Modern biotechnology, or genetic engineering, is one of the fastest-growing industries in the world, writes Rachel Wynberg
Genes are hot property in South Africa: they are sold and exchanged to industry by private individuals, universities and parastatals such as the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and the National Botanical Institute.
But whose property are they to sell? Is South Africa benefiting from the surge of commercialising biological resources for new drugs, foods and other useful products?
The commercial use of wild species and genetic resources is taking place on a scale unprecedented in history, linking markets in virtually every corner of the globe, and involving a diverse array of living organisms – from deep-sea microbes to fungi, plants and animals.
It is likely this rapid commercialisation of biodiversity will have profound implications – not only for its conservation and use, but also for the democratic control of food and medicine.
Why is commercialisation occurring at such a vigorous pace?
First and foremost, governments and the private sector are increasingly realising the economic value and potential of biodiversity.
In 1997 natural product-derived pharmaceuticals alone contributed some $120-billion to global pharmaceutical sales, approximating 40% of total sales. For raw botanical materials, world trade was estimated at $8-billion in 1997.
Modern biotechnology – or genetic engineering – in particular is one of the fastest-growing industries in the world. Many of the large multinational companies, such as Monsanto, Novartis, Zeneca and American Home Products, have positioned themselves as “life science giants”, some with annual turnovers between $20-billion and $30-billion.
Technological advances have also played a key role in the recent rush for “green gold”. New biotechnologies like genetic engineering open up a spectrum of opportunities whereby genes from the world’s entire genetic pool can be modified and interchanged across species barriers.
A further reason for renewed interest in using wild species is increasing concern about threats to biodiversity and the declining number of species on the planet. The present period is described as being in the “early stages of the greatest decimation of plant and animal life in 65- million years”.
Such losses are being realised as “opportunity costs” that may preclude future discoveries of useful products.
Finally, and perhaps most pervasively, globalisation has resulted in vast economic and information webs that link disparate parts of the world. With the ease of pressing a button, thousands of different organisms can be ordered through the Internet, and within several hours these can be transported from one part of the world to another.
Throughout the world, public and private sectors alike are embracing the commercialising of biodiversity as a conservation and development strategy.
Supportive policies and, in the case of the private sector, aggressive commercial strategies are being adopted for pursuing biotechnology, bioprospecting and widepread trade in wild species. Increasingly, these activities are touted as innovative solutions to the global biodiversity crisis.
Biodiversity, it is argued, cannot be adequately conserved without economic return. The rationale is that, through using biodiversity, ecosystems will be sufficiently profitable to economically outcompete alternative and more degrading uses.
Of course, the question that must be asked is whether biodiversity commercialisation will result in real benefits for conservation, food security and development, and if so, under which conditions. The question is especially poignant for South Africa, poised between developing and industrialised economies, and containing some of the most important repositories of biodiversity in the world.
Increasingly, the country is being regarded as a springboard by companies to penetrate into other African markets, and also to facilitate access to the genetic resources of other countries in the region.
The reasons for this are clear. The country has a well-developed infrastructure, considerable scientific and technical capacity, comprehensive knowledge of the fauna and flora, and a well-managed system of protected areas.
For companies interested in pursuing biotechnology, the policy environment is extremely favourable. Unlike Europe, where public resistance has forced virtually all major food producers to ban genetically modified ingredients, the South African public is still largely uninformed, and the debate has mostly been confined to those involved in science and industry.
Although legislation exists to regulate genetic engineering, it has yet to be implemented and is extremely inadequate in terms of addressing the ecological, ethical and health concerns associated with the technology.
Equally contentious issues are raised by bioprospecting activities in South Africa, although the drawcard here is largely the country’s remarkable and unique biodiversity.
Bioprospecting – the exploration of biodiversity for commercially valuable genetic and biochemical resources – is without doubt on the increase in South Africa. Almost weekly, pharmaceutical and other companies and their intermediaries are arriving in the country, either collecting biological material and leaving, or striking up deals with private individuals and research institutes.
Some of the key agreements to recently emerge include:
l A collaborative venture between the CSIR and the international pharmaceutical companies Phytopharm and Pfizer to develop an indigenous plant species into an anti- obesity drug.
l An imminent agreement between the Chicago-based Ball Horticultural Company and the National Botanical Institute to develop South Africa’s plant resources for ornamental purposes.
l An agreement between the University of Rhodes and the National Cancer Institute in the United States to explore the potential of South Africa’s marine biodiversity for anti-cancer compounds.
l The development of a bioprospecting consortium between the CSIR, the Agriculture Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the National Botanical Institute and the universities of Cape Town, the North and the Western Cape.
In the absence of legislation to control access to South African genetic resources, and administrative mechanisms to oversee benefit-sharing, these and other agreements throughout the country require careful scrutiny, to ensure they are in keeping with our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity and indeed with national policy articulated in the White Paper on Biodiversity, adopted in 1997.
In particular, questions need to be asked about:
l How local communities, farmers, healers and others holding traditional knowledge are to benefit from products derived from their knowledge.
l Whether the prior informed consent of local communities or private landowners is obtained prior to the collection of material.
l How conservation is to be strengthened by the initiative.
l How the agreement takes into consideration the need to stimulate economic development in the most disadvantaged parts of the country and sections of the population.
l Whether patents or plant breeders’ rights are being taken on any products, to whom such rights are assigned, and the ethics of patenting life forms.
l How South Africa’s science and technology capacity is being built through the agreement.
l Whether steps have been taken to minimise environmental impacts in collection.
l How funds generated from the project are to be disbursed equitably.
Research indicates that few of the agreements under way have clear and specific articulations of these issues.
With one or two exceptions, it would seem South Africa has far from optimised benefits from its natural heritage, and instead has unwittingly sold genetic resources and knowledge on the cheap. Unfortunately, it would seem that the new ethos of benefit-sharing ushered in by the Biodiversity Convention is still largely embedded in rhetoric.
It is also important to recognise some of the limitations of bioprospecting. Contrary to popular thought, it is very rare indeed that significant monetary benefits are obtained from collaborations.
Commercial ventures are risky and costly, and the likelihood of discovering a valuable compound is low. For pharmaceuticals, only one in 10 000 compounds yields a promising lead, and it then takes five to 10 years to develop a marketable product.
On the contrary, non-monetary or “process” benefits can be significant – providing opportunities for training and collaboration, technology transfer, infrastructure development, species inventories and so on. Also important to realise is that South Africa has neither the resources nor capacity to pursue developments in the pharmaceutical or biotechnology industries alone.
Having said this, we can ill afford to be politically naive about the interests of such industries, and about the wisdom of being wooed by overly sophisticated and perhaps inappropriate technologies.
Should we not, for example, dedicate more resources to the local commercial development of natural products that require low technological inputs, such as herbal medicines and cosmetics, essential oils and indigenous food and drink?
Should we not be involved in determining for ourselves the most appropriate intellectual property regimes to adopt? Should we not be looking creatively at the use of biotechnology in South Africa, and the possibility of establishing “genetic engineering-free” agriculture, whose products will immediately find favour with northern hemisphere consumers?
Should we not be forming strategic alliances with our neighbours, many of whom share our biological resources?
The vast biological riches of the region provide some exciting prospects for social and economic upliftment, and for improved conservation. Opportunities also abound in the tremendous human resources available. But to prevent the loss of these public resources, action must be taken soon.
Rachel Wynberg is Western Cape co-ordinator of Biowatch South Africa, a national NGO investigating the commercialisation of biodiversity
@Bill will alleviate suffering of terminally ill
The End of Life Decisions Bill should not be delayed by a premature debate on euthanasia, cautions Selma Browde
It is of utmost importance that the recommendations of the South African Law Commission with regard to terminally ill patients have the force of law as soon as possible.
They should go a long way towards relieving the unnecessary suffering endured by too many terminally ill patients.
The draft Bill is not a “euthanasia Bill”, as it is so often mistakenly called – it is entitled the End of Life Decisions Bill 1999, and is an annexure to the report of the law commission.
The Bill consists of eight clauses. Only one deals with active voluntary euthanasia, and in such a manner that it gives three possible options as the basis of discussion.
The other clauses deal with end of life decisions that comply with moral and ethical principles. These are the substance of the Bill, and should not be delayed in Parliament by a premature debate on euthanasia.
There should be absolute clarity on the issues involved. At the moment there seems to be much confusion, aggravated by the use of the term “passive euthanasia”.
This term is commonly used to describe the withholding or withdrawing of life- sustaining treatment. Cessation of curative treatment or of futile artificial measures to prolong life is not euthanasia.
Euthanasia is an active process, and there is no such thing as passive euthanasia. The word “euthanasia” is an emotive one, and causes confusion. The phrase “passive euthanasia” should be removed from the literature on the topic.
The important message that needs to be brought to the attention of the medical profession and the public is the distinction between euthanasia and palliative care. The distinction is one of intent.
Today the accepted definition of euthanasia is “the intention to end the life of a patient in order to relieve unbearable suffering”, whereas the intention of palliative care is to relieve suffering and distress.
Confusion among doctors and nurses regarding what is morally and legally acceptable practice often results in reluctance to administer the necessary medication to a dying patient who may suffer a tortured death without relief of pain, or even worse, struggling to breathe.
There is no code of ethics or legal precedent that prevents doctors and nurses acting in a compassionate and humanitarian manner.
Why, then, is legislation necessary? And why do doctors often find it difficult to make these decisions?
The answer, paradoxically, lies in the extraordinary advances in the science of medicine over the past 50 or 60 years which have enabled doctors to prolong life. This often means prolonging suffering, and sometimes even causing it.
In the excitement of the ability to cure disease far beyond any previous expectations, the thrust of the teaching became curative. The approach at medical schools worldwide became disease-oriented, not patient-oriented.
Doctors and nurses are not adequately trained in the methods of relieving pain and symptoms which have developed over the past two decades, nor are they trained to consider that the anxieties and other emotions of the patient are of primary importance.
It is essential that all health practitioners be trained in the relatively new branch of medicine known as palliative medicine. This is defined as medical and nursing care of the patient intended to alleviate suffering but not to cure. It includes not only physical suffering of pain and symptoms, but also emotional, psychosocial and spiritual suffering of the patient and the family.
It should be incorporated with the curative management of all patients at all stages of any disease, but in the terminally ill palliative care becomes the major or the total management. It is ideally a team effort and is concerned with the quality of life.
The ethical principles of palliative care include the right of an individual to make decisions for himself about treatment and care, and whether any treatment or artificial means of prolonging life should be continued.
The draft Bill makes provision for this. It also legalises the “living will” – a document, signed by an individual in advance, stating choices regarding withholding or cessation of artificial measures prolonging life should they ever be in a situation where they are unable to express their choice verbally.
A cardinal principle of palliative care is known as double or secondary effect. It is most important to understand this principle, which is accepted today by medical ethicists, the various religions and the common law.
This refers to relieving the suffering of a dying patient by giving whatever doses of the appropriate medications are necessary to relieve the suffering, even if it hastens the moment of death.
The myths about morphine, still prevalent in medical and non-medical circles, are responsible for much unrelieved suffering.
Morphine is not addictive when given for pain, as pain is an antagonist to morphine. When given correctly for illnesses such as cancer, Aids or other protracted conditions, it does not cause respiratory depression and death.
Palliative medicine specialists state that once a patient has been on morphine for 24 to 48 hours, one can give as much as is needed (the ceiling dose is unlimited) without danger of killing the patient. This is borne out by the fact that when euthanasia has been performed, various lethal substances were used, but never morphine!
There would be very little call for euthanasia if palliative care were incorporated in the teaching of all health professionals. The Palliative Medicine Institute, established in Gauteng in September last year for education and training in palliative care, is involved in getting it into the mainstream of medicine, both hospital- and home-based.
It is intended to be a national resource centre for anyone in the country requiring information or material.
The task of those concerned with alleviating the suffering of the terminally ill will be made far easier when the Bill finally becomes law.
Professor Selma Browde is the founder and medical director of the Palliative Medicine Institute