Re: Nat'l parks seek share of profitable science

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iow81C7T3kx5D2CEIxoOQpoPyyAAD9C9AVE82

Nat'l parks seek to share in profitable science


CHEYENNE, Wyo. — A soon-to-be-implemented policy for scientists who are permitted to conduct research in national parks will give the National Park Service a share of any profits from their work.

The policy is expected to go into effect early next year following more than a decade of concern and a lawsuit over "bioprospecting" in Yellowstone National Park. Bioprospecting — a hybrid of the words "biodiversity" and "prospecting" — is the search for organisms that promise scientific breakthroughs in medicine and chemistry.

"This is about the public, which owns places like Yellowstone, getting some kind of benefit if someone has a commercial product based on research which started in the park," said Yellowstone spokesman Al Nash.

The new "benefits sharing" policy doesn't specify what percentage of profits the National Park Service should receive in every case. But a document released Monday outlining the policy offers a rough estimate of the potential benefit to the park system — between $635,000 and $3.9 million a year, eventually......

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2009 07:04PM by Frank Furter.

More on this topic:
http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/article.php?art_id=5417

Green groups criticize bioprospecting plan

Environmental groups are criticizing a plan that allows national parks to claim a cut of the profits from products that result from scientific discoveries made within their borders.

The groups — Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the Edmonds Institute, Alliance for Wild Rockies, Wilderness Watch and the International Center for Technology Assessment — have sent a 10-page letter to National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis asking him to reconsider the proposal. Other groups, including the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and the National Parks Conservation Association, have expressed support for the concept......

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

I really have a hard time understanding why this kind of research would be considered a drain on park resources. Why would enviromental groups take aim at test tube researchers? This seems to be an extremely small impact activity. How would it be any different from ongoing park research efforts relative to the ecosystem and wildlife habitat?

Quote
tomdisco
I really have a hard time understanding why this kind of research would be considered a drain on park resources. Why would enviromental groups take aim at test tube researchers? This seems to be an extremely small impact activity. How would it be any different from ongoing park research efforts relative to the ecosystem and wildlife habitat?

There seem to be three areas of objection:
1. complexity cost (paperwork etc) will likely exceed profit
2. no boilerplate agreements
3. lack of transparency if there is any hint that disclosure will benefit the researcher/explorer's competitors.

What does come to mind is the recent Indian trust land situation and settlement where the administration of the programs to distribute $100 in revenue from some lands cost something like $20K in government administrative fees. I don't know if that is the sitch here, but overhead can really eat up any profit on a small contract.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan