the world for the last few years, it
is almost impossible to find incidents in which this activity provided any substantial income for people who have contributed with traditional knowledge. Some
researchers contend that there are two exceptions. One is that the Kani tribes of the
state of Kerala in India are to receive a considerable share of the income from a
company that sells a natural medicine based on their knowledge. The other is that
the San people of southern Africa have negotiated with the multinational companies Phytoharm and Unilever for their share of the income from a weight reduction
extract made from the Hoodia plant. The San are an indigenous people of an arid
area who traditionally have used Hoodia as an appetite suppressant (Wynberg and
Laird 2007; Wynberg et al. 2009).
Thus, income from bioprospecting has not provided the treasure trove for tropical countries that many delegates to the international biodiversity negotiations in
the 1990s hoped for. An important reason is that corporations do not seem to
depend on continuous supplies of biodiversity samples for their development of
new products. Another reason is the international campaigns against the activity
based on the biopiracy discourse. This may have avoided many cases of exploita3.7 · Tracking American Gene Hunters in Tanzania