National Forensics Association
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Evidence Set
[Negative 2015-2016]
Page 1 of 15
Negative – Index
Negative – Index........................................................................ 1
T – Bioprospecting is the Search........................................................ 2
T – Increase Restrictions............................................................... 3
DA Biotech Research – 1NC Shell 1/...................................................... 4
DA Biotech Research – 1NC Shell 2/...................................................... 5
DA Biodiversity – 1NC Shell 1/.......................................................... 6
DA Biodiversity – 1NC Shell 2/.......................................................... 7
Benefit Sharing......................................................................... 8
Biodiversity............................................................................ 9
CBD.................................................................................... 10
CBD/Nagoya............................................................................. 11
Human Tissue Informed Consent.......................................................... 12
Human Tissue Property Rights........................................................... 13
Marine Protected Areas................................................................. 14
Traditional Knowledge Database......................................................... 15
National Forensics Association
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Evidence Set
[Negative 2015-2016]
Page 2 of 15
T – Bioprospecting is the Search
A. Interpretation
Oxford Dictionary, 2015 [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/bioprospecting> “bioprospecting”.
Oxford University Press. Copyright 2015]
The search for plant and animal species from which medicinal drugs and other commercially valuable
compounds can be obtained.
B. Violation – The affirmative does not restrict the search or the process for
searching for commercially viable compounds.
C. Standards –
1. Brightline – Restrictions limit, it is pretty clear. The terms are different and there is a clear bright-line
separating the two. Prefer the interpretation with the clearest bright-line because it minimizes judge
intervention on T which increases fairness.
2. Literature Base – The evidence about bioprospecting and its consequences deal with this process of
research and commercial exploitation. This is the internal link to predictability and ultimately fairness in the
debate round.
3. Predictability – The Resolution and the Literature base are the only sources of predictability. An AFF
outside both is totally unpredictable; making it impossible for the NEG to know what research to do and what
positions to write to prepare for a debate.
D. Voters –
1. NFA-LD Rules – The Affirmative must prove the resolution with a topical case according to the rules of
debate. If they do not meet that burden of proof, the rules call for a negative ballot.
2. Fairness – By denying the Negative their main topic area, they destroy the Negative’s competitive equity,
and it is up to adjudicators to punish an unfair tactic so that both teams can have an equal chance of winning
this or future debates, regardless of their sides.
3. A Priori – Topicality is a gateway issue to the entire debate. You evaluate topicality first before the
comparative advantages of case.
National Forensics Association
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Evidence Set
[Negative 2015-2016]
Page 3 of 15
T – Increase Restrictions
A. Interpretation – The affirmative plan must make it more difficult to participate
in bioprospecting and by extension these activities should decrease post-plan.
Increase is to make greater
Google Definitions, Accessed 2015. [“Increase”
https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aincrease&oq=define%3Aincrease&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.2711j1j4&sourceid=chrome
&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8]
Become or make greater in size, amount, intensity, or degree.
AND, Restrictions are limiting measures
Oxford English Dictionary online, Last accessed July 20, 2015.
[http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/restriction]
A limiting condition or measure, especially a legal one: planning restrictions on commercial development
B. Violation – The affirmative plan does not place a limit on bioprospecting and
claims to increase access to biological materials.
C. Standards
1. Predictable ground – The most predictable interpretation of the topic is one where the affirmative defends
that bioprospecting is bad and the negative defends that bioprospecting is good. The affirmative interpretation
inverts this interpretation which destroys predictability. Predictable neg ground is critical for in-depth topicspecific debates which are key to education.
2. Bright-line – Restrictions limit, it is pretty clear. The terms are different and there is a clear bright-line
separating the two. Prefer the interpretation with the clearest bright-line because it minimizes judge
intervention on T which increases fairness.
D. Voters
1. NFA-LD Rules – The Affirmative must prove the resolution with a topical case according to the rules of
debate. If they do not meet that burden of proof, the rules call for a negative ballot.
2. Fairness – By denying the Negative their main topic area, they destroy the Negative’s competitive equity,
and it is up to adjudicators to punish an unfair tactic so that both teams can have an equal chance of winning
this or future debates, regardless of their sides.
3. A Priori – Topicality is a gateway issue to the entire debate. You evaluate topicality first before the
comparative advantages of case.
National Forensics Association
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Evidence Set
[Negative 2015-2016]
Page 4 of 15
DA Biotech Research – 1NC Shell 1/
A. Uniqueness – Low regulations are driving a biotech boom
Deniel Mero, editor of the Last Financier, Business Insider, July 22nd, 2015. [“Here's what 3 experts have to say
about biotech.” http://www.businessinsider.com/experts-talk-about-biotech-2015-7 JK = Jake King the Editor of Propthink, an
independent biotech newsletter tailored for investors seeking event- driven analysis. MK = Michael King is a managing director and
senior biotechnology analyst at JMP Securities, focusing on coverage of oncology names.]
The biotech outperformance is justified. Innovation in drug development has improved greatly in the last two
at target discovery, the understanding of disease state and genomics as a couple of examples. At the same time,
the FDA in the last year has been remarkably lenient when it comes to approving new drugs. The chances of
successfully developing and getting a drug approved in this “easy” regulatory environment have gone up.
JK:
decades. Look
Obviously, that’s good for drug developers and their investors. With that said though, there are some individual equities, among the small-mid cap, that
are richly or over- valued. Companies with limited or no clinical data will be the first to go in a risk-off environment. If we do see a meaningful pullback in
biotech, most professionals I’ve spoken to are willing to buy that dip. MK: A bubble occurs when markets rise with no fundamental support. This is not
the case with the
biotech run which has been triggered by impressive fundamental scientific developments and a
friendly regulatory environment. Technology for drug discovery has gotten far better in the last several years. Recently
released data is indicating that treatments are influencing progress like never before. Past trials, you may say, would take some disease, put it into the
body and hope for the best. Now, companies are getting a lot more accurate at targeting the disease and eradicating it. Biotechs are also seeing
an evolution in the FDA’s attitude, creating a friendlier regulatory environment. If you look back, these have happened in
cycles. 2002 was a terrible year for getting approval with the FDA coming down hard. Things then turned in 2003. Currently, we’re seeing the FDA be
lenient with certain statuses like breakthrough therapy and expedited programs.
B. Link – Increased restrictions will jeopardize the research and development of
biotechnology
Joseph Damond, Senior VP of International Affairs, Biotechnology Industry Organization, November
18, 2013. [“Proposal for Reform of Brazil’s Bioprospecting and Genetic Resources Regulations”
https://www.bio.org/sites/default/files/BIO%20Brazil%20Bioprospecting%20&%20Genetic%20Resources%20FINAL.pdf]
Given the importance of intellectual property protection for biotechnology product development and commercialization, a streamlined process for
patenting and the appropriate scope and subject matter protections are of great importance. Therefore,
changes to the law that affect the
patentability of biotechnology inventions are extremely troublesome to our members. In particular, in Brazil, where both the
public and private sectors have invested heavily in biotechnology, research has resulted in numerous promising discoveries
particularly in the agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology sectors. A patent framework that
facilitates the translation of these discoveries to products is of enormous value to the industry and its users.
Accordingly, laws and procedures that place obstacles to obtaining robust intellectual property protection
jeopardize the research, development, and commercialization of new and innovative products necessary to
support a burgeoning biotechnology industry such as that in Brazil.
National Forensics Association
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Evidence Set
[Negative 2015-2016]
Page 5 of 15
DA Biotech Research – 1NC Shell 2/
C. Impact – Biotech solves disease, hunger, bioterror, and pollution, but needs
investors
Fact sheet, Biotechnology Industry Organization, June 28th, 2011. [“Unleashing the Promise of Biotechnology,
Society has tapped just a small fraction of the many potential uses—and benefits— of biotechnology.”
https://www.bio.org/articles/unleashing-promise-biotechnology]
Biotechnology is all around us and a big part of our lives, providing breakthrough products to cure disease,
protect against bio-terrorism, feed the hungry, and clean our environment. At its simplest, biotechnology harnesses cellular
and biomolecular processes and puts them to work to help solve our most intractable problems.
Society has tapped just a small fraction of the many potential uses—and benefits— of biotechnology. Every day,
research scientists explore new ways to improve our quality of life using biotechnology. In fact, biotechnology presents some of the most
promising opportunities for helping policymakers achieve their goal of supporting innovation in health care,
renewable energy, and green technologies. However, biotech research and development is a particularly highrisk undertaking because of the substantial start-up costs, lengthy experimentation period, and possibility that
the technology will not prove viable. That puts biotechnology companies at the mercy of investors. Complicating
matters, the regulatory review processes are not keeping up with rapidly advancing science and are making it a more difficult environment to develop
new treatments and products.
National Forensics Association
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Evidence Set
[Negative 2015-2016]
Page 6 of 15
DA Biodiversity – 1NC Shell 1/
A. Uniqueness – We’re currently at the brink of biodiversity decline – we’ve lost
50% of our bio-d in 40 years, but have the tools and information to beat back the
decline
Eliene Augenbraun for CBS News, September 30th, 2014 [“Half the world’s wildlife gone over last 40 years,”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-wildlife-fund-wwf-half-the-worlds-biodiversity-gone-over-last-40-years/]
The world has lost 52 percent of its biodiversity since 1970, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) announced in a study
released today on the state of our planet. According to the Living Planet Report 2014, "the number of mammals, birds, reptiles,
amphibians and fish across the globe is, on average, about half the size it was 40 years ago. This is a much bigger decrease than has
been reported previously, as a result of a new methodology which aims to be more representative of global
biodiversity." Scientists studied trends in more than 10,000 populations of 3,038 mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian and fish species and calculated a
"Living Planet Index" (LPI) that measures the health of species in various environments and regions. While the LPI in temperate regions declined by a
worrisome 36 percent from 1970 to 2010, in tropical climates the index dropped 56 percent. Latin American biodiversity took the biggest hit globally,
plummeting 83 percent. Jon Hoekstra, chief scientist at WWF, broke it down another way: "39 percent of terrestrial wildlife gone, 39 percent of marine
wildlife gone, 76 percent of freshwater wildlife gone -- all in the past 40 years." The toll was greatest in low-income countries. High-income countries
showed a 10 percent increase in biodiversity. However, less affluent parts of the world more than cancelled that out. Middle-income countries lost 18
percent of their wildlife populations, while low-income countries showed a 58 percent decline. And the bad news does not end there. WWF reports that
the global human population already exceeds our planet's biocapacity -- the amount of biologically productive land and sea that is available to produce
the resources we rely on for food, fuel, building and other needs, and that is needed to absorb the amount of carbon dioxide we generate. Indeed, it
would take the equivalent of 1.5 Earths of biocapacity to meet our current demands, the report says. The problem may get worse as more of the world
adopts or aspires to the levels of consumption common in richer countries. "If all people on the planet had the Footprint of the average resident of Qatar,
we would need 4.8 planets," the report says. "If we lived the lifestyle of a typical resident of the USA, we would need 3.9 planets. The Global Footprint
Network, a WWF partner, calculates the balance between each country's demand and capacity to arrive at a figure it calls the Ecological Footprint. In an
email to CBS News, Hoekstra explained that the Footprint relies on publicly available data and is generated for each nation annually. The findings are
expressed in units called global hectares, a measurement of land with the average level of biological productivity. The planet currently has a biocapacity
of 1.7 global hectares per person; the Footprint exceeded that level in 91 out of 152 countries studied. Worldwide, our Ecological Footprint decreased by
3 percent between 2008 and 2009, mostly due to a lower demand for fossil fuels, WWF reports. However, the latest figures available from 2010 show
the Footprint resuming an upward trend. Just two countries account for a third of the the world's total Ecological Footprint: China, at 19 percent, and the
United States, with nearly 14 percent. "High-income countries use five times the ecological resources of low-income countries, but low income countries
are suffering the greatest ecosystem losses," Keya Chatterjee, WWF's senior director of footprint said in a press release. "In effect, wealthy nations are
outsourcing resource depletion." To
counteract these trends, WWF recommends a number of steps: focusing more on
sustainable development, using resources more efficiently, incorporating environmental factors into measures of economic growth, and
increasing efforts to protect natural habitats around the world. Carter Roberts, president and CEO of WWF, warned, "We're gradually
destroying our planet's ability to support our way of life. But we already have the knowledge and tools to avoid
the worst predictions. We all live on a finite planet and its time we started acting within those limits."
B. Link – A strong bioprospecting sector helps preserve biodiversity worldwide –
the aff restricts this sector
Andrew J. Beattie, former Director for the Commonwealth Key Centre for Biodiversity and
Bioresources, Austral Ecology, 2010. [“Ecology and Bioprospecting.” EbscoHost]
Pharmaceutical bioprospecting has been sharply criticized for what has become known as ‘biopiracy’ (Mgbeoji 2006) in which large international
pharmaceutical corporations make use of local medicinal knowledge without acknowledging that it is indigenous intellectual property. Thus, profits have
accrued solely to the pharmaceutical companies and indigenous peoples received little or nothing in return (Laird 2002; Finger & Schuler 2004). The Rio
Declaration and the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) clarified the rights of indigenous people and local communities in this setting and a variety
of treaties and national laws have been enacted worldwide to control the use of intellectual property and to establish equitable benefit sharing (ten Kate
& Laird 1999; Laird 2002; Dutfield & Suthersanen 2008). Their effectiveness varies greatly but some programs, such as the International Cooperative
the National Institutes of Health, has recognized the issue by insisting
bioprospecting: (i) protects rather than degrades the biodiversity resource; (ii) promotes host-country capacity
building and intellectual property rights; as well as (iii) seeking novel biological resources for profit. This formula has been
adopted by many research groups that emphasize securing economic benefits for host countries or cultures
and the promotion of biodiversity conservation (e.g. Kursar et al. 2006; INBio 2009). Nevertheless, many issues remain unresolved
Biodiversity Groups (ICBG) program of
(Roe & Elliott 2010)
National Forensics Association
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Evidence Set
[Negative 2015-2016]
Page 7 of 15
DA Biodiversity – 1NC Shell 2/
C. Internal Link – Restrictions on bioprospecting drive manufacturers to turn to
more environmentally damaging ways to derive profit from the environment
Mike Stark, Reporter for the Gazette Wyoming Bureau, May 23rd, 2002. [Park officials, business interests, enviros
debate potential pay offs of 'bioprospecting'. Reprinted at: http://www.wildwilderness.org/content/view/524/113/.]
Giddings, with the biotechnology industry group, agreed that the park system is underfunded. "I would argue with them that Congress is not supporting
our natural resources. Anyone who has been to Yellowstone National Park has seen there are huge, unmet needs," he said. But, he added, national
parks could make money from bioprospecting without losing any resources. "You're extracting the information," Giddings said. "It's an opportunity to take
all that genetic variation ... and turn it into a concrete value." Giddings said that environmental
groups' opposition to bioprospecting
and benefit-sharing elsewhere in the world is having disastrous unintended consequences. "They're compelling
developing countries to rely on extraordinarily destructive technologies like mining and logging that we could
replace with information technologies," he said.
D. Impact – Biodiversity preservation is critical – without it, we risk our own
extinction as we destroy our complex ecological web
Noah Greenwald, endangered species expert at the Center for Biological Diversity, February 2nd, 2014.
[“The Extinction Crisis” The Center for Biological diversity is a collective of hundreds of applicable professionals dedicated to securing a
future for all species, http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/about/index.html]
It’s frightening but true: Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of
extinctions in the past half-billion years. We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years
Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five
species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate,
ago.
with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading
toward extinction by mid-century [2]. Unlike past mass extinctions, caused by events like asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions, and natural climate shifts,
the current crisis is almost entirely caused by us — humans. In fact, 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities,
primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species, and global warming [3]. Because the rate of change in our biosphere is increasing, and
because every species’ extinction potentially leads to the extinction of others bound to that species in a complex
ecological web, numbers of extinctions are likely to snowball in the coming decades as ecosystems unravel. Species diversity ensures
ecosystem resilience, giving ecological communities the scope they need to withstand stress. Thus while conservationists often justifiably focus
their efforts on species-rich ecosystems like rainforests and coral reefs — which have a lot to lose — a comprehensive strategy for saving biodiversity
must also include habitat types with fewer species, like grasslands, tundra, and polar seas — for which any loss could be irreversibly devastating. And
while much concern over extinction focuses on globally lost species, most of biodiversity’s benefits take place at a local level, and
populations is
the only way to ensure genetic diversity critical for a species’ long-term survival.
conserving local
National Forensics Association
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Evidence Set
[Negative 2015-2016]
Page 8 of 15
Benefit Sharing
Benefit sharing fails to address the harms of biopiracy and it commodifies
indigenous culture in a way that devalues their epistemology and exploits their
knowledge
Chris Hamilton, London School of Economics and Political Science 2006 [“BIODIVERSITY, BIOPIRACY AND
BENEFITS: WHAT ALLEGATIONS OF BIOPIRACY TELL US ABOUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,”
http://abs.aseanbiodiversity.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16&Itemid=134&jsmallfib=1&dir=JSROOT/Downloads
&download_file=JSROOT/Downloads/Biodiversity%2C+Biopiracy+and+Benefits++What+Allegations+of+Biopiracy+tell+us+about+Intellectual+Property.pdf]
benefit sharing responds to biopiracy understood as an issue of the misallocation of
benefits derived from genetic resources but does not substantially shift the debate away from the dominant paradigm
which suggests that the benefits from genetic resources will be derived via the IPR system . The benefit sharing issue
From a ‘biopiracy’ perspective,
has also been the subject of a number of discussions and responses from international organizations dealing with IPR. Recent discussions at the WTO,
for instance, have taken up the benefit sharing debate in earnest. Submissions from Peru and others have advocated that the solution to biopiracy lies in
requiring those applying for a patent involving genetic resources (either the resource itself or the knowledge of its use) to disclose the origin of the
knowledge and/or the material involved in the patented subject, as well as to be able to demonstrate that they have obtained the prior informed consent
of any traditional knowledge holders who might be affected and have negotiated appropriate benefit sharing agreements with those same traditional
knowledge holders. Most of these proposals at the WTO have come about as part of discussions on the review of the TRIPS Agreement and, thus,
propose that these commitments (disclosure of origin and evidence of benefit sharing) be included within the mechanisms of the TRIPS Agreement
itself. For their part, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has been dealing with the notion of benefit sharing in discussions about the
relationship between traditional knowledge and intellectual property. In general, they recognize the importance of traditional knowledge related IP
provisions to complement the CBD’s benefit sharing initiatives as well as ‘important policy issues beyond the domain of IP.’65 Criticisms of the benefit
sharing approach have focused on several points, often moving fluidly between material and ethical critiques. The first and most obvious of these are the
material challenges associated with defining what the benefits are, who should distribute them, how these should be distributed, and who precisely
should be the recipients. If we look to the neem case again, if it is indeed the case that it is widely used in India and elsewhere as a fungicide, the issue
of benefit sharing would take on unmanageable proportions. In particular, how would one begin to establish who should be the recipient of the benefits in
a case where the knowledge that is being exploited could legitimately be said to derive from the practice of millions of people in India and elsewhere? In
many situations this is made more complex when the element of expectations are brought in, especially in cases of pharmaceutical bioprospecting in
remote areas, despite the fact that it is quite widely acknowledged that lucrative, blockbuster drugs very rarely result from bioprospecting-type
programs.66 This is also often related to concerns about the fact that benefit sharing agreements may be pegged to the commercial success of a given
plant patent and, thus, there is no guarantee that benefits will be forthcoming. 66 A complete discussion of this particular concern is beyond the scope of
this particular study. For discussions of these matters see, for example, C. Hayden. From Market to Market: Bioprospecting’s Idioms of Exclusion.
American Ethnologist 2003; 30: 359–371; S. Greene. Indigenous People Incorporated? Culture as Politics, Culture as Property in Pharmaceutical
Bioprospecting. Curr Anthropol 2004; 45: 211–237. Another of the points that is often raised relates to the substance of the material remunerations
included in benefit sharing agreements. This has prompted some to claim that these involve sharing only the ‘crumbs’ of the benefits.67 On the surface,
a concern with the material remunerations might also be seen as invoking the dominant IPR paradigm: essentially saying that the problem is not the
patent itself but the equitable disbursements of the benefits that will come from it. Though this is in many ways true, these concerns are often
unproblematically advocated alongside broader ethical concerns with whether or not IPR is an appropriate forum to use to deal with these kinds of
knowledges and the benefits that they might generate. For example, the collection of essays in the recent Edmonds Institute book, called The Catch:
Perspectives in Benefit Sharing68 presents some very forceful critiques of the notion of benefit sharing as a possible inoculation against, or remedy for,
biopiracy. Many of the essays seem to focus on what they see as this same contradiction in the notion of benefit sharing in the CBD, between the
ascription of value to these resources (a value which can be shared with the appropriate people via benefit sharing) and the use of the IPR system to
recognize this value. They advocate two positions which overlap: that the benefits of these genetic resources are so great as to be incalculable and that
they have always been seen as a collective and a public wealth, thus fundamentally incompatible with the individual rights associated with IPRs. As
Ribiero puts it in her essay: The immense wealth of knowledge of plants, animals, insects and other elements of
nature – knowledge on which the world has come to depend for food, health, clothing, and many other aspects of human life – originated in
indigenous communities and rural communities across the planet. That knowledge is and has always been a
collective and public wealth, managed by local communities for the benefit of humanity.69 It would appear that those
who criticise benefit sharing are able to do so relatively unproblematically from two seemingly contradictory
positions: that IPR (or benefits derived from exploiting IPR) is not the best way to arbiter these agreements but also, simultaneously, that it is
not going to properly identify the scale of the benefits or grant all parties equal access to the economic benefits
generated via the commodification of the biological resource in question. If we take that into account, it seems clear
that benefit sharing, if invoked as a ‘solution’ to biopiracy, is unlikely to address all of the relevant ethical
concerns raised. Or, put another way, for many campaigning against biopiracy, it is not who owns it but that it is
owned at all that matters.
National Forensics Association
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Evidence Set
[Negative 2015-2016]
Page 9 of 15
Biodiversity
There are alternative causes to biodiversity loss – habitat destruction and
wildlife trade are major causes more than bioprospecting
World Wildlife Foundation last accessed September 2015. [What are the major reasons why we are losing so much
biodiversity? http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/threatsto_biodiversity/]
Biodiversity has declined by more than a quarter in the last 35 years. The Living Planet Index (LPI) shows a decline of 52 per
cent between 1970 and 2010. That's not good news. In general terms, population growth and our consumption are the
reasons for this enormous loss. Specifically, habitat destruction and wildlife trade are the major causes of
population decline in species. We have...picked, logged, plucked and hunted the animals, trees, flowers and
fish for medicine, souvenirs, status symbols, building materials and food. And this over-exploitation (hunting, fishing,
bycatch) is currently totally unsustainable.
National Forensics Association
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Evidence Set
[Negative 2015-2016]
Page 10 of 15
CBD
The CBD has been a resolute failure that allows countries to diffuse
responsibility for the biodiversity crisis and creates a false impression of action
that hinders real progress.
David Ritter, CEO of Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Global Policy Journal, August 26th, 2010. [“Convention
on Biological Diversity a Ten Year Failure” http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/26/08/2010/convention-biological-diversity-ten-yearfailure]
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is another of the world’s multilateral environmental institutions that has
resolutely failed to achieve its stated purpose. Now less than two months away from the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties
to the Convention on Biological Diversity to be held in Nagoya, Japan, we already know that the participants will be reporting back on a grim litany of
near complete failure. As Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Secretary of the CBD told a high level forum in Chengu China this week the target set by world
governments in 2002, ‘to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level,’ has not
been met. … No government claims to have completely met the 2010 biodiversity target at the national level, and around one-fifth state explicitly that it
has not been met. Indeed, the current biodiversity statistics are as worrying as ever. Species that have been assessed for extinction
risk are on average moving closer to extinction …. [T]he five principal pressures directly driving biodiversity loss (habitat change,
overexploitation, pollution, invasive alien species and climate change) are either constant or increasing in intensity. This dismal assessment is of course
Indeed the CBD is an
institution of obvious weakness, hostage always to national capitals and wider power politics. The CBD
possesses no power to compel compliance or punish non-compliance. The USA has never even ratified the CBD.There is
a tendency for states to hide behind membership of multilateral institutions – which are then undermined and
rendered impotent by lack of effective commitment to agreed goals by national governments. Such has been
the fate of the CBD. There is also a tendency for NGOs to become overly fixated on the same multilateral
institutions, tending to forget that voluntary multilateral commitments are no substitute for the tasks of shifting
power, confronting the hard facts of political economy and forcing change in development pathways in national
contexts.Overwhelmingly, national politics and economics dominate international environmental negotiations, not visa versa. It is with these political
not the fault Mr Djoghlaf nor the CBD itself, but the parties to the Convention, namely the nations of the world.
and economic realities in mind, that the Guardian newspaper in London recently launched its own campaign in the lead up to the talkfest in
Nagoya:The international agreements struck so far have failed miserably in halting the world's biodiversity
crisis.
… All the international meetings have done so far is to diffuse responsibility for the crisis, allowing member
states to hide behind each other's failures. They create a false impression of action, insulating governments
from public pressure. We don't accept this outcome, or the apathy and indifference with which governments are prepared to let another
environmental calamity develop…. we are compiling a list of 100 specific tasks that will demonstrate whether they are serious about defending the
wonders of the natural world. Each will be targeted at a particular government, and they will be asked to sign up to it before the meeting in Nagoya. We
are asking governments to supplement the current treaty-making process with something real and specific, in such a way that success becomes
possible and failure accountable. The campaign is called Biodiversity100. Time is short, so our intention is to choose the 100 tasks within one month.
We will be addressing the G20 countries, as their wealth and power deprives them of excuses for ducking their obligations. We are looking for actions
that make a major contribution to protecting a particular species or ecosystem; that are strongly and widely supported by scientific evidence published in
academic journals; but that are politically costly or opposed by special interest groups.
National Forensics Association
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Evidence Set
[Negative 2015-2016]
Page 11 of 15
CBD/Nagoya
Nagoya’s access and benefit sharing provisions fail
Carmen Richerzhagen, researcher with the German Development Institute, in Resources, 2014. [“The
Nagoya Protocol: Fragmentation or Consolidation?” http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/3/1/135/pdf]
The ABS concept of the CBD tried to address both market and institutional failures. By assigning the rights of
sovereignty to provider countries and requiring fair and equitable benefit-sharing, it attempts to establish a
market for biodiversity [28]. According to economic theory, the trade of genetic resources will lead to an internalization of biodiversity’s benefits.
However, the results are quite limited, and certain factors are hindering the concept from functioning. Until now, the
decline of biodiversity could not be stopped, and only a few benefits have been received by provider countries. Providers even criticize that their material
is still being used without any compensation. Users complain about restrictive access and use opportunities. Economic theory can help to identify the
reasons for the on-going failure and to analyze why the concept has failed so far. Externalities,
transaction costs, information
asymmetries and imperfect competition in the market for genetic resources prevent it from functioning. Derived
from economic theories, six critical factors determine the effectiveness of ABS regimes before the Nagoya Protocol was adopted [4]. However, these
factors are not limited to the CBD itself and can also be applied to any ABS regime. Therefore, they can also be applied to the
new ABS governance structure after the adoption of the Nagoya Protocol. The critical factors deal with property rights, asymmetric information
between contracting partners, time lags, administrative complexity, the governance and transaction environment and the structure of the market of
genetic resources. Depending on their specific configuration and the countermeasures in place, they can have either a positive or a negative influence
on the outcome of ABS negotiations and contracts.
Nagoya protocol doesn’t solve for the concerns of indigenous populations
Tim Mackey and Bryan Liang, researchers at the Institute of Health Law Studies, American Journal of
Public Health, June 2012. [“Integrating biodiversity management and indigenous biopiracy protection to promote environmental
justice and global health.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3483946/]
Although the Nagoya Protocol covers some critical issues regarding current global biodiversity, environmental and health justice,
drug discovery governance, and international IPR frameworks, it offers few specifics on addressing drug access, adequate
representation, and equitable compensation, which are key concerns of indigenous communities. In addition, it
does not address biodiversity management or public health and health care infrastructure investment. Importantly,
it lacks the specific language necessary to provide indigenous community education and the mechanisms of benefits sharing and access to both
traditional and patented medicines derived from biodiversity resources.10 It also lacks necessary strong disincentives and
penalties for biopiracy and has no funding mechanisms for planning and implementing biodiversity sustenance
and development nor for investing in public health and health care infrastructures.10 It relies on individual
nations to enact and enforce domestic laws and checkpoints for protecting indigenous community resource
holders, even though many governments have acted against indigenous interests in the past. 11 Finally, it does not
provide innovative, sustainable partnerships between governments, local communities, and pharmaceutical manufacturers that recognize the economic
importance of responsible biodiversity development and shared stakeholder interests that also promote environmental and health justice.
National Forensics Association
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Evidence Set
[Negative 2015-2016]
Page 12 of 15
Human Tissue Informed Consent
Informed consent is not an adequate way of protecting rights – researchers don’t
know about all the potential uses of participants’ data at the time consent is
acquired
Amy McGuire, Baylor College of Medicine and Laura Beskow, Duke University, HHS Public Access,
November 15, 2011. [“Informed Consent in Genomics and Genetic Research.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3216676/]
Traditional standards of informed consent require, with limited exceptions, that subjects enter into research voluntarily
and with sufficient information about the research activity to make a comprehending decision about
participation (118). Yet, the storage and broad sharing of biospecimens and data make it impossible to describe
in detail or even to foresee all of the future research for which they might be used at the time they are
collected. Further, because technology is advancing at such a rapid pace, the future risks associated with
research using biospecimens and data are unpredictable. Therefore, legal and ethical requirements of
informed consent for all future uses cannot be satisfied at the time biospecimens and data are collected. Even so,
most would agree that stored specimens and data are a valuable resource and should be used to advance research if appropriate protections are in
place. Several alternative approaches to consent for genetic and genomic research have been proposed to address this inherent tension.
National Forensics Association
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Evidence Set
[Negative 2015-2016]
Page 13 of 15
Human Tissue Property Rights
Attaching property rights to tissue would lead to commodification of human
body, increase research costs, and undermine the current system for ethical
approval of research
Australian Law Reform Commission, last accessed December 14, 2015. [“Ownership of Samples and the Human
Tissue Acts” http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/20-ownership-samples-and-human-tissue-acts/property-approach-appropriate]
20.21 There are, however, some significant problems with applying property principles to human genetic samples:
Allowing people to exercise
the rights to income and capital of human tissue might be regarded as allowing the human body to be
commodified. This may alter community attitudes towards bodies and their parts, and as a result alter how communities perceive and treat living
humans. Allowing people to exercise the rights to income and capital might also alter the current situation in which individuals freely donate their
tissue.[23] Altruistic
participation could be eroded. Sale of tissue samples would burden research by increasing
costs, which would in turn be passed on to consumers. Individuals often discard tissue samples, intentionally or
inadvertently, for example cheek cells left on dental floss.[24] A right of possession vested in the individual from
whom the samples are taken might enable that individual to bring an action against others who deal with the
samples, regardless of whether they were misusing them, on the basis of interference with the individual’s right to possess the
samples. By allowing an individual to transfer rights over their tissue samples to someone else, the individual’s interest in what is done with the sample
could be lost. The individual would then be precluded from preventing uses of the samples to which he or she objects. The
recognition of
property rights would also undermine the current system of ethical approval for research, where consent to use
can be waived in some situations by a Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC).[25] It is questionable
whether it would be lawful to waive consent where a person holds property rights over tissue. If genetic samples were
regarded as property, de-identification would not extinguish the rights of the person from whom the sample was taken. De-identification is one
of the current mechanisms used by researchers, with the approval of HRECs, to enable research to be carried
out, while still protecting the privacy of individuals. Property rights are difficult to apply to genetic material,
which can be copied and reproduced.[26] Property rights in tissue samples are currently grounded in the common law, which develops on
a case-by-case basis in response to issues that come before the courts. For this reason, the common law cannot be relied on to produce a timely and
comprehensive solution to these problems.
Property rights, or allowing the research participant to dictate what is done with
their tissue, impedes ethical medical advancements to serve humankind
Washington University v. Catalona, March 31, 2006. [“THE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, v. William
J.CATALONA, et. al., Defendants. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.”
http://www.leagle.com/decision/20061422437FSupp2d985_11333/WASHINGTON%20UNIVERSITY%20v.%20CATALONA]
Medical research can only advance if access to these materials to the scientific community is not thwarted by
private agendas. If left unregulated and to the whims of a RP [research participant], these highly-prized biological materials
would become nothing more than chattel going to the highest bidder. It would no longer be a question of the importance of the
research protocol to public health, but rather who can pay the most. Selling excised tissue or DNA on E-Bay would become as
commonplace as selling your old television on E-Bay. The integrity and utility of all biorepositories would be seriously
threatened if RPs could move their samples from institution to institution any time they wanted. No longer could
research protocols rely on aggregate collections since individual samples would come and go. Accountability would
no longer exist since institutions would merely be warehouses filling purchase orders. More alarming is the great potential for
prejudicial influences into medical research. Allowing an RP to choose who can have the sample, where the sample
will be stored, and/or how the sample can be used is tantamount to a blood donor being able to dictate that his/her
blood can only be transfused into a person of a certain ethnic background, or a donated kidney being
transplanted only into a woman or man. This kind of "selectiveness" is repugnant to any ethical code which
promotes medical research to help all of mankind.
National Forensics Association
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Evidence Set
[Negative 2015-2016]
Page 14 of 15
Marine Protected Areas
MPAs are difficult, expensive, and time consuming to manage and evaluate
Jeffrey Zinn et al, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, CRS Report, July 26th, 2007. [Eugene Buck and
Harold Upton. “Marine Protected Areas: An Overview.” http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RL32154.pdf]
Creation of MPAs, like public designation of almost any area in recognition of socially valuable resources, raises three broad sets of
management issues where stakeholders may have very different expectations. One set of management issues centers on
how these expectations might be met, especially since they may not always be compatible, and may even be mutually exclusive. These expectations are
likely to be expressed, in part, through participation in the development and implementation of a management plan that would protect the site’s resource
values. Stakeholders who must comply with the provisions of a plan will express views about reasonableness, enforcement, costs and benefits, and the
like. Achieving
compliance with a plan from users can be a challenge if input from all members of that
community had not been solicited in developing the MPA. Dissatisfaction from key members can be a critical
factor in eroding confidence in a management authority. A second set of management issues revolve around what the managing
agency will be trying to accomplish in each site, as well as any system of sites. Questions related to balancing resource use and conservation are vital
because marine natural resources and their living space are sought by many different users for many different purposes. Decisions will also need to be
made about whether MPAs should primarily protect pristine sites or restore damaged sites, or do both. Restoration of specific species or entire
ecosystems could be a major activity at MPAs. Restoration could be primarily passive, as managers allow natural processes to occur at their own rates
and patterns, or managers could actively work to create a desired ecosystem or an optimum environment for preferred species. An example of active
restoration is efforts to increase waterfowl populations at many units of the wildlife refuge system, which are referred to as “duck factories” by some. If
Sufficient staff and financial
resources will need to be committed for MPAs to be successful. A lack of resources would make it far more
difficult for MPAs to achieve their objectives, and could result in what are referred to as “paper parks,” which
can be little more than designations on a map. Among the problems that have occurred in some designated
areas are a lack of financial and technical resources, lack of a trained staff, lack of enforcement, and lack of
needed management information. Any of these deficiencies can lead to insufficient capacity to meet objectives.
restoration is a major activity, it usually requires that the source of damage be identified and addressed.
If the gap between what defines success and what can be done becomes too great, potential users may not respect the designation and advocates of
the designation may look for other vehicles that will provide the levels and types of protection they are seeking. It is unclear whether MPAs would be
established with either performance standards to be met, or goals around which they are managed, and if there will be any penalties if standards are not
attained or goals are not met. In locations where competing users can apply strong pressure, or there are many users, administrative costs could be
especially high. A third set of management issues revolve around monitoring and enforcement. The managing agency will need a legal mandate and
financial and other resources to perform these functions. Two possible purposes of monitoring could be to gather the information necessary to be made
aware of any threat that is incompatible with the MPA or its resources, and to document changes that are occurring over time. An agency will need to be
made responsible for enforcement. The primary enforcement agency in marine areas has been the Coast Guard. If it is assigned this additional
responsibility, what priority will it be given in the post 9/11 world? Enforcement actions being taken in protected marine areas currently have been
generally receiving little publicity.21 Enforcement of management rules would be easier and perhaps less expensive if there is strong community support
for an MPA, and especially if stakeholders are supportive enough to make enforcement largely self-policing.22 In addition to support by stakeholders,
surveillance and enforcement efforts require the cooperation and coordination of many agencies. These and related issues and challenges are
addressed in a recent MPA Center report.23 These three broad areas of management issues must be viewed in the context of knowledge about the
marine environment. Managing these resources poses significant scientific and economic challenges because often little is known about specific
physical conditions in the water column and on the ocean floor, the life histories of many species, and the complex interactions between biotic resources.
Monitoring uses and changing resource conditions, and enforcing limits on various uses will be more expensive and time consuming in marine areas
than it would be on land. Effective
administration will require adequate human and financial resources, and
equipment, such as boats and expensive electronic gear. An important aspect of administration will be to
continue to measure the costs and benefits of a designation after it is established, and to educate stakeholders
about these values.
AND, MPAs need to protect 20-30% of the ocean in order to make it resilient to
threats – the plan won’t get us anywhere near that number
Lance Morgan, Marine Conservation Institute, June 26th, 2015. [“The global ocean refuge system; a strategic way to
protect vulnerable corals from climate change.” http://blog.marine-conservation.org/2015/06/deep-sea-corals-glores.html]
Climate change threats are not limited to Australian waters and will impact many different marine ecosystems and
fisheries around the world. This research reinforces the message that strongly protecting important marine areas as
refuges is the best approach for safeguarding marine life and enhancing resilience to climate change. Marine
scientists suggest that strong protection for 20-30% of the ocean is necessary to maintain its resilience.
Unfortunately, less than 1% of the entire ocean is fully protected as no-take marine reserve (MPAtlas.org).
National Forensics Association
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Evidence Set
[Negative 2015-2016]
Page 15 of 15
Traditional Knowledge Database
Indigenous knowledge databases provide no legal protection to individual
communities, and consolidating knowledge means exploitation becomes easier
post-plan.
The Center for the Study of the Public Domain, Duke University, 2010 [Center for the Study of the Public Domain.
Duke University. “Indigenous/Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property”.2010http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/itkpaper4]
knowledge databases can provide
even greater access to outside parties seeking indigenous knowledge. Databases, registries and libraries can
facilitate access to traditional knowledge without users ever having to deal or negotiate directly with an
indigenous community. The uneven legal protection for databases exacerbates the problem. The question of
Unfortunately this is not the case for every country where indigenous people reside. To the contrary,
ownership also arises – not only who owns the database (as a whole), but who is recorded as the legal ‘owners’ of the documented knowledge, how
long this material will be protected for and what might happen if there are inter-community disputes over who the rightful owners or custodians
are. 3.4.2.6 The
creation of traditional knowledge databases does not escape the problem of determining
intellectual property ownership. The same problems of ownership (especially in recognizing community or collective ownership and whether
this is desirable or appropriate) persist. Indeed such databases operate squarely within the intellectual property paradigm – which also means that all
this information will eventually come into the public domain for anyone to use. [75] 3.4.2.7 For many indigenous people, there remains the further
problem of decontextualizing knowledge and knowledge practices from the locales that actually make it meaningful. Through this process, salient
dimensions of the knowledge may be lost. It is also worth being mindful of re-creating colonizing paradigms of knowledge control through these
recording processes. For instance, where will the databases be located? Will indigenous peoples be able to access them easily? Who does the
recording? What kind of literacy support (digital and other) is provided to the participating communities? 3.4.2.8 Different communities will have particular
concerns which could range from general questions about the documentation of their knowledge (and whose priorities are being followed) to questions
about who will own, manage and access the information in the future. These issues need to be negotiated with the particular community from the outset
of the establishment of the database, registry or library. Given how contested these areas actually are, it is worth being
mindful of how database projects could replicate exactly the same concerns and future problems.