Face Cream from Antarctica

A recent Reuters article addressed a little-considered but important problem: bioprospecting in the Antarctic. Making money by developing naturally occurring organisms into marketable products is nothing new, but whether it's a strain of rice unique to one geographic region or algae from a region ostensibly owned by nobody, profiting from, and patenting, nature brings up many issues of sovereignty and ownership.

Although Antarctica is a continent devoted to scientific research, bioprospecting is not forbidden unless used to develop military technology. Bioprospecting typically means that someone has developed a product from some part of an organism. It's different from fishing or farming in that the organism more provides raw material that is developed into something else, such as cosmetics or pharmaceuticals. So Antarctic research has the potential to make discoveries that companies would find attractive - cancer-fighting chemicals, for instance. But how does this square with the idea that Antarctic scientists should freely share data? As the article notes, some fear that scientists will begin holding back data until patents are filed (typically, organisms as a whole cannot be patented but processes or substances found in an organism can be). Motives for profit may also impact the kind of research and the methods used. For example, the drive to discover new and exotic life forms in Antarctica may lead to increased research in ecologically sensitive areas like sub-glacial lakes.

Developing medicines from Antarctic organisms is not a bad thing. But policymakers should probably lay down some guidelines to ensure that the continent isn't trampled in a race to find an enzyme that helps prevent wrinkles or keeps commercially prepared ice cream smooth - both examples of Antarctic-derived products mentioned in the article. Furthermore, since the continent technically belongs to nobody, is it necessarily fair that countries with the resources to sponsor research programs will get even richer off of their Antarctic discoveries? Although pharmaceutical companies certainly devote substantial resources toward developing new drugs, should they be the only ones to benefit from the original research done by government - sponsored science?

Is there a way to divide up profits from Antarctic research fairly?

Does Antarctica Hold the Cure for TB?

An India-based pharmaceutical research company, Piramal Life Sciences, is investigating several promising medical treatments derived from Antarctic bacteria. Because of Antarctica's extremely cold weather, the bacteria found there are often not found anywhere else in the world. While it is too early to know how effective these drugs will be or exactly how they work, Piramal's announcement underscores the need for strict oversight of human activities in Antarctica. It would be a shame if other beneficial bacteria were inadvertently destroyed or altered by pollution before we have a chance to study them.

For this reason, ASOC has encouraged those conducting research in Antarctica to do so with extreme caution. For example, researchers are eager to learn more about subglacial lakes that have been cut off from the outside world for centuries. The likelihood that these untouched lakes possess some or many organisms and microbes found nowhere else in the world is high, and drilling through the ice that covers them must be done carefully to prevent contamination. Until we know more about the lakes' ecosystems, we cannot know if the organisms that live there would survive contact with external chemicals and microbes. This is particularly true in the case of Lake Vostok.

While widespread bioprospecting of Antarctica would no doubt bring its own environmental challenges, responsible use of scientific discoveries could prove tremendously beneficial to mankind. Minimizing human impacts on the continent will ensure that we preserve Antarctica's unique organisms long enough to understand and study them.