Home > Topics > Bioprospecting, Traditional Knowledge, and Benefit Sharing > Bioprospecting Arrangements: Cooperation between the North and the South > Editor's Summary, Implications and Best Practices

This chapter describes an organizational model for responsible governance of bioprospecting arrangements between institutions in the North and the South based upon the International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups (ICBG) program of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). Core assumptions behind the model are that resources and expertise from both the North and the South are required for bioprospecting to succeed and that incentives need to be properly aligned for both to be fully engaged and committed. To achieve such alignment of incentives, the ICBG model provides for a clear definition of the benefits that might arise from a project, a clear recognition of all parties involved, guidelines for negotiation among those parties, and a formal structure for the resulting agreement. The agreement contains the scope and objectives of the project, the long-term benefit sharing scheme and milestones, as well as terms for IP ownership, informed consent, and royalty distribution. Details of how the ICBG model works in practice are illustrated with an example of one such bioprospecting arrangement between the University of Illinois at Chicago, research institutes in Vietnam and Laos, and GlaxoSmithKline.

The specific aims of the UIC-Vietnam-Laos ICBG were:

• The discovery of biopharmaceuticals in the plants of Vietnam and Laos and the development of drugs to treat cancer, AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, pain, and diseases that affect the central nervous system (particularly Alzheimer’s disease)
• Creating a biodiversity inventory and conserving biodiversity, with a specific focus on plants of Cuc Phuong National Park and medicinal plants of Laos
• Aiding economic development in cooperating communities
• Capacity building among the collaborating institutions in the host countries

As for issues relating to IP rights, the program agreement established how this was to be managed, importantly so as to avoid subsequent misunderstandings. For example, in the event of a relevant UIC discovery, the IP office of the UIC would determine the ownership of any resulting intellectual property with the assistance of the members of the Group. The named inventors could consist of individuals from any of the consortium members. In the event that an invention or discovery were to be made at GlaxoSmithKline based on plants that were collected or acquired within the ICBG framework, GlaxoSmithKline would determine the ownership of any resulting intellectual property with the assistance of all members of the consortium. The named inventors might consist of individuals from nay or all of the consortium members.

Informed consent was another critical issued covered. There were two provisions regarding informed consent in the Vietnam-Laos ICBG agreement:

1. Informed consent in the case of collection and use of plant/genetic materials
2. Informed consent of individuals and their communities regarding traditional medicinal use or uses of a plant

Prior informed consent was to be secured before the implementation of the work. The governments of Vietnam and Laos were acknowledged as the owners of the genetic materials and their derivatives in their respective countries.

Fundamentally, the ICBG model recognizes and emphasizes the importance of several parties and the outcomes that may be important to them, both of which are often overlooked in typical international research consortia or business agreements. These additional parties include the poor communities and the regional authorities in locations where biodiversity prospecting is to be conducted, and the additional objectives include biodiversity conservation, institutional capacity building, and regional economic development. The standards established by the ICBG program are important in that they emphasize the core principles of capacity building and community reciprocity. Bioprospecting activities such as outlined in this chapter, in which poor communities in developing countries are cooperating with clear understanding and goodwill, can thereby serve as a model for future similar agreements and initiatives.

Key Implications and Best Practices

Given that IP management is heavily context specific, these Key Implications and Best Practices are intended as starting points to be adapted to specific needs and circumstances.

For Government Policymakers

• Local, and often poor, populations play a significant role as the actual “curators” or “gatekeepers” to a country’s potential biodiversity wealth. They are the regional specialists, with knowledge about the flora and fauna that can often exceed that of leading scientists. Disregarding or alienating these stakeholders can be counterproductive to the success of biodiversity prospecting or conservation. Hence, they should participate in negotiating policies and agreements concerning regional biodiversity. This approach can also have a potential upside in terms of channeling resources and building institutions for that region.

For Senior Management (university president, R&D manager, etc)

• As both ownership and liability resulting from bioprospecting activities will reside with the institution, legally and politically, it is essential to structure the inter-institutional relationships in a way that maximizes responsible action and minimizes risk. The International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups (ICBG) model is an example of best practices in IP management, with clear terms defining the institution’s roles, and sufficiently thorough pre-negotiation of terms to prevent any subsequent unpleasant surprises.

For Scientists

• Your fieldwork and sample collection activities are of significant importance. Genetic resources and biodiversity can be highly contested, particularly in today’s global political environment. It is important to be confident that your activities are legally and politically practicable. Therefore, the International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups (ICBG) program exemplifies the extent to which international and inter-institutional infrastructure may need to be put in place to enable and support these activities.

For Technology Transfer Officers

• Your skills in crafting and negotiating agreements may be called upon in new arenas, such as bioprospecting, in which your institution’s scientists are engaged but which reach beyond what you have likely encountered in your typical technology transfer activities. Yet, bioprospecting contains a number of elements that may be familiar from multi-institutional research agreements, including ownership terms and biological material transfers. The biodiversity access agreements crafted by the International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups (ICBG) can serve as a model or starting point for your work in this interesting area.