On Thu, 5 Oct 1995, Edward Hammond wrote:
> INDIGENOUS PERSON FROM PAPUA NEW GUINEA CLAIMED
> IN US GOVERNMENT PATENT
>
> "Another major step down the road to the commodification of life"
> says Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) Director Pat Mooney.
>
> RAFI moves to take the life patenting issue to the World Court.
>
> Patenting Indigenous People
>
> In an unprecedented move, the United States Government has issued itself a
> patent on a foreign citizen. On March 14, 1995, an indigenous man of the
> Hagahai people from Papua New Guinea's remote highlands ceased to own his
> genetic material. While the rest of the world is seeking to protect the
> knowledge and resources of indigenous people, the National Institutes of
> Health (NIH) is patenting them. "This patent is another major step down
> the road to the commodification of life...
I hope that no one thinks that I am defending the U.S. government when I
say the following. If this "news" represents "Another major step down the
road to the commodification of life" it's one that was taken a long time
ago.
Many vaccines and other products were originally produced with material
from human beings. The fact that scientists are now finding useful
genetic material from different ethnic groups has more to do with the fact
that their isolation has ended than anything else.
The press release also betrays a real failure to understand what _is_
commodified when a patent is granted: the right to keep others from
producing your product. In this case the "product" is a derivative of a
person's genes. That person's gene's were commodified the instant they
left his or her body and someone was willing to spend money for them. The
NIH was granted a patent on a derivative of that material. It doesn't own
anything within the person's skin. It doesn't own the person. It doesn't
have any claim to so much as the sweat in their footprints.
If you have qualms about the Human Genome Project, state them outright.
The scientists who run it claim it's just to have some idea of how
human genetics work. If you think that it has some ulterior motive, what
is it? Profit? What in the world is not motivated by profit?
If you want to stop indigenous peoples from being exploited, you'll
either have to re-isolate them (impossible) or communicate to them how
valuable their knowledge is to the technological societies.
Like I said, I hope that no one mistakes me for a defender of the US
government or genetic patenting or engineering.
-Jeff Keohane