Advertisement

Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 9, Issue 11, pp 1521–1541 | Cite as

From Norway to Novartis: cyclosporin from Tolypocladium inflatum in an open access bioprospecting regime

  • Hanne Svarstad
  • Hans Chr. Bugge
  • Shivcharn S. Dhillion
Article

Abstract

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) introduces a new regime of source countries' national sovereignty over genetic resources, in which benefit sharing is a central factor. This article shows how Tolypocladium inflatum was collected in Norway in 1969 within an open access regime implying that there is no benefit sharing with the source country from Novartis' present sales of the derived medicines based on cyclosporin. We estimate source country's loss of benefits in comparison with present norms and expectations concerning bioprospecting. Two percent annual royalties would have been a reasonable claim in this case, and in 1997 this amounted to US$ 24.3 million. Such benefits could, for instance, have been targeted to conservation, scientific capacity building and health care. The study provides an indication of possible gains for source countries – countries with developed as well as developing economies – in a case of the finding of a blockbuster drug. Institutional prerequisites for benefit sharing are discussed, and the emphasis, which often is placed on the role of patents as the cause of lack of source country benefits, is in this case found to be misleading.

bioprospecting Convention on Biological Diversity cyclosporin genetic resources hyphomycetes Novartis Tolypocladium inflatum 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anon. (1997) Healthcare products top Novartis' growth agenda. European Chemical News, MarchGoogle Scholar
  2. Anon. (1998a) Novartis puts in a strong first year performance. European Chemical News, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  3. Anon. (1998b) Bioprospecting – temperate fungi tapped for drugs. Chemistry & Industry 6(16) MarchGoogle Scholar
  4. Aylward BA (1993) The Economic Value of Pharmaceutical Prospecting and its Role in Biodiversity Conservation. London Environmental Economics Centre, London. Discussion Paper DP 93–05, IIEDGoogle Scholar
  5. Baath E and Söderström B (1979) Mikrosvamper i svenska barskogsjordar. Svensk Bot. Tidskr. 72: 343–349Google Scholar
  6. Baker JT, Borris RP, Carte B, Cordell GA, Soejarto DD, Cragg GM, Gupta MP, Iwu MM, Madulid DR and Tyler VE (1995) Natural product drug discovery and development – new perspectives on international collaboration. Journal of Natural Products – Lloydia 58(9): 1325–1357Google Scholar
  7. Balakrishnan K and Pandey A (1996) The panorama of cyclosporin research. Journal of Basic Microbiology 36(2): 121–147Google Scholar
  8. Bell J (1997) Biopiracy's latest disguises. Seedling (The Quarterly Newsletter of Genetic Resources Action International) 14(2)Google Scholar
  9. Bisset J (1983) Notes on Tolypocladium and related genera. Canadian Journal of Botany 61: 1311–1329Google Scholar
  10. Bisset J and Parkinson D (1979) The distribution of fungi in some alpine soils. Canadian Journal of Botany 57: 1609–1629Google Scholar
  11. Borel JF and Kis ZL (1991) The discovery and development of cyclosporine (Sandimmune). Transplantation Proceedings 23(2): 1867–1874Google Scholar
  12. Borel JF, Feurer C, Gubler HU and Stähelin H (1976) Biological effects of cyclosporin A: a new antilymphocytic agent. Agents and Actions 6(4): 468–475Google Scholar
  13. Borel JF, Feurer C, Magnee C and Stähelin HF (1977) Effects of the new anti-lymphocytic peptide cyclosporin A in animals. Immunology 32: 1017–1025Google Scholar
  14. Brown K and Moran D (1994) Valuing biodiversity: the scope and limitations of economic analysis. In: Sánchez V and Juma C (eds) Biodiplomacy. Genetic Resources and International Relations, pp 213–232. ACTS Press, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  15. Chapela IH (1997) Using fungi from a node of biodiversity: conservation and property rights in Oaxacan forests. In: Hoagland KE and Rossman AY (eds) Global Genetic Resources: Access, Ownership, and Intellectual Property Rights, pp 165–180. Association of Systematics Collections, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Coleman JS (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  17. Cunningham AB (1993) Ethics, Ethnobotanical Research, and Biodiversity. WWF International, GlandGoogle Scholar
  18. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG and Lasagna L (1991) Cost of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Health Economics 10: 107–142Google Scholar
  19. Dorey E (1998) Roche deCODEs Icelandic population in $ 200 million deal. Nature Biotechnology 16, MarchGoogle Scholar
  20. Dreyfuss MM and Gams W (1994) Proposal to reject Pachybasium niveum Rostr. in order to retain the name Tolypocladium inflatum W. Gams for the fungus that produces cyclosporin. Taxon 43: 660–661Google Scholar
  21. Eisner T (1989) Prospecting for nature's chemical riches. Issues in Science and Technology 6(2): 31–34Google Scholar
  22. Eisner T (1991) Chemical prospecting: a proposal for action. In: Bormann FH and Kellert SR (eds) Ecology, Economics, and Ethics: The Broken Circle, pp 196–202. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  23. Fenwick S (1998) Bioprospecting or biopiracy? Drug Discovery Today 3(9): 399–402Google Scholar
  24. Fowler C (1994) Unnatural Selection. Technology, Politics, and Plant Evolution. Gordon and Breach, YverdonGoogle Scholar
  25. Frey HP (1998) Letter to H. Svarstad. 26 March 1998Google Scholar
  26. Gjersvik C (1998) Opplysninger om Novartis og Sandimmun Neoral. Letter to H. Svarstad. 17 March 98Google Scholar
  27. Glowka L (1998) A Guide to Designing Legal Frameworks to Determine Access to Genetic Resources. IUCN, Gland, Cambridge, BonnGoogle Scholar
  28. Haller M (1992) The Sandimmum ‘whodunit’. Article series in Die Weltwoche, 3, 10 and 17 December. Translation by F. NiklausGoogle Scholar
  29. Härri E and Ruegger A (1977) Organic Compounds. United States Patent No. 4,117,118. Filed: 28 March 1977. Issued: 26 September 1978Google Scholar
  30. Harvard Business School (1992) INBio/Merck Agreement: Pioneers in Sustainable Development. Harvard Business School, BostonGoogle Scholar
  31. Hawksworth DL (1997) Fungi and international biodiversity initiatives. Biodiversity and Conservation 6(5): 661–668Google Scholar
  32. Hooper D, Hawksworth D and Dhillion S (1995) Microbial diversity and ecosystem processes. Section 6, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: ecosystem analyses. In: Heywood VH (ed) Global Biodiversity Assessment, pp 433–443. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Høyland K and Ryvarden L (1990) Er det liv er det sopp. Sopp i miljø og kulturhistorie. Fungiflora, OsloGoogle Scholar
  34. Iwu MM (1995) An African perspective. In: Baker JT et al. Natural product drug discovery and development – new perspectives on international collaboration. Journal of Natural Products – Lloydia 58(9): 1325–1357Google Scholar
  35. Juma C (1989) The Gene Hunters. Biotechnology and the Scramble for Seeds. Zed Books; London Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  36. Juma C and Sánchez V (1994) Conclusion. In: Sánchez V and Juma C (eds) Biodiplomacy. Genetic Resources and International Relations, pp 311–323. ACTS Press, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  37. Kloppenburg JR Jr (1988) First the Seed. The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology, 1492–2000. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Koester V and Prip C (1993) Legal questions concerning the implementation of Article 15 paragraph five of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Convention on Biological Diversity: National Interests and Global Imperatives. African Centre for Technology Studies, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  39. Krattiger AF and Lesser WH (1995) The ‘Facilitator’: proposing a new mechanism to strengthen the equitable and sustainable use of biodiversity. Environmental Conservation 22(3): 211–215Google Scholar
  40. Laird SA (1993) Contracts for biodiversity prospecting. In: Reid WV, Laird SA, Meyer CA, Gámez R, Sittenfeld A, Janzen DH, Gollin MA and Juma C (eds) Biodiversity Prospecting: Using Genetic Resources for Sustainable Development, pp 99–130. World Resources Institute, USAGoogle Scholar
  41. Laird SA and Ten Kate K (1999) Natural products and the pharmaceutical industry. In: ten Kate K and Laird SA (eds) Commercial Use of Biodiversity, pp 34–77. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Mateo N (2000) Bioprospecting and conservation in Costa Rica. In: Svarstad H and Dhillion SS (eds) Responding to Bioprospecting: From Biodiversity in the South to Medicines in the North, pp 45–56. Spartacus, OsloGoogle Scholar
  43. McChesney JD (1996) Biological diversity, chemical diversity, and the search for new pharmaceuticals. In: Balick MJ, Elisabetsky E and Laird SA (eds) Medicinal Resources of the Tropical Forest. Biodiversity and Its Importance to Human Health, pp 11–18. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Morley J, Rummelt A and List M (1994) Ciclosporin Form for Pulmonary Administration. United States Patent No. 5,719,123. Filed: 6 June 1994. Issued: 17 February, 1998Google Scholar
  45. Mugabe J, Barber CV, Henne G, Glowka L and La Viña A (1997) Managing access to genetic resources. In: Mugabe J, Barber CV, Henne G, Lyle G and La Viña (eds) Access to Genetic Resources: Strategies for Sharing Benefits, pp 5–32. ACTS Press, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  46. Munkejord M (1998) Fra høyfjells-sopp til menneskegener. Folkevett 20(4): 5Google Scholar
  47. Novartis (1997) Report of the Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development. 1997/1998Google Scholar
  48. Novartis (1998) Operational Review 1997Google Scholar
  49. Novartis – [online] (April 1998) URL: http://www.novartis.com/Google Scholar
  50. Novartis Foundation – [online] (April 1998) URL: http://www.foundation.novartis.comGoogle Scholar
  51. Novartis Pharma AG – [online] (March 1998) Transplant Square. URL: http://www.transplantsquare. com/index.htmGoogle Scholar
  52. Principe PP (1996) Monetizing the pharmacological benefits of plants. In: Balick MJ, Elisabetsky E and Laird SA (eds) Medicinal Resources of the Tropical Forest. Biodiversity and Its Importance to Human Health, pp 11–18. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. RAFI (1994) Conserving Indigenous Knowledge: Integrating Two Systems of Innovation. Rural Advancement Foundation International. Commissioned by the United Nations Development Programme, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. RAFI (1995) Biopiracy Update. RAFI Communique, December 1996. Rural Advancement Foundation InternationalGoogle Scholar
  55. Rehácek Z (1995) The cyclosporins. Folia Microbiology 40(1): 68–88Google Scholar
  56. Reid WV (1993–1994) The Economic Realities of Biodiversity. Issues in Science and Technology, WinterGoogle Scholar
  57. Reid WV (1997) Technological change and regulation of access to genetic resources. In: Mugabe J, Barber CV, Henne G, Lyle G and La Viña (eds) Access to Genetic Resources: Strategies for Sharing Benefits, pp 53–70. ACTS Press, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  58. Reid WV, Laird SA, Meyer CA, Gámez R, Sittenfeld A, Janzen DH, Gollin MA and Juma C (eds) (1993) A new lease on life. In: Biodiversity Prospecting: Using Genetic Resources for Sustainable Development, pp 1–52. World Resources Institute, USAGoogle Scholar
  59. Sandoz Pharma (1994) Biodiversity Prospecting – Sandoz Pharma Policy Statement. Sandoz Press Office, BaselGoogle Scholar
  60. Shand H (1993) A landmark year for biodiversity or bio-piracy? Biotechnology and Development Monitor 17: 24Google Scholar
  61. Shiva V (1995) Captive Minds Captive Lives. Ethics, Ecology and Patents on Life. Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy, Dehra DunGoogle Scholar
  62. Shiva V (1997) Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge. South End Press, Boston, MassGoogle Scholar
  63. Simpson RD (1997) Biodiversity Prospecting. Shopping the Wilds Is Not the Key to Conservation. Resources. Winter 1997/Issue 126Google Scholar
  64. Simpson RD, Sedjo RA and Reid JW (1996) Valuing biodiversity for use in pharmaceutical research. Journal of Political Economy 104: 163–185Google Scholar
  65. Stähelin HF (1996) The history of cyclosporin A (Samdimmune) revisited: another point of view. Experientia 52: 12–23Google Scholar
  66. Svarstad H (1994) National sovereignty and genetic resources. In: Sánchez V and Juma C (eds) Biodiplomacy. Genetic Resources and International Relations, pp 45–65. ACTS Press, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  67. Svarstad H (1998) Biologisk mangfold: ressurser i Sør og interesser i Nord. In: Benjaminsen TA and Svarstad H (eds) Samfunnsperspektiver på miljø og utvikling, pp 164–188. Tano Aschehoug, OsloGoogle Scholar
  68. Svarstad H (2000) Reciprocity, biopiracy, heroes, villains and victims. In: Svarstad H and Dhillion SS (eds) Responding to Bioprospecting: From Biodiversity in the South to Medicines in the North. Spartacus, OsloGoogle Scholar
  69. Ten Kate K (1995) Biopiracy or Green Petroleum? xpectations & Best Practice in Bioprospecting. Overseas Development Administration, LondonGoogle Scholar
  70. Ten Kate K, Touche L and Collis A (1998) Yellowstone National Park and the Diversa Corporation. Benefit-Sharing Case Study. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, LondonGoogle Scholar
  71. Thali M (1995) Cyclosporins: immunosuppressive drugs with anti-HIV-1 activity. Molecular Medicine Today 1(1): 287–291Google Scholar
  72. Tribe HT (1998) The Discovery and Development of Cyclosporin 12(1), FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  73. UNEP (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations Environmental Program, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  74. Watling R and Hawksworth DL (1997) Fungal biodiversity: a British mycological society symposium. (Guest editorial) Biodiversity and Conservation 6(5): 659Google Scholar
  75. Webster J (1997) Fungal biodiversity. (Foreword) Biodiversity and Conservation 6(5): 657Google Scholar
  76. White M, Pelletier GB, Tan A, Jesina C and Carrier M (1997) Pharmacokinetic, hemodynamic, and metabolic effects of cyclosporine Sandimmune versus the microemulsion neoral in heart transplant recipients. The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation 16(8): 787–794Google Scholar
  77. WFED – [online] (13 February 1998) URL: http://www.wfed.org. Homepage of World Foundation for Environment and DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  78. WWF Norway (1998) Soppen fra Hardangervidda. Verdens Natur 2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hanne Svarstad
    • 1
  • Hans Chr. Bugge
    • 2
  • Shivcharn S. Dhillion
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Centre for Development and the EnvironmentUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of Public and International LawUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.Department of Biology and Nature ConservationAgricultural University of Norway &Norway
  4. 4.Centre for Development and the EnvironmentUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations