Advertisement

Traditional Knowledge

Chapter
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 37)

Abstract

There is an increasing interest in the nature, value, use, preservation and ownership of a wide range of genetic resources that are embodied in populations of microbes, plants, animals, and humans. These resources can be found in situ in organisms in all climates and cultures on land, in the sea, and in the air or ex situ in botanical gardens, gene banks, and public and private research collections. Genetic resources are inextricably intertwined with the environment (including human populations as hosts and users), complicating an already difficult discussion about how to manage them and how to arrange appropriate access and benefits sharing to both the primary genetic resources and any complementary or resulting inventions and innovations.

Keywords

Genetic Resource Indigenous People World Trade Organization Indigenous Community Traditional Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This work was undertaken as part of the VALGEN Project, administered by Genome Canada through Genome Prairie.

References

  1. Alston J, Norton G, Pardey P (1995) Science under scarcity: principles and practice of agricultural research evaluation and priority setting. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  2. Bubela T, Gold ER (2012) Genetic resources and traditional knowledge: case studies and conflicting interests. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castle D, Gold ER (2007) Traditional knowledge and benefit sharing: from compensation to transaction. In: Phillips P, Onweukwe C (eds) Accessing and sharing the benefits of the genomics revolution. Kluwer/Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  4. Convention on Biological Diversity (2013) What is traditional knowledge? http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/socio-eco/traditional/default.asp. Accessed 3 January 2013
  5. Costanza C, Christoffersen L, Anderson C and Short JM. 2007. Deal Making in Bioprospecting. In Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices (eds. A Krattiger, RT Mahoney, L Nelsen, et al.). MIHR: Oxford, U.K., and PIPRA: Davis, U.S.A. Available online at www.ipHandbook.org.
  6. Craig D (2007) Biological resources, Intellectual Property Rights and International Human Rights: impacts on indigenous and local communities. In: Phillips P, Onwuekwe C (eds) Accessing and sharing the benefits of the genomics revolution. Kluwer/Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  7. Crookshanks R, Phillips P (2012) A comparative analysis of access and benefits-sharing systems. In: Bubela T, Gold ER (eds) Genetic resources and traditional knowledge: case studies and conflicting interests. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  8. Dutfield G (2001) TRIPS-related aspects of traditional knowledge. Case W. Res. J. Int’l L 33:233–274Google Scholar
  9. Dutfield G (2004) Developing and implementing national systems for protective traditional knowledge: Experiences in selected developing countries. In: Twarog S, Kapoor P (eds) UNCTAD summary publication protecting and promoting traditional knowledge: systems, national experiences and international dimensions. United Nations Press, Geneva, pp 141–153 www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted10_en.pdf. Accessed 3 January 2013
  10. Economic Commission for Africa (2002) Why industrial revolution missed Africa: a ‘traditional knowledge’ perspective. http://www.uneca.org/docs/Conference_Reports_and_Other_Documents/espd/2002/TKB.pdf. Accessed 3 January 2013
  11. Evenson R (1996) Economic valuation of biodiversity for agriculture. In: Pan American Health Organization (ed) Biodiversity, biotechnology, and sustainable development in health and agriculture: emerging connections. PAHO, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Farnsworth NR (1988) Screening plants for new medicines. In: Wilson EO, Peter FM (eds) Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington DC, pp 83–97Google Scholar
  13. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Hansen S, van Fleet J (2003) Traditional knowledge and Intellectual property: a handbook on issues and options for traditional knowledge holders in protecting their intellectual property and maintaining biological diversity. American Academy for the Advancement of Science, Washington DC, http://shr.aaas.org/tek/handbook/. Accessed 3 January 2013
  15. Hansen S, van Fleet J (2009) Issues and options for traditional knowledge holders in protecting their intellectual property. In: Krattinger A et al (eds) ipHandbook of best practices. MIHR (Oxford, UK), PIPRA (Davis, US) and Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) and bioDevelopments-International Institute (Ithaca, US). http://www.iphandbook.org/handbook/ch16/p06/. Accessed 15 October 2012
  16. Jensen M, Johnson B, Lorenz E et al (2007) Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Resear Pol 36:680–693Google Scholar
  17. Just R, Hueth D (1993) Multimarket Exploitation: The Case of Biotechnology and Chemicals. Am J Agri Eco 75:936–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mandelsohn R (1999) The market value of farmers’ rights. In: Santaniello V et al (eds) Agriculture and Intellectual Property Rights: economic institutional and implementation issues in biotechnology. CAB International, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Medaglia J (2007) Bioprocessing partnerships in practice: a decade of experiences at INBio in Costa Rica. In: Phillips P, Onweukwe C (eds) Accessing and sharing the benefits of the genomics revolution. Kluwer/Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  20. Mgbeoji I (2007) Lost in translation? The rhetoric of protecting indigenous peoples’ knowledge in International law and the omnipresent reality of biopiracy. In: Phillips P, Onweukwe C (eds) Accessing and sharing the benefits of the genomics revolution. Kluwer/Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  21. Nnadozie K (2012) Old wine in new skin: traditional knowledge and customary law under the evolving normative environment in Kenya. In: Bubela T, Gold ER (eds) Genetic resources and traditional knowledge: case studies and conflicting interests. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  22. Pardey P, Alston J, Christian J, Fan S (1996) Hidden harvest: US benefits from International research aid. IFPRI, Washington DC, USA http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/pr6.pdf. Accessed 15 October 2012
  23. Phillips P, Onwuekwe C (eds) (2007) Accessing and sharing the benefits of the genomics revolution. Kluwer/Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  24. Phillips P, Ryan C (2010) Governance of International networks: a social network analysis of International institutions related to plant genetic resources. Political Studies Association, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  25. Phillips P, Zhang S, Williams T DeBusschere L (2012) Canada’s first Nations’ policies and practices related to managing traditional knowledge. In: Bubela T, Gold ER (eds) Genetic resources and traditional knowledge: case studies and conflicting interests. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  26. Posey DA (ed) (1999) Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  27. Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute (2004) Report on disclosure of origin in patent applications. European Commission, DG-Trade, Brussels, Belgium http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2005/june/tradoc_123533.pdf. Accessed 15 October 2012
  28. Richards M-A (2008) Cultural and economic importance of traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions and genetic resources for Caribbean countries. Presentation at WIPO/GRTK/KIN/08 Meeting, Kingston, Jamaica, March 18. http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=114456. Accessed 15 October 2012
  29. Rodriques E Jr (2012) Property rights, biocultural resources and two tragedies: some lessons from Brazil. In: Bubela T, Gold ER (eds) Genetic resources and traditional knowledge: case studies and conflicting interests. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  30. Scotchmer S (2004) Innovation and incentives. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000) Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the convention on biological diversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  32. Shiva V (2001) Protect or plunder? Understanding intellectual property rights. Zed Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Stone D (1989) Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Polit Sci Quart 104(2):281–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sullivan S (2004) Plant genetic resources and the law: past, present, and future. Plant Physiol 135(1):10–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. ten Kate K, Laird SA (1999) The commercial use of biodiversity: access to genetic resources and benefit sharing. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Thornstrom C-G (2009) Access and benefit sharing: understanding the rules for collection and use of biological materials. In: Krattinger A et al (eds) ipHandbook of Best Practices, MIHR (Oxford, UK), PIPRA (Davis, US) and Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) and bioDevelopments-International Institute (Ithaca, US). http://www.iphandbook.org/handbook/ch16/p02/. Accessed 15 October 2012
  37. Tully S (2003) The Bonn guidelines on access to genetic resources and benefit sharing. Rev Eur Commun & Int Environ Law 12(1):84–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Twarog S (2004) Preserving, protecting and promoting traditional knowledge: national actions and international dimensions. In: Twarog S, Kapoor P (eds) UNCTAD summary publication protecting and promoting traditional knowledge: systems, national experiences and international dimensions. United Nations Press, Geneva. www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted10_en.pdf. Accessed 3 January 2013
  39. UN Environmental Program (UNEP), Convention on biological diversity (1996) Fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. Conference of the Parties to the Convention of Biological Diversity UNEP/CBD/COP/3/Inf53. http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/abs/absep-01/other/absep-01-equitable-en.pdf. Accessed 5 March 2013
  40. Vermeylen S (2007) Contextualizing ‘fair’ and ‘equitable’: the San’s reflections on the Hoodia benefit-sharing agreement. Local Environ 12:423–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wynberg R, Laird S (2007) Bioprospecting. Environ 49(10):20–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations