/* ---------- "Hunting for Indigenous People's Genes" ---------- */
Escrito 8:24 PM Apr 25, 1995 por twn@igc.apc.org
APC Conference: igc:twn.features
HUNTING FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLE'S GENES
The US-based Human Genome Diversity Project's intention of
taking tissue samples from 700 endangered indigenous
societies in the name of science and global benefits has
been shown in a recent TV documentary as being a form of
exploitation.
By Marcus Colchester
The wave of international concern for vanishing biological
diversity has identified a new field for prospecting -
vanishing peoples. The US-based Human Genome Diversity
Project is intent on collecting tissue samples from 700
endangered indigenous societies, whom it refers to as
`isolates of historic interest'. It aims to `immortalise'
them, by establishing viable cell lines in laboratories, in
order to search for unique DNA sequences that may offer
clues to genetically-caused diseases and to potentially
lucrative cures.
A recent fascinating television documentary, `The Gene
Hunters', by independent TV producer Luke Holland, confronts
us with the moral dilemmas of this `genetic goldrush'. The
film was produced by Zef Productions and shown over Channel
4 in Britain on 26 February.
The proponents of the Human Genome Project argue that the
collection, and eventually patenting, of rare human cell-
types and genes from these peoples is justified for the
`greater human good' - the applied science provides a short
cut to new cures.
The peoples themselves, however, have rather different
opinions, as this film so sensitively brings out. Explains
Leonora Zalabata, spokeswoman for the Arhuaco people of
northern Colombia: `Our land, our culture, our sub-soil, our
ideology and our traditions have all been exploited. This
could be another form of exploitation. Only this time they
are using us as raw materials.'
George Annas, Professor of Medical Ethics of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, agrees: `We're taking
from them their DNA, which we now consider like gold. It's
even worse than standard colonialism and exploitation
because we are taking the one thing that we value. And after
we take that we have no real interest in whether they live
or die.'
Nor has Ray Apodaca of the National Congress of American
Indians much sympathy for the `pure science' justification
of this research - that it will reveal the history of human
migrations.
`We know where we came from, and we know who we are, and we
think we know where we are going. Why do we need to know
anything else? I mean, is this for their benefit? It
certainly isn't for ours.'
He reminds us of earlier `scientific' investigations into
the unique characteristics of native Americans, which led to
hundreds of Indian graves being robbed in the last century
to measure skull sizes and estimate racial intelligence.
Taking people's blood and other tissues in the name of
science and global benefits today is not very different and
has led to bitter recriminations.
Behind the new rhetoric lie the same attitudes, which treat
indigenous peoples as inferior and ignorant, and therefore
deny their rights.
`They haven't been honest. They haven't told the indigenous
authorities what they are looking for. We think the way they
have taken away these samples is arbitrary. We don't want to
be guinea pigs for their experiments,' explains Leonora
Zalabata.
The complaint highlights the key issue in this moral debate
- `informed consent'. Do the individuals who are giving
these samples know what happens to them? Are they consulted
about further applications of the scientific findings? Are
they assured of a share of any benefits? High in the Sierra
Nevada in Colombia we learn the truth, as geneticists from
the Bogota-based Genetics Institute, accompanied by
scientists from the pharmaceuticals giant Hoffman-La Roche,
draw blood from isolated Asario Indians.
`In fact, we don't tell every community that we are
immortalising their cells,' Dr Alberto Gomez admits to
camera. On the contrary, we learn, the Indians are persuaded
to allow their blood to be taken because the visiting
doctors offer them one-off medical treatments, which these
isolated peoples otherwise have little chance of obtaining.
Nor, we learn later, do the communities get informed about
any scientific findings. Patents are being taken out without
the knowledge and consent of the local people. Indeed in a
startling test case documented in this well researched film,
the California Supreme Court has already ruled that a
biotech company may patent a person's genes even where he
has not only refused to give his consent but taken the
matter to court.
Here, then, is a process which not only denies the
collective rights of indigenous peoples to control their own
destinies but also the individual rights of US citizens to
own their own cells. Business profits get priority and there
are, potentially, hundreds of millions in the making.
Is it ethical to ignore tribal peoples' rights and interests
for the `greater good'? George Annas thinks not: `It is
virtually impossible to get the informed consent of
indigenous people for this. Number one, I think, because if
they understand the project they would refuse and, number
two, if they don't understand they can't give consent. So it
is total exploitation. It is taking things which can be of
no benefit to them.'
Scientists, however, are concerned that there may never be
another chance to take their samples: the peoples may die
out taking their genetic secrets with them. One way out of
this conundrum might be benefit sharing; entering into
contracts with indigenous peoples to ensure that they get a
cut of any profits. It's a problematic suggestion. In the
first place, as the film reminds us, most indigenous people
have learned to mistrust foreigners' false promises. They
will be hesitant to enter into new agreements based on
trust. And, if there is to be benefit sharing, how will you
ensure that the profits return to the community in an
appropriate form and who will vigilate the honouring of
agreements?
The producer's sympathies for the rights of the indigenous
peoples are clear, but he leaves us to make up our own minds
about the best solutions to this moral dilemma. For me, it
is the lessons of Leonora Zalabata that will stick in my
mind:
`Science and technology solve problems, but they are also
aggressive. But our way of looking after humanity and
helping to save the world, of looking after the earth and
making a brotherhood of mankind is done without technology.
Our technology is in the head, the heart and the spirit.
That is different.'
The only just solution is to enforce a respect for human
rights. As George Annas concludes: `We need to secure their
future as peoples, not just immortalise their genes.' --
Third World Network Features
- ends -
About the writer: Marcus Colchester is the Co-ordinator of
the World Rainforest Movement.
When reproducing this feature, please credit Third World
Network Features and (if applicable) the cooperating
magazine or agency involved in the article, and give the
byline. Please send us cuttings.
1321/95
Published by Third World Network
228, Macalister Road,
10400 Penang,
Malaysia.
Email: twn@igc.apc.org;
Tel: (+604)2293511;
Fax: (+604)364505.