***BIODIVERSITY BAD***
Internal Link Turn
Impact Defense - General
No impact to the biodiversity- functional redundancy, adaptation
Doremus 2k (Holly, Professor of Law at UC Davis, "The Rhetoric and Reality of Nature Protection:
Toward a New Discourse", Winter 2000 Washington & Lee Law Review 57 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 11 //nz)
Reluctant to concede such losses, tellers of the ecological horror story highlight how close a catastrophe
might be, and how little we know about what actions might trigger one. But the apocalyptic vision is less
credible today than it seemed in the 1970s. Although it is clear that the earth is experiencing a mass wave
of extinctions, n213 the complete elimination of life on earth seems unlikely. n214 Life is remarkably robust.
Nor is human extinction probable any time soon. Homo sapiens is adaptable to nearly any environment.
Even if the world of the future includes far fewer species, it likely will hold people. n215 One response to this
credibility problem tones the story down a bit, arguing not that humans will go extinct but that ecological disruption will bring economies, and
consequently civilizations, to their knees. n216 But this too may be overstating the case. Most
ecosystem functions are
performed by multiple species. This functional redundancy means that a high proportion of species can
be lost without precipitating a collapse. n217 Another response drops the horrific ending and returns to a
more measured discourse of the many material benefits nature provides humanity. Even these more plausible
tales, though, suffer from an important limitation. They call for nature protection only at a high level of generality. For example, humaninduced increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels may cause rapid changes in global temperatures
in the near future, with drastic consequences for sea levels, weather patterns, and ecosystem services.
n218 Similarly, the loss of large numbers of species undoubtedly reduces the genetic library from which we
might in the future draw useful resources. n219 But it is difficult to translate these insights into convincing
arguments against any one of the small local decisions that contribute to the problems of global
warming or biodiversity loss. n220 It is easy to argue that the material impact of any individual decision to
increase carbon emissions slightly or to destroy a small amount of habitat will be small. It is difficult to
identify the specific straw that will break the camel's back. Furthermore, no unilateral action at the local or
even national level can solve these global problems. Local decisionmakers may feel paralyzed by the scope of the problems,
or may conclude that any sacrifices they might make will go unrewarded if others do not restrain their actions. In sum, at the local level at
which most decisions affecting nature are made, the material discourse provides little reason to save nature. Short of
the ultimate
catastrophe, the material benefits of destructive decisions frequently will exceed their identifiable
material costs. n221
No impact to biodiversity
Sagoff 97 (Mark, Senior Research Scholar at the Institute for Philosophy and Public policy in School of
Public Affairs at University of Maryland, , “INSTITUTE OF BILL OF RIGHTS LAW SYMPOSIUM DEFINING
TAKINGS: PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE FUTURE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION: MUDDLE OR MUDDLE
THROUGH? TAKINGS JURISPRUDENCE MEETS THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT”, William and Mary Law
Review, pg. 905, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1679&context=wmlr //nz)
Although one may agree with ecologists such as Ehrlich and Raven that the earth stands on the brink of an episode
of massive extinction, it may not follow from this grim fact that human beings will suffer as a result. On the
contrary, skeptics such as science writer Colin Tudge have challenged biologists to explain why we need more than
a tenth of the 10 to 100 million species that grace the earth. Noting that "cultivated systems often
out-produce wild systems by 100-fold or more," Tudge declared that "the argument that humans
need the variety of other species is, when you think about it, a theological one." n343 Tudge observed that "the
elimination of all but a tiny minority of our fellow creatures does not affect the material well-being of
humans one iota." n344 This skeptic challenged ecologists to list more than 10,000 species (other than unthreatened microbes) that
are essential to ecosystem productivity or functioning. n345 "The human species could survive just as well if 99.9% of
our fellow creatures went extinct, provided only that we retained the appropriate 0.1% that we
need." n346 [*906] The monumental Global Biodiversity Assessment ("the Assessment") identified two
positions with respect to redundancy of species. "At one extreme is the idea that each species is unique and important,
such that its removal or loss will have demonstrable consequences to the functioning of the community or ecosystem." n347 The
authors of the Assessment, a panel of eminent ecologists, endorsed this position, saying it is "unlikely
that there is much, if any, ecological redundancy in communities over time scales of decades to
centuries, the time period over which environmental policy should operate." n348 These eminent ecologists
rejected the opposing view, "the notion that species overlap in function to a sufficient degree that removal or loss of a species will be
compensated by others, with negligible overall consequences to the community or ecosystem." n349 Other biologists
believe,
are so fabulously redundant in the ecological functions they perform that the life-support
systems and processes of the planet and ecological processes in general will function perfectly well with fewer of
them, certainly fewer than the millions and millions we can expect to remain even if every
threatened organism becomes extinct. n350 Even the kind of sparse and miserable world depicted in the movie Blade
however, that species
Runner could provide a "sustainable" context for the human economy as long as people forgot their aesthetic and moral commitment to
the glory and beauty of the natural world. n351 The Assessment makes this point. "Although any ecosystem contains hundreds to
thousands of species interacting among themselves and their physical environment, the emerging consensus is that the system is driven by
a small number of . . . biotic variables on whose interactions the balance of species are, in a sense, carried along." n352 [*907] To make
up your mind on the question of the functional redundancy of species, consider an endangered species of bird, plant, or insect and ask how
the ecosystem would fare in its absence. The fact that the creature is endangered suggests an answer: it is already in limbo as far as
ecosystem processes are concerned. What
crucial ecological services does the black-capped vireo, for example,
serve? Are any of the species threatened with extinction necessary to the provision of any ecosystem
service on which humans depend? If so, which ones are they? Ecosystems and the species that compose them have
changed, dramatically, continually, and totally in virtually every part of the United States. There is little ecological similarity,
for example, between New England today and the land where the Pilgrims died. n353 In view of the
constant reconfiguration of the biota, one may wonder why Americans have not suffered more as a
result of ecological catastrophes. The cast of species in nearly every environment changes
constantly-local extinction is commonplace in nature-but the crops still grow. Somehow, it seems, property
values keep going up on Martha's Vineyard in spite of the tragic disappearance of the heath hen. One might argue that the sheer
number and variety of creatures available to any ecosystem buffers that system against stress.
Accordingly, we should be concerned if the "library" of creatures ready, willing, and able to colonize ecosystems gets too small. (Advances
in genetic engineering may well permit us to write a large number of additions to that "library.") In
the United States as in many
other parts of the world, however, the number of species has been increasing dramatically, not
decreasing, as a result of human activity. This is because the hordes of exotic species coming into
ecosystems in the United States far exceed the number of species that are becoming extinct. Indeed,
introductions may outnumber extinctions by more than ten to one, so that the United States is becoming more and more species-rich all
the time largely as a result of human action. n354 [*908] Peter Vitousek and colleagues estimate that over 1000 non-native plants grow in
California alone; in Hawaii there are 861; in Florida, 1210. n355 In Florida more than 1000 non-native insects, 23 species of mammals, and
about 11 exotic birds have established themselves. n356 Anyone who waters a lawn or hoes a garden knows how many weeds desire to
grow there, how many birds and bugs visit the yard, and how many fungi, creepy-crawlies, and other odd life forms show forth when it
rains. All belong to nature, from wherever they might hail, but not many homeowners would claim that there are too few of them. Now,
not all exotic species provide ecosystem services; indeed, some may be disruptive or have no instrumental value. n357 This also may be
true, of course, of native species as well, especially because all exotics are native somewhere. Certain exotic species, however, such as
Kentucky blue grass, establish an area's sense of identity and place; others, such as the green crabs showing up around Martha's Vineyard,
are nuisances. n358 Consider an analogy [*909] with human migration. Everyone knows that after a generation or two, immigrants to this
country are hard to distinguish from everyone else. The vast majority of Americans did not evolve here, as it were, from hominids; most of
us "came over" at one time or another. This is true of many of our fellow species as well, and they may fit in here just as well as we do. It is
possible to distinguish exotic species from native ones for a period of time, just as we can distinguish immigrants from native-born
Americans, but as the centuries roll by, species, like people, fit into the landscape or the society, changing and often enriching it. Shall we
have a rule that a species had to come over on the Mayflower, as so many did, to count as "truly" American? Plainly not. When, then, is the
cutoff date? Insofar as we are concerned with the absolute numbers of "rivets" holding ecosystems together, extinction seems not to pose
a general problem because a far greater number of kinds of mammals, insects, fish, plants, and other creatures thrive on land and in water
in America today than in prelapsarian times. n359 The
Ecological Society of America has urged managers to
maintain biological diversity as a critical component in strengthening ecosystems against
disturbance. n360 Yet as Simon Levin observed, "much of the detail about species composition will be
irrelevant in terms of influences on ecosystem properties." n361 [*910] He added: "For net primary productivity, as is
likely to be the case for any system property, biodiversity matters only up to a point; above a certain level,
increasing biodiversity is likely to make little difference." n362 What about the use of plants and
animals in agriculture? There is no scarcity foreseeable. "Of an estimated 80,000 types of plants [we]
know to be edible," a U.S. Department of the Interior document says, "only about 150 are extensively cultivated."
n363 About twenty species, not one of which is endangered, provide ninety percent of the food the world takes from plants. n364 Any new
food has to take "shelf space" or "market share" from one that is now produced. Corporations also find it difficult to create demand for a
new product; for example, people are not inclined to eat paw-paws, even though they are delicious. It is hard enough to get people to eat
their broccoli and lima beans. It is harder still to develop consumer demand for new foods. This may be the reason the Kraft Corporation
does not prospect in remote places for rare and unusual plants and animals to add to the world's diet. Of the roughly 235,000 flowering
plants and 325,000 nonflowering plants (including mosses, lichens, and seaweeds) available, farmers ignore virtually all of them in favor of
a very few that are profitable. n365 To be sure, any of the more than 600,000 species of plants could have an application in agriculture, but
would they be preferable to the species that are now dominant? Has
anyone found any consumer demand for any of
these half-million or more plants to replace rice or wheat in the human diet? There are reasons that farmers
cultivate rice, wheat, and corn rather than, say, Furbish's lousewort. There are many kinds of louseworts, so named because these weeds
were thought to cause lice in sheep. How many does agriculture really require? [*911] The species
on which agriculture
relies are domesticated, not naturally occurring; they are developed by artificial not natural
selection; they might not be able to survive in the wild. n366 This argument is not intended to deny the religious,
aesthetic, cultural, and moral reasons that command us to respect and protect the natural world. These spiritual and ethical values should
evoke action, of course, but we should also recognize that they are spiritual and ethical values. We should recognize that ecosystems and
all that dwell therein compel our moral respect, our aesthetic appreciation, and our spiritual veneration; we should clearly seek to achieve
the goals of the ESA. There is no reason to assume, however, that these goals have anything to do with human well-being or welfare as
economists understand that term. These are ethical goals, in other words, not economic ones. Protecting the marsh may be the right thing
to do for moral, cultural, and spiritual reasons. We should do it-but someone will have to pay the costs. In the narrow sense of promoting
human welfare, protecting
nature often represents a net "cost," not a net "benefit." It is largely for moral,
not economic, reasons-ethical, not prudential, reasons- that we care about all our fellow
creatures. They are valuable as objects of love not as objects of use. What is good for [*912] the marsh may be good in itself even if it
is not, in the economic sense, good for mankind. The most valuable things are quite useless.
Scientific consensus concludes that there is no causation between diversity and
stability
Mertz et al, 03 biologist and veteran freelance science writer, editor, and consultant for Science in
Dispute (Leslie Science in Dispute Vol. 2, “ Does greater species diversity lead to greater stability in
ecosystems, Gale Virtual Library)
The hypothesis that greater species diversity begets heightened ecosystem stability may seem correct at
first glance. Most people intuitively assume that the pond ecosystem has a better chance of thriving
from year to year—even in adverse conditions—if it has a wider variety of species living there. That
assumption, however, is supported by little scientific proof. On the other hand, many studies provide
compelling evidence that diversity does not promote stability and may even be to its detriment. Several
studies also suggest that if species diversity does exist, it is based on ecosystem stability rather than vice
versa. The Paramecium Studies of N. G. Hairston One of the early experiments to critically damage the
greater-diversity-equals-greater-stability argument came from the N. G. Hairston research group at the
University of Michigan in 1968. In this study, the group created artificial communities of bacteria,
Paramecia, and/or predatory protozoa grown on nutrient agar cultures. Each community contained
more than one trophic level. In other words, the communities contained both predators and prey, as do
the macroscopic food webs readily visible in a pond: A fish eats a frog that ingests an insect that attacks
a tadpole that scrapes a dinner of bacterial scum from a plant stem. In Hairston's case, the researchers
watched the combinations of organisms in a laboratory instead of a natural setting. Several patterns
emerged. In one series of experiments, the researchers combined prey bacteria, which represented the
lowest link in the food chain—the first trophic level—with Paramecium. The bacteria included
Aerobacter aerogenes, and "two unidentified bacilliform species isolated from a natural habitat." The
Paramecium—two varieties of P. aurelia and one variety of P. caudatum—fed on the bacteria and so
represented the second trophic level. As researchers increased the diversity of the bacteria, the
Paramecia thrived and their numbers increased, at first suggesting that diversity caused stability.
However, when the researchers looked more closely at the effects of increasing diversity on a specific
trophic level, the story changed. They added a third Paramecium species to communities that already
contained two species, and then watched what happened. The data showed that stability was based on
which Paramecium species was introduced to which two pre-existing Paramecium species, and indicated
that diversity in and of itself was not a requirement for stability. This set of experiments demonstrated
that a higher number of species of one trophic level is unrelated to increased stability at that level. Page
152 | Top of Article Finally, Hairston reported the repercussions that followed the introduction of
predatory protozoa—the third trophic level—to the experimental communities. The predatory species
were Woodruffia metabolica and Didinium nasutum. Regardless of whether the community held two or
three Paramecium species, or whether the predators numbered one species or two, all Paramecia
quickly fell to the protozoa, whole systems failed, and stability plummeted. In this case, at least,
diversity did not generate stability. Although the Hairston research is based on an artificial system rather
than a natural one, it represents credible, empirical evidence against the assertion that greater diversity
yields stability. Over the years, numerous research groups have conducted similar laboratory
experiments with the same results. May and Pimm's Conclusions about Stability Not long after the
Hairston paper was published, noted population biologist Robert M. May, formerly of Princeton and
now at Oxford, devoted an entire book to the subject. First published in 1973, Stability and Complexity
in Model Ecosystems provided detailed mathematical models illustrating the connection between
diversity and instability in small systems, and argued that these models predict similar outcomes in
larger systems. May wrote, "The central point remains that if we contrast simple few-species
mathematical models with the analogously simple multi-species models, the latter are in general less
stable than the former." He also noted that complexity in food webs does not confer stability within
communities. A complex food web has many interacting individuals and species. The higher the number
of connections in a food web, the greater the chance for individual links to become unstable and
eventually affect the entire web. May readily admitted that stable natural systems often are very
complex and contain many species. However, he contended that the increased diversity is reliant on the
system's stability, not the opposite. Complexity is not a prerequisite for stability; instead, stability is
essential for complexity. In a separate paper, May used the example of a rain forest, a complex
ecosystem with vast species diversity but also a high susceptibility to human disturbance. The ecologist
and evolutionary biologist Stuart Pimm, of the University of Tennessee, continued the debate in his book
The Balance of Nature (1991). Pimm provided a historical view of the stability argument, along with
discussions of many of the experiments conducted over the years, and arrived at several conclusions,
one of which has direct bearing on the diversity-stability debate. If stability is defined as resilience, or
the ability of a species to recover following some type of disturbance such as drought, flood, or species
introduction, Pimm stated that shorter food chains are more stable than longer food chains. Simplicity,
not complexity, imparts stability. He argued that resilience depends on how quickly all members of the
food chain recover from the disturbance. Longer food chains involve more species, which present more
opportunities for the delay of the restoration of the complete food chain. Pimm supported his argument
with results from studies of aphids. Pimm also noted that scientists have and will face problems when
taking the stability-diversity question to the field. One problem is the absence of long-term data, which
would help scientists to draw conclusions about grand-scale ecological questions such as the diversitystability connection. Pimm explained that long-term scientific research projects typically require
numerous consecutive grants to fund them, and such continuous chains of grants are few and far
between. Other Approaches Another difficulty with field studies is finding existing systems that can be
adequately compared. If ecosystem stability is defined as the capacity of its populations to persist
through, or to show resilience following, some type of disturbance, scientists must identify ecosystems
that have similar physical characteristics, and which are experiencing or have experienced a disturbance.
To compare the effects of diversity, one ecosystem must have high species-richness and one must have
low species-richness. In the early 1980s, Thomas Zaret of the Institute for Environmental Studies and
University of Washington had that opportunity. Zaret investigated the relationship between diversity
and stability in freshwater fish communities in Africa and South America. First, he compared lakes and
rivers. Lakes, Zaret reasoned, provide a more constant habitat than rivers. Rivers experience
substantially more acute annual variation in water level, turbidity, current, and chemical content as a
result of seasonal rains. Zaret then surveyed the two systems and found that the lakes contained more
species than the rivers. Next, he followed the effects of a disturbance on both systems. The disturbance
was a newly introduced predatory fish that had invaded a river and a lake in South America. The lake
and river were similar in geographic location, and thus topography and climate, which provided an ideal
opportunity for a comparison of each system's ability to rebound from a disturbance. Five years after
the introduction of the predator, an examination of 17 common species that occurred in both water
systems showed that 13 had disappeared from the lake, while all were still present in the river.
Challenging the diversity-breeds-stability argument, Zaret's results indicated that the less-diverse river
was more Page 153 | Top of Article stable. He concluded, "The data presented from freshwater fish
communities support the hypothesis that diverse communities have lower stability (resilience)."
Although these and other experiments indicate that diversity is not necessary for ecosystem stability,
the discussion does not end there. A team of researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison
determined that although diversity itself did not promote stability, the species-specific resilience of the
community's residents might. Led by zoologist Anthony Ives, the team mathematically analyzed the
consequences of environmental stress on various communities. After compiling the data, the team
found that the characteristics of each species were more important than the number of species in
conferring stability. The results showed that the most stable ecosystems—those that were both
persistent and resilient—contained individual organisms that responded well to environmental stress.
They did not show a correlation between stability and the sheer number of species in the ecosystem.
The research team came to the conclusion that species richness alone does not generate ecosystem
stability, and suggested that scientists should begin investigating the stress response of individual
species rather than simply counting species. The Intermediate-Disturbance Hypothesis Several scientists
took a different perspective in the discussion of diversity and stability, and developed what is known as
the intermediate-disturbance hypothesis. This hypothesis states that the greatest species diversity
appears not in the most stable systems, but in systems under periodic, nonextreme stress. In the most
stable systems—defined here as those where disturbances are mild or absent—dominant species
eventually outcompete their rivals, and the communities become less diverse. Diversity also declines in
highly disturbed systems, because only those species that can reproduce and populate an area quickly
thrive. The only areas that have high species diversity are those that experience infrequent, moderate
disturbances. Joseph Connell of the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the
University of California at Santa Barbara reinforced the hypothesis with his review of coral reefs and
tropical forests. Connell plotted the level of disturbance against species richness and confirmed that
ecosystems under infrequent, moderate stress have the greatest diversity. Specifically, he found the
highest levels of diversity among reefs in the path of occasional hurricanes and tropical forests that take
the brunt of infrequent storms. Seth R. Reice of the biology department at the University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, similarly noted that habitats that experience natural disturbances, including storms
and fire, are almost always more diverse than more stable areas. In both cases, Connell and Reice
indicate that diversity depends on stability, rather than vice versa. Another researcher, Wayne P. Sousa
of the integrative biology department at the University of California, Berkeley provided validation to this
principle with a study of the marine intertidal zone (at the ocean's edge). Sousa counted the number of
sessile (attached) plant and animal species on rocks of various sizes. His reasoning was that waves can
easily move small rocks, but not the largest rocks. The small rocks, then, are an unstable system for the
sessile residents, the largest rocks are a stable system, and the medium-sized rocks fit the requirements
of a system with intermediate disturbance. His results showed an average of 1.7 species on the smallest
rocks, 2.5 on the largest, and 3.7 on the medium-sized rocks. To ensure that the species distribution was
based on rock movement rather than rock size, he also artificially adhered some small rocks to the
substrate (the ocean floor) and determined that species distribution was indeed based on wave-induced
movement. This work upheld the intermediate-disturbance hypothesis, and illustrated that the greatest
diversity was not associated with the most stable system. Diversity Is No Prerequisite As Daniel
Goodman, of Montana State University, wrote in a 1975 examination of the stability-diversity
controversy, there have been no experiments, field studies, or model systems that have proved a
connection between greater diversity and stability. He added, "We conclude that there is no simple
relationship between diversity and stability in ecological systems." Those words still hold today. In 1998
another group of scientists (Chapin, Sala, and Burke) reviewed much of the literature surrounding the
connection between diversity and stability in their paper "Ecosystem Consequences of Changing
Biodiversity," which appeared in the journal BioScience. They concluded that research that had inferred
relationships between diversity and stability had relied on simple systems and may not translate well to
the more complex systems common in nature. Although they noted that several studies imply a
relationship between diversity and ecosystem stability, they added, "At present, too few experiments
have been conducted to draw convincing generalizations."
No collapse – taxa substitution solves
Dornelas et al 4/18 (Maria, “Assemblage Time Series Reveal Biodiversity Change but Not Systematic
Loss,” Science AAS, 4/18/14,
http://www.planta.cn/forum/files_planta/science_2014_dornelas_296_9_169.pdf)
Our results suggest that local and regional assemblages are experiencing a substitution of their taxa,
rather than systematic loss. This outcome may in part reflect the fact that most of the available data are
from the past 40 years, which highlights concerns over the problem of a “shifting baseline” in diversity
monitoring (18). Nonetheless, we show that at these temporal and spatial scales there is no evidence of
consistent or accelerating loss of a diversity. Most important, changes in species composition usually do
not result in a substitution of like with like, and can lead to the development of novel ecosystems (19).
For example, disturbed coral reefs can be replaced by assemblages dominated by macroalgae (20) or
different coral species (21); these novel marine assemblages may not necessarily deliver the same
ecosystem services (such as fisheries, tourism, and coastal production) that were provided by the
original coral reef (22).
No net loss, species balance each other out
Bielle 4/20 - editor @ Scientific American (David, “Biodiversity Survives Extinctions for Now,” Scientific
American, 4/20/14, http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/biodiversity-survivesextinctions-for-now1/)
A new look at ecosystems from the poles to the tropics shows that losses in the number of species in
any given place do not yet translate to large changes in the overall number of different species there.
The study is in the journal Science. [Maria Dornelas et al, Assemblage Time Series Reveal Biodiversity
Change but Not Systematic Loss] The researchers analyzed 100 surveys that followed more than 35,000
different species over various lengths of time. These long-term studies found that the number of
different species in, say, a coral reef remains relatively constant. Because the loss of a species, either
locally or entirely, is often balanced by the arrival of a new species. The meta-analysis showed that 40
percent of places had more species present, 40 percent had less and 20 percent were unchanged. In
other words, the ecosystems of the current Anthropocene era are transformed, but just as diverse—so
far anyway. We are living in a world of novel ecosystems.
Biodiversity collapse doesn’t kill ecosystems - rivet metaphor is wrong - redundancy
checks
Davidson 00 (Carlos, conservation biologist, “Economic Growth and the Environment: Alternatives to
the Limits Paradigm”, BioScience, http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/5/433.full //nz)
Biodiversity limits. The original rivet metaphor (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981) referred to species extinction and biodiversity loss as a limit to
human population and the economy. A wave of species extinctions is occurring that is unprecedented in human history (Wilson 1988,
1992, Reid and Miller 1989). The decline of biodiversity represents irreplaceable and incalculable losses to future generations of humans.
Is biodiversity loss a case of limits, as suggested by the rivet metaphor, or is it a continuum of
degradation with local tears, as suggested by the tapestry metaphor? In the rivet metaphor, it is not the
loss of species by itself that is the proposed limit but rather some sort of ecosystem collapse that
would be triggered by the species loss. But it is unclear that biodiversity loss will lead to ecosystem
collapse. Research in this area is still in its infancy, and results from the limited experimental studies
are mixed. Some studies show a positive relationship between diversity and some aspect of ecosystem function, such as the rate of
nitrogen cycling (Kareiva 1996, Tilman et al. 1996). Others
support the redundant species concept (Lawton and Brown
1993, Andren et al. 1995), which holds that above some low number, additional species are redundant in
terms of ecosystem function. Still other studies support the idiosyncratic species model (Lawton 1994), in which loss of some
species reduces some aspect of ecosystem function, whereas loss of others may increase that aspect of ecosystem function. The
relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem function is undoubtedly more complex than any
simple metaphor. Nonetheless, I believe that the tapestry metaphor provides a more useful view of
biodiversity loss than the rivet metaphor. A species extinction is like a thread pulled from the
tapestry. With each thread lost, the tapestry gradually becomes threadbare. The loss of some species may lead to local
tears. Although everything is linked to everything else, ecosystems are not delicately balanced,
clocklike mechanisms in which the loss of a part leads to collapse. For example, I study California
frogs, some of which are disappearing. Although it is possible that the disappearances signal some as
yet unknown threat to humans (the miner's canary argument), the loss of the frogs themselves is
unlikely to have major ecosystem effects. The situation is the same for most rare organisms, which
make up the bulk of threatened and endangered species. For example, if the black toad (Bufo exsul)
were to disappear from the few desert springs in which it lives, even careful study would be unlikely
to reveal ecosystem changes. To argue that there are not limits is not to claim that biodiversity losses
do not matter. Rather, in calling for a stop to the destruction, it is the losses themselves that count,
not a putative cliff that humans will fall off of somewhere down the road.
Their argument may seem right intuitively but has ZERO scientific proof – a review of
the scholarly literature proves
Leslie Mertz et al (Biologist and veteran science writer) 2003 “Does greater species diversity lead to
greater stability in ecosystems”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5204/is_2003/ai_n19124307/pg_7?tag=artBody;col1
As Daniel Goodman, of Montana State University, wrote in a 1975 examination of the stability-diversity
controversy, there have been no experiments, field studies, or model systems that have proved a
connection between greater diversity and stability. He added, "We conclude that there is no
simple relationship between diversity and stability in ecological systems." Those words still hold
today. In 1998 another group of scientists (Chapin, Sala, and Burke) reviewed much of the literature
surrounding the connection between diversity and stability in their paper "Ecosystem
Consequences of Changing Biodiversity," which appeared in the journal BioScience. They
concluded that research that had inferred relationships between diversity and stability had relied on
simple systems and may not translate well to the more complex systems common in nature. Although
they noted that several studies imply a relationship between diversity and ecosystem stability, they
added, "At present, too few experiments have been conducted to draw convincing
generalizations."
Impact Defence – Ev Indict
Empirics disprove biodiversity loss impacts - their authors are hysterics
Campbell 11 (Hank, creator of Science 2.0, a community of research professors, post-docs, science
book authors and Nobel laureates collaborating over scientific projects. "I Wouldn't Worry About The
Latest Mass Extinction Scare," Science 2.0,
http://www.science20.com/science_20/i_wouldnt_worry_about_latest_mass_extinction_scare-76989
//nz)
You've seen it everywhere by now - Earth's sixth mass extinction: Is it almost here? and other articles discussing an article in
Nature (471, 51–57 doi:10.1038/nature09678) claiming the end of the world is nigh. Hey, I like to live in important times. So do most
people. And something so important it has only happened 5 times in 540 million years, well that is really special. But is it real? Anthony
Barnosky, integrative biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and first author of the paper, claims that if currently threatened
species, those officially classed as critically endangered, endangered, and vulnerable, actually went extinct, and that rate of extinction
continued, the sixth mass extinction could arrive in 3-22 centuries. Wait, what?? That's a lot of helping verbs confusing what should be a
If you know anything about species and extinction, you have already read one
the flaws in their model. Taking a few extinct mammal species that we know
about and then extrapolating that out to be extinction hysteria right now if we don't do something about global warming is
not good science. Worse, an integrative biologist is saying evolution does not happen. Polar bears did not exist forever, they came
into existence 150,000 years ago - because of the Ice Age. Greenpeace co-founder and ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore told a
global warming skepticism site, “I quit my life-long subscription to National Geographic when they published a
similar 'sixth mass extinction' article in February 1999. This [latest journal] Nature article just re-hashes this theme” and
"The fact that the study did make it through peer-review indicates that the peer review process has
become corrupted.” Well, how did it make it through peer review? Read this bizarre justification of their methodology; "If you look
fairly clear issue, if it were clear.
paragraph of my overview and seen
only at the critically endangered mammals--those where the risk of extinction is at least 50 percent within three of their generations--and
assume that their time will run out and they will be extinct in 1,000 years, that puts us clearly outside any range of normal and tells us that
we are moving into the mass extinction realm." Well, greater extinctions occurred when
Europeans visited the
Americas and in a much shorter time. And since we don't know how many species there are now, or have ever been, if
someone makes a model and claims tens of thousands of species are going extinct today, that sets off cultural alarms. It's not science,
If only 1% of species have gone extinct in the groups we really know much about, that is hardly
a time for panic, especially if some 99 percent of all species that have ever existed we don't know
anything about because they...went extinct. And we did not. It won't keep some researchers, and the mass
media, from pushing the panic button. Co-author Charles Marshall, also an integrative biologist at UC-Berkeley wants to keep
though.
the panic button fully engaged by emphasizing that the small number of recorded extinctions to date does not mean we are not in a crisis.
"Just because the magnitude is low compared to the biggest mass extinctions we've seen in half a billion years doesn't mean they aren't
significant."
It's a double negative, bad logic and questionable science, though.
Lit Indicts
Nature and biodiversity are all social constructs that have turned into buzz words
Oksanen 04 (Department of Behavioural Sciences and Philosophy, University of Turku 4
Markku “Philosophy and biodiversity” P 4)
Nature was the predominant concept in classical Greek philosophy from the very beginning. The preSocratic philosophers, for instance, assumed that they could identify some primitive element, or
elements, of which the world was built. The speculative metaphysical investigation of nature evolved
into natural history and into the science of biology and ecology by the nineteenth century. It is telling
that in 2001, just fifteen years after the invention of the term biodiversity, a five-volume Encyclopedia of
Biodiversity was published. Moreover, thousands of scientific articles, as counted by Julia Koricheva and
Helena Siipi in their contribution “The Phenomenon of Biodiversity,” have been published. Some of
these have been published in newly established journals that include “biodiversity” in their titles. Other
large-scale projects are on their way to being accomplished, such as the enlargement of the
abovementioned Encyclopedia of Biodiversity to an electronic version and the enterprise to make an
inventory of all species on Earth.4 As I see it, without the long preceding history and the established
tradition of natural history, broadly understood, nothing like this may have happened, at least not so
quickly. Biodiversity has become a buzzword, that is, a currently fashionable expression or a catchword.
As is the case with buzzwords generally, biodiversity has also been given innumerable definitions, some
of which have grown out of the original context, decreasing its usability. In the opening chapter
Koricheva and Siipi provide a survey of this use of the focal concept and analyze how the meaning given
to it implies variation in conservation policies.
Biodiversity has different meanings to everyone
Oksanen 04 (Department of Behavioural Sciences and Philosophy, University of Turku 4
(Markku “Philosophy and biodiversity” P 5-6)
Given the history outlined above, Sarkar’s (2002, 132) remark that “Biodiversity must be analyzed in the
context of conservation biology” becomes incontestable. What, then, is philosophically fascinating about
biodiversity 5 that goes beyond the burning practical concerns of conservation biology? I think that
simply the existence of this volume offers a better answer than I could ever provide here, but let me
think about it for a moment. This motivating question is in the background of other questions that I will
introduce in the remainder of this chapter. To begin with, if “the task of conservation is to conserve
biodiversity” (Sarkar 2002, 133), it raises the question of what exactly is to be conserved. Ideally we
would have a precise operative, hierarchical formulation of what “biodiversity” comprises. The vastness
of the extension of the concept biodiversity undermines this prospect and brings in convention: we have
to make choices. Although we have the global convention on biodiversity, it is less likely that we will
have universally shared biodiversity preservation policies that even include conservation priorities in
trade-off situations. Therefore, any answer to the question “What is biodiversity?” has an evaluative
dimension (see chapters by Koricheva and Siipi, Haila, Hobson and Bultitude, Rawles, Gamborg and
Sandøe, in this volume). Focusing merely on species, any such attempt to provide an operative definition
first leads to systematics, the objective of which is to study and classify the earth’s living beings. How,
then, does one distinguish between different kinds of organisms? Do natural kinds have essences that
are typical of them and only of them? Presuming the traditional realist position according to which
species are natural kinds that exist independent of our perception and beliefs, on the one hand, how
then does one identify categories that correspond with reality? If we presume, on the other hand, that
species are human constructions, it gives rise to many other questions: Is there any truthvalue in
taxonomic statements? If not, are we then allowed to classify entities however we like? Or should we be
paying attention to either individuals or populations in the first place? These questions have been
continuously tackled by both taxonomists and philosophers of biology (see, e.g., R. A. Wilson 1999), and
answers to them form different background assumptions in conservation biology.
No way to know what will happen in the future more models are needed
Boulter 02 (Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution
and the End of Man, p 173)
The Atlantic Conveyor experts are from meteorology and oceanography and have spent their careers
working to try and find patterns in the changes going on in the Atlantic Ocean. In comparison to the
complexity of what goes on under the sea between Europe and America, what they have to work with
and go on has been trivial. The ocean is influenced by ice, atmosphere, river run-off, wind and unknown
seafloor currents. It is impossible to make predictions without a lot more data to show how these things
change through tens and hundreds of years. Only then will the experts be able to make better models to
predict future changes. New research projects lasting five years will be planned from meetings like these
to give the necessary data. Specialist observers of the ocean changes will collect new data enabling the
computer modellers to try new estimates of what is likely to happen next.
A2 Keystone Species
“Keystone species” are an artificial construct
Mills et al 93- researchers @ American Institue of Biological Sciences (Scott, Michael E. Soule and
Daniel F. Doak, “The keystone-species concept in ecology and conservation,” Bioscience, 4/1993,
http://bio.research.ucsc.edu/people/doaklab/publica tions/1993mills_soule_doak.pdf)
We see both technical and philosophical liabilities associated with reliance on keystone species in a
conservation context. (See Landres et al. 1988 for a parallel critique regarding labeling certain species "indicator species.") The
overriding technical difficulty is one of definition. Before keystone species become the centerpiece for biodiversity
protection or habitat restoration, we must be able to say what is and is not a keystone species. Lacking any a
priori definition, the best way to identify keystone species would be perturbation experiments whereby the . candidate keystone species are
removed and the responses of a predefined assemblage of species are monitored. Such tests would require adequate experimental replication
and careful attention to defining the relevant assemblage (MacMahon et al. 1978 give a useful organism-centered definition of community), as
well as consideration of time scales over which responses should be measured. Bender et al. (1984) evaluated mathematical approaches for
evaluating the consequences of the inevitable omission of certain species in perturbation experiments and the impact of lumping together the
interactions of related groups of organisms (e.g., combining data for related ant species to measure the effect of removing a granivorous
rodent). Extraordinary difficulties await researchers attempting such experiments (see Bender et al. 1984, Carpenter et al. 1985). The
problem of objectively defining which species are keystone makes it likely that subjectively chosen
subsets of species will be so labeled, whereas other species of similar importance will be ignored. Even if
keystone species could readily and reliably be identified for a given location at a given time, several philosophical dangers arise. First, the term
is burdened with historical connotations that, as shown earlier, mean different things to different people. The
lack of a clear
operational definition hinders any political or legal implementation. Second, the term keystone species is
misleading because it indicates the existence of a species-specific property of an organism, when in
actuality the keystone role is particular to a defined environmental setting, the current species associations, and the
responses of other species (Gautier-Hion and Michaloud 1989, Jackson and Kaufmann 1987, Levey 1988, Palumbi and Freed 1988). Thus, it is
exceptionally difficult to confidently define a priori which local populations (not to mention species) are keystone (Elner and Vadas 1990, Foster
and Schiel 1988). Another
problem is that removal of combinations of nonkeystone species could have
effects as large as removal of a keystone. Finally, a conservation criterion that favors the maintenance of
keystone species--and with them the majority of species in a community--may fail to protect other
species of interest to conservationists or the public at large. For example, spotted owls, wolverines, grizzly
bears, and California condors may have little role in the maintenance of species richness in their
respective habitats, yet the protection of these charismatic species has been advanced because their
fates are thought to indicate the integrity or health of their habitats, or because the viability of many such species
requires large areas; these areas may ensure, in turn, sufficient habitat heterogeneity and space for large numbers of other species, some of
which may have specialized requirements. In sum, both the complexity of ecological interactions and ignorance of them militates against the
application of the keystone-species concept for practical management recommendations. Despite
its heuristic value, we see
more harm then good in the formalization of the term in laws and policy guidelines that have rigid
practical implications.
Impossible to test – the definition of keystone species is too ambiguous
Garibaldi and Turner 4- ethnobotanist @ University of Victoria (Ann and Nancy, “Cultural Keystone Species: Implications for
Ecological Conservation and Restoration,” Ecology and Society, 2004, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1/main.html#concept)
Like any metaphorical concept of this magnitude, this one is not without its shortcomings. One
major criticism of the keystone
species concept stemmed from the ambiguous nature of its definition (Mills et al. 1993). This made it
hard to identify exactly which species should be designated as having a keystone role in a community
(Mills et al. 1993). According to Power et al. (1996), among the obstacles to such a determination are: cost. It is an expensive and
detailed task to gather sufficient data to determine if a species plays a keystone role; controls. It is difficult
to measure data from in situ experiments because of the many variables, known and unknown, in the
field; time. Long-term studies are required to determine patterns in species behavior; ethical constraints. Certain tests to determine
the extent of its influence on an ecosystem, e.g., removing a species from its environment, may
eliminate the very species or habitat that conservation biologists are trying to save; and context dependency. A
species may play a keystone role in some parts of its range, at specific times of the year, or under certain
conditions. Therefore, the determination of a species as keystone varies both temporally and spatially, and a strong understanding of the
context specific interactions is required.
A2 Invisible Threshold/Precautionary Principle
Invisible threshold makes quantifying their impact impossible – ecosystem collapses
are rare and don’t spillover
New York Times 2000 “Lost Rivets and Threads, and Ecosystems Pulled Apart”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E4D61239F937A35754C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spo
n=&pagewanted=all.
In this way of looking at the situation, there is no clear threshold of catastrophe, but rather a
''continuum of degradation,'' from ''a world rich in biodiversity to a threadbare remnant with fewer
species, fewer natural places, less beauty, and reduced ecosystem services.'' And while there may be
multiple rips and tears in the tapestry, any catastrophic collapses that might take place (like the crash of
fishery) are relatively rare and local.
BioD Collapse Inevitable
Biodiversity loss is inevitable - solutions don’t work
Jowit 4/29 - political correspondant for The Guardian (Juliette, “International failure to meet target to reduce biodiversity decline”, The
Guardian, 4/29/14, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/29/international-failure-biodiversity-decline)
The world has failed to meet the target set by international leaders to reduce the rate of biodiversity
loss by this year, experts will announce next month. Instead, a coalition of 40 conservation organisations claims
there have been "alarming biodiversity declines", and that pressures on the natural world from
development, over-use and pollution have risen since the ambition was set in the 2002 Convention on
Biological Diversity. The first formal assessment of the target, published today in the journal Science, will be the basis of a formal
declaration by the CBD in Nairobi on 10 May, at which governments will be pressed to take the issues as seriously as climate change and the
economic crisis. A
growing number of studies have shown that it is almost impossible to calculate the value
of the "ecosystem services" from the natural world, from food, rich soil and fuel for local people, to
clean air and water, and plants used for the international pharmaceutical industry. "Since 1970 we have reduced
animal populations by 30%, the area of mangroves and sea grasses by 20% and the coverage of living corals by 40%," said Professor Joseph
Alcamo, chief scientist of the United Nations Environment Programme, one of the contributing organisations. "These losses are clearly
unsustainable, since biodiversity makes a key contribution to human well-being
and sustainable development."
Impossible to solve bio-d - human consumption is inevitable
UN University 11(Ongoing global biodiversity loss and the need to move beyond protected areas: a review of the technical and practical
shortcomings of protected areas on land and sea, Science Daily, 7/29/11, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110728123059.htm)
Humanity's footprint on Earth is ever expanding in efforts to meet basic needs like housing and food .
If it did prove possible to
place the recommended 30% of world habitats under protection, intense conflicts with competing
human interests are inevitable -- many people would be displaced and livelihoods impaired.
Forcing a trade-off between human development and sustaining biodiversity is unlikely to lead to
a solution with biodiversity preserved. Concludes Dr. Mora: "Given the considerable effort and
widespread support for the creation of protected areas over the past 30 years, we were surprised
to find so much evidence for their failure to effectively address the global problem of
biodiversity loss. Clearly, the biodiversity loss problem has been underestimated and the ability
of protected areas to solve this problem overestimated."
Biodiversity loss inevitable – 5 warrants prove
Bacher 12 (Dan Bacher, Founder & Executive Director at SpeakYourMind Foundation Senior Research
and Development Engineer, Laboratory for Restorative Neurotechnology (BrainGate) at Brown
University, “UN study says biodiversity loss unstoppable with protected areas alone”, North Coast,
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/07/28/18686337.php //nz)
The study says continuing heavy reliance on the protected areas strategy has five key technical and
practical limitations. The first of these limitations is that "protected areas only ameliorate certain human
threats." "Biodiversity loss is triggered by a host of human stressors including habitat loss,
overexploitation, climate change, pollution and invasive species," according to the study. "Yet protected areas are
useful primarily against overexploitation and habitat loss. Since the remaining stressors are just as deleterious, biodiversity can be expected to
continue declining as it has done until now. The study shows that approximately 83% of protected areas on the sea and 95% of protected areas
on land are located in areas with continuing high impact from multiple human stressors." This conclusion by the scientists echoes one of the
key criticisms of California's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative - the "marine protected areas" created by this widely-contested
process don't comprehensively protect the ocean from the main threats to the ocean and marine life in California. These threats include
massive water diversions out of the Bay-Delta Estuary, water pollution, oil spills and drilling, wave and wind energy projects, military testing,
habitat destruction and all other human impacts other than sustainable fishing and gathering. Ironically, even before the imposition of these
largely redundant ocean closures that are now being contested by coalition of fishing organizations in court, California marine and anadromous
fisheries had the strictest recreational and commercial fishing regulations on the entire planet. MLPA advocates refuse to acknowledge the
existence of one of the largest marine protected areas in the world, the Rockfish Conservation Area, that encompass the entire continental
A second limitation cited in the study is
"underfunding." "Global expenditures on protected areas today are estimated at US $6 billion per year
and many areas are insufficiently funded for effective management," the assessment notes. "Effectively
managing existing protected areas requires an estimated $24 billion per year - four times current
expenditure. Despite strong advocacy for protected areas, budget growth has been slow and it seems unlikely that it will be possible to
shelf of California from the Oregon border to the Mexican border!
raise funding appropriate for effective management as well as for creation of the additional protected areas as is advocated," according to the
report. Again, the assessment echoes the criticism by fishermen and grassroots environmentalists that there is not sufficient funding for
enforcement of new marine protected areas (MPAs) under the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. The game wardens refer to these new
MPAs as "marine poaching areas," since they will only spread a force of wardens already unable to effectively monitor existing reserves even
thinner. In fact, Jerry Karnow, the president of the California Fish and Game Wardens Association, has repeatedly asked the California Fish and
The three other
limitations pinpointed by the scientists are: • the expected growth in protected area coverage is too
slow • the size and connectivity of protected areas are inadequate • conflicts with human
development.
Game Commission to not create new marine protected areas unless sufficient funding is provided to hire new wardens.
Lots of alt-causes and any risk of an internal link is useless – species extinction
inevitable- consensus
Krauss et al 10 (Jochen Krauss, Riccardo Bommarco, Moisès Guardiola, Risto K Heikkinen, Aveliina Helm, Mikko
Kuussaari, Regina Lindborg, Erik Öckinger, Meelis Pärtel, Joan Pino, Juha Pöyry, Katja M Raatikainen, Anu Sang, Constantí
Stefanescu, Tiit Teder, Martin Zobel, Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter, all write for the US National Library of Medicine National
Institutes of Health, “Habitat fragmentation causes immediate and time-delayed biodiversity loss at different trophic levels,”
PubMed Central, May 2010, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871172 //nz)
Loss of biodiversity is a worldwide concern. One primary cause of species loss is habitat destruction and
fragmentation (Tilman et al. 2001), but the rate of extinctions might be accelerated due to other causes
such as invasion by alien species, overexploitation, climate change, habitat deterioration and extinction
cascades (Diamond 1989; Thomas et al. 2004a; Brook et al. 2008; Dunn et al. 2009). Extinction processes often occur with a
time delay and populations living close to their extinction threshold might survive for long time periods
before they go extinct (Brooks et al. 1999; Hanski & Ovaskainen 2002; Lindborg & Eriksson 2004; Helm et al. 2006; Vellend et al. 2006).
This time delay in extinction is called the ‘relaxation time’ (Diamond 1972) and the phenomenon that declining
populations will eventually go extinct in fragmented or degraded habitats has been described as an ‘extinction debt’ (Tilman et al. 1994;
Kuussaari et al. 2009). In
present-day fragmented and perturbed landscapes, populations of many species
might be on a deterministic path to extinction even without any further habitat loss occurring. However,
our understanding of the occurrence and ubiquity of extinction debts across ecosystems and taxonomic
groups is highly incomplete and neither temporal nor spatial scales at which extinction debts occur are
well known (Cousins 2009; Kuussaari et al. 2009). Regional studies have focused on a single taxonomic group
(vascular plants or vertebrates) and their results have been contradictory, with some studies reporting evidence for the
existence of an extinction debt (Brooks et al. 1999; Lindborg & Eriksson 2004; Helm et al. 2006), but others not (Adriaens et al. 2006). Further,
little is known about the relevance of species traits such as longevity, resource specialistation or trophic
rank in the context of delayed colonizations and extinctions as a result of environmental change (Menendez et al. 2006; Kuussaari et al. 2009;
Jackson & Sax 2010).
Biodiveristy is declining and has been ever since the 30’s , deforestation which is the
main cause of decline isn’t even causing problems
Bailey, 00, award-winning science correspondent for Reason magazine, testified before Congress,
author of numerous books, member of the Society of Environmental Journalists and the American
Society for Bioethics and Humanities (Ronald, “Earth Day, Then and Now The planet's future has never
looked better. Here's why.”, http://reason.com/archives/2000/05/01/earth-day-then-and-now/4)
Worries about declining biodiversity have become popular lately. On the first Earth Day, participants were concerned
about saving a few particularly charismatic species such as the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon. But even then some foresaw a coming
holocaust. As Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look, "Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years,
somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Writing just five years after the first Earth Day, Paul
Ehrlich and his biologist wife, Anne Ehrlich, predicted that "since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in
most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it." There's
only one
problem: Most species that were alive in 1970 are still around today. "Documented animal extinctions
peaked in the 1930s, and the number of extinctions has been declining since then," according to Stephen
Edwards, an ecologist with the World Conservation Union, a leading international conservation organization whose members are nongovernmental organizations, international agencies, and national conservation agencies. Edwards notes that a 1994 World
Conservation
Union report found known extinctions since 1600 encompassed 258 animal species, 368 insect species,
and 384 vascular plants. Most of these species, he explains, were "island endemics" like the Dodo. As a result, they are
particularly vulnerable to habitat disruption, hunting, and competition from invading species. Since 1973, only seven species have
gone extinct in the United States. What mostly accounts for relatively low rates of extinction? As with many
other green indicators, wealth leads the way by both creating a market for environmental values and
delivering resource-efficient technology. Consider, for example, that one of the main causes of extinction is
deforestation and the ensuing loss of habitat. According to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, what drives
most tropical deforestation is not commercial logging, but "poor farmers who have no other option for feeding their families than slashing and
burning a patch of forest." By contrast, countries that practice high yield, chemically assisted agriculture have expanding forests. In 1920, U.S.
forests covered 732 million acres. Today they cover 737 million acres, even though the number of Americans grew from 106 million in 1920 to
272 million now. Forests in Europe expanded even more dramatically, from 361 million acres to 482 million acres between 1950 and 1990.
Despite continuing deforestation in tropical countries, Roger Sedjo, a senior fellow at the think tank Resources for the Future, notes
that "76 percent of the tropical rain forest zone is still covered with forest." Which is quite a far cry from being ninetenths gone. More good news: In its State of the World's Forests 1999, the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization
documents that while forests in developing countries were reduced by 9.1 percent between 1980 and 1995, the
global rate of deforestation is now slowing.
Environmental destruction an exploitation is inevitable
Boulter 02 (Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution
and the End of Man, p 180)
As long as evolutionary biology is dominated by highly objective perfectionists, most attention will be
directed to the new methods of storing and communicating the huge amount of data for molecular
biology. This is the new industry analysing the information in DNA sequence databases. Big money will
continue to be spent on making more and more of this computerised information, in the hope that
mankind will be saved with more accurate medical provision and by cheaper food. Meanwhile, the
darker sides of human behaviour that led to so many extinctions of other mammals just a few thousand
years ago go unheeded. The evolutionary psychologists are well set along the objective approach and
reject any suggestion that the whole Earth and life system may be in control, not just one part of it. But
that most threatening of all human characteristics, selfishness, rises time and again as the fundamental
explanation of what we have been doing to the environment since the Industrial Revolution. The
sociobiologists however talk a lot about an opposite, altruism, which some believe to be a feature that
can be monitored to show evolutionary changes. They think that humans succeed because we help our
fellow men. I do not share their optimism, for these wise forecasts about group behaviour ignore my
sense of what the evidence is saying, that we are only really interested in ourselves and our close family.
We will continue to burn natural gas to keep us warm, kerosene to fly us away for a holiday, and once
there we will pump water to a swimming pool in the desert.
Collapse of the environment is inevitable
Boulter 02 (Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution
and the End of Man, p 182)
But if human behaviour cannot evolve, the response to fast changes in the environment will be very
different. There will be no reprieve, no stopping the progress of mass extinction, and man surely will be
a victim within that. Our most damaging behaviour is selfishness and aggression, and unless they can
change rapidly there is no hope for the ecological destruction to be halted. Our power to do damage has
grown to make our aggression terminal, not just dangerous. If the Earth-life system really is in control of
itself, perhaps there is nothing that we or anyone else can do to slow our abuse of the environment. On
the other hand, could it be that the system itself will see to it that the abuse stops? The damage we do
to the environment causes many species to have difficulty fulfilling their own peculiar requirements for
living. This means the resulting extinctions have happened much faster than is predicted by our spindleshaped model. Just as happened with the decline in dinosaur Families 65 million years ago, so now,
Families of large mammals are becoming extinct at a very fast rate. This is instead of the slowly
protracted fall in their diversity which was shown by our curve of changing mammal Families in figure
5.5.
Extinction Good
Mass extinctions are good – the system survives while simplifying the ecosystem
Scully 2002
(Malcolm, Editor at Large of the Chronicle, The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 5,
http://chronicle.com/article/In-the-Long-Run-or-Maybe/10663/
His analyses of earlier extinctions lead him to conclude that nature
is a self-organized system that, when disrupted, will
correct itself. One way it does so, he writes, is through extinction. Species vanish, but the system
survives. Citing Per Bak, a physicist now at the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine in London, who first described selforganized systems in 1987, Boulter says that the best way to understand such systems is to envision a sand pile to which a steady stream of
grains is added. The stream creates a cone that grows larger and steeper, and at some point collapses in an avalanche. Then the process starts
again. In such systems, there are
long periods of relative calm and infrequent large disruptions. "If biological
evolution really is a self-organized Earth-life system, there are some very important consequences," he
says. "One is that life on this planet continues despite internal and external setbacks, because it is the
system that recovers at the expense of some of its former parts. For example, the end of the dinosaurs
enabled mammals to diversify. Otherwise if the exponential rise were to reach infinity, there would not
be space or food to sustain life. It would come to a stop. Extinctions are necessary to retain life on this
planet." His research provides "more evidence to support the idea that evolution thrives on culling," he says. "The planet
did really well from the Big Five mass-extinction events. The victims' demise enabled new environments
to develop and more diversification took place in other groups of animals and plants. Nature was the
richer for it. In just this same way the planet can take advantage from the abuse we are giving it. The
harder the abuse, the greater the change to the environment. But it also follows that it brings forward the extinctions of
a whole selection of vulnerable organisms."
Species loss is key to long-term evolutionary change
Boulter 2002
(Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man, p.
170)
The same trend of long-drawn-out survival of the final relicts has been further considered by Bob May’s
group at Oxford, particularly Sean Nee. The Oxford group are vociferous wailers of gloom and doom:
‘Extinction episodes, such as the anthropogenic one currently under way, result in a pruned tree of life.’
But they go on to argue that the vast majority of groups survive this pruning, so that evolution goes on,
albeit along a different path if the environment is changed. Indeed, the fossil record has taught us to
expect a vigorous evolutionary response when the ecosystem changes significantly. This kind of research
is more evidence to support the idea that evolution thrives on culling. The planet did really well from
the Big Five mass-extinction events. The victims’ demise enabled new environments to develop and
more diversification took place in other groups of animals and plants. Nature was the richer for it. In
just the same way the planet can take advantage from the abuse we are giving it. The harder the abuse,
the greater the change to the environment. But it also follows that it brings forward the extinctions of a
whole selection of vulnerable organisms.
This prevents total extinction of life on earth
Boulter 2002
(Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man, p.
67)
If biological evolution really is a self-organised Earth-life system there are some very important consequences. One is that life
on this planet
continues despite internal and external setbacks, because it is the system that recovers at the expense of some of its
former parts. For example, the end of the dinosaurs enabled mammals to diversify. Otherwise if the exponential
rise were to reach infinity, there would not be space or food to sustain life. It would come to a stop. Extinctions are
necessary to retain life on this planet.
Environmental collapse and mass extinction is good – ecosystems inevitably stabilize
over the long-term
Boulter 02 (Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution
and the End of Man, p 170)
This kind of research is more evidence to support the idea that evolution thrives on culling. The planet
did really well from the Big Five mass-extinction events. The victims’ demise enabled new environments
to develop and more diversification took place in other groups of animals and plants. Nature was the
richer for it. In just this same way the planet can take advantage from the abuse we are giving it. The
harder the abuse, the greater the change to the environment. But it also follows that it brings forward
the extinctions of a whole selection of vulnerable organisms. If humans were to fall into this vulnerable
category, we too would become extinct. The effect of this would be that the abuse would stop being
inflicted and peace and quiet would return. It would take several thousands of years for this to happen,
and even longer for many different new ecosystems to reach a steady state of climax. Meanwhile, of
course, evolution would set to work and increase the diversity of the newly selected forms, without the
threat of humans and all the other species that our extinction event killed off.
BioD => Ecosystem Collapse
Bio-d cause ecological collapse - simple systems are better
Heath 99 - (Jim, “WHY SAVE ORCHIDS UNDER THREAT?” Australian Orchid Council, Inc., 1999,
http://www.orchidsaustralia.com/whysave.htm)
Some people say we can’t afford to lose any species, no matter what species they are. Everything needs everything else, they say, to
make nature balance. If that were right, it might explain why the six orchid species should be saved. Alas, no. We could pour
weedkiller on all the orchids in Australia and do no ecological damage to the rest of the continent’s biology. But
wouldn’t the
natural ecological systems then become less stable, if we start plucking out species - even those
orchids? Not necessarily. Natural biological systems are hardly ever stable and balanced anyway.
Everything goes along steadily for a time, then boom - the system falls apart and simplifies for
no visible reason. Diverse systems are usually more unstable than the less diverse ones. Biologists
agree that in some places less diversity is more stable (in the Arctic, for example). Also, monocultures - farms - can be very
stable. Not to mention the timeless grass of a salt marsh. In other words, there’s no biological law that says we have to save the
orchids because they add diversity, and that added diversity makes the biological world more stable.
Best data concludes less diverse ecosystems are most resilient, your authors mistake
productivity for resilience
Naeem, 02, Director of Science at Center for Environmental Research and Conservation (CERC) and
Professor and Chair of Columbia University Department of Ecology (Shahid, “Biodiversity: Biodiversity
equals instability?,”Evolution and Environmental Biology, 07 March 2002, Nature Magazine)
Chief among the 'begets-stability' theories is the insurance hypothesis — the impeccably logical notion that having a variety of species insures
an ecosystem against a range of environmental upsets. For example, suppose an ecosystem faces a drought, then a flood, which in turn is
followed by a fire. According
to the insurance hypothesis, if that ecosystem is diverse — if it has some species that can
tolerate drought, some that are flood-resistant and some that are fire-tolerant — then two scenarios are likely. The ecosystem may
show resistance, remaining broadly unchanged, because its many species buffer it against damage. Or it
may show resilience: if it does get hammered, it may bounce back to its original state quickly because the tolerant species ultimately drive the
recovery process and compensate for the temporary loss of their less hardy compatriots. But Pfisterer and Schmid3 found
that, when
challenged with an experimentally induced drought, species-poor communities were both more
resistant and more resilient (as reflected by their ability to sustain and recover pre-drought biomass production) than plots of higher
diversity. The higher-diversity plots were originally more productive, but their resistance and resilience — that is, their
stability — was low (Fig. 1). This is the opposite of what the insurance hypothesis predicts. It also contrasts with
what combinatorial 'microcosm' experiments have found5, 6 and what theoretical models of biodiversity have claimed4. Pfisterer and Schmid's
findings3 appear to support those who claim that diversity does not lead to stability. But there's a twist, and those on each side of the debate
run the risk of having their own pet theories turned against them. Pfisterer and Schmid suggest that the observed inverse association between
diversity and stability is due to a theoretical mechanism known as niche complementarity. This mechanism, however, is the very same as that
touted as the chief cause of the positive biodiversity–productivity relationships found in other combinatorial biodiversity experiments, such as
those at Cedar Creek7 and those run by the BIODEPTH consortium8. The central idea of niche complementarity is that a community of species
whose niches complement one another is more efficient in its use of resources than an equivalent set of monocultures. For example, a uniform
mixture of early- and late-season plants and shallow- and deep-rooting plants that are spread over 4 m2 will yield more biomass than combined
1-m2 monocultures of each species7, 9. So niche complementarity can explain why higher diversity tends to lead to higher productivity, and has
also been adopted by those in the 'diversity leads to stability' camp because one would expect that more efficient communities would fare
better in the face of stress. Those on the other side, however, feel that existing
data better support a mechanism known as
sampling, where diverse communities produce more biomass simply because they are more likely to
contain productive species10, 11. In other words, we can't read too much into experiments in which higher diversity leads to greater
productivity. What Pfisterer and Schmid suggest is that complementarity among species in a diverse plot could be its
downfall when faced with perturbation. Niche complementarity is disrupted and so the whole
community suffers. But this is not a problem for less diverse plots. So those in the 'diversity begets stability' camp risk
being hoist on the petard of their own theory of niche complementarity. Meanwhile, although Pfisterer and Schmid's findings support the idea
that diversity does not lead to stability, the authors reject a large role for sampling — the theory generally favoured by the camp that disagrees
with the idea that biodiversity leads to stability.
Ocean Acidification Turn
Reject their flawed models – their impact is empirically denied
Caruba 10 (Alan, “The Next Big Hoax: Ocean Acidification,” Warning Signs, 1/12/10,
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/01/next-
big-hoax-ocean-acidification.html)
An article in Science Daily reported that “The scientists note that ocean acidification is already detectable and is accelerating.” What
these
scientists are more interested in detecting is where the next wasted billions in government and
foundation grants can be found. The oceans of the world comprise some 70% of the Earth’s surface. They are like the lungs of the
Earth, absorbing and releasing carbon dioxide. They have been doing this for billions of years and a rise in the
amount of CO2 is essentially meaningless. “It is well established among researchers that the uptake of increased amounts of
carbon dioxide will make ocean water more acidic as the gas dissolves to create carbonic acid,” said the Science Daily article and, to scare you
just a bit more, “Ocean chemistry is changing 100 times more rapidly than in the 650,000 years that preceded the modern industrial era…” The
global warming fraud was based on the assertion that, as the Earth encountered greater industrialization, the increased use of oil, natural gas,
and coal as sources of energy, the CO2 released was “causing” the Earth to warm exponentially. The
only problem with that
“theory” is that it was (1) based on phony computer models and other false interpretations of data, and
(2) the latest, perfectly natural climate cycle, is causing havoc around the world by dumping mountains
of snow everywhere along with breaking cold temperature records faster than new readings can be
taken.
Ocean acid good - increases productivity
Gooding et al 9 ( Rebecca, Christopher Harley, and Emily Tang, “Elevated water temperature and carbon dioxide concentration increase
the growth of a keystone echinoderm,” 2009, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/05 /25/0811143106.full.pdf+html)
Despite the reduction in relative calcified mass with increased [CO2], the overall effect of [CO2]
on growth was positive. The reasons
for the observed increase in growth with elevated [CO2] are somewhat unclear. The ratio of dry soft tissue mass to water
mass remained unchanged by temperature or [CO2], suggesting that the change in relative calcified mass must have been
caused at least in part by an increase in the rate of wet soft tissue growth. Because we could not measure change in calcified mass over the
course of the experiment, it is unclear whether the rate of calcified tissue growth simply remained the same as that of sea stars reared at
control [CO2] (thereby failing to keep pace with the increased soft tissue growth) or declined compared to that of control [CO2] sea stars.
Experiments specifically testing sea star calcification rates under control and high [CO2] conditions will be necessary to answer this question.
Although the unchanged ratio of dry soft tissue mass to water mass demonstrates that the greater growth of sea stars reared at high [CO2] was
primarily because of increased wet soft tissue growth, it does not explain the mechanism behind this increase. The nonsignificant trend of
increased feeding with increased [CO2] suggests that although feeding rate may be partially responsible for the increase in growth rate, there
are likely additional factors contributing to this change. It
is possible that elevated [CO2] increases resource use
efficiency; for example, the slightly lower pH of high-CO2 seawater could aid in the digestion of prey
tissue, making feeding less energetically costly. Alternatively, low level stressors such as low doses of
toxins can elicit positive responses such as increased growth in plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates, a
phenomenon referred to as hormesis (26); the stress of reduced pH or carbonate availability may elicit a similar response in sea
stars. Identification of the precise mechanism driving the increase in wet soft tissue growth with elevated [CO2] will require further, more
physiologically based experiments
Bioprospecting DA
1NC
Unique marine expansion of bioprospecting coming now – Biodiversity collapse
eliminates necessary profit motive
Sabal 7
Megan Sabal (M.A. Miami Ohio in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, “The Future of Marine Resources as
Pharmaceutical Products” May 20, 2007
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CMOhsrVoJxIJ:jrscience.wcp.miamioh.edu/fie
ldcourses07/PapersMarineEcologyArticles/TheFutureofMarineResource.html+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl
=us&client=firefox-a
Coral Reefs have long been considered the rainforests of the oceans. This is a reference to the extensive
biodiversity which is found in both of these unique ecosystems. The high level of primary productivity,
due largely in part to the intense solar radiation in the tropics, accounts for the variety of organisms
found in these areas. Although the high biodiversity in rainforests is generally known, the general public
is unaware of the extensive plethora of organisms on coral reefs. Part of this is because humans are
land-dwelling organisms and tend to invest more time and energy into terrestrial research and
conservation methods. This is unfortunate as marine organisms have greater pylogenetic diversity than
terrestrial organisms whose unique characteristics are lost through this selective research. Some classes
of organisms found only in marine environments are corals, tunicates, mollusks, bryozoans, sponges and
echinoderms (Bruckner). A recent value of biodiversity has been the resources for chemicals which could
be utilized in pharmaceutical products. With the great biodiversity and unique adaptations of marine
organisms, “The prospect of finding a new drug in the sea, especially among coral reef species, may be
300 to 400 times more likely than isolating one from a terrestrial ecosystem” (Bruckner). Despite the
great potential, marine bioprospecting has lagged behind terrestrial efforts because harvesting these
compounds is more difficult, more dangerous and more expensive (Tangley). In order to take advantage
of the potential medicinal benefits to be found in marine organisms, cooperation among researchers,
companies and indigenous people must be obtained. Further technological advancements in harvesting
methods which are more cost-effective and ecologically sustainable must also be developed (Allison).
Although the potential is immense, there are various obstacles which researchers need to overcome in
order to utilize these pharmaceutical benefits. Accounting for the immense potential for medicinal
benefits in marine bioprospecting is due to the unique adaptations of these organisms themselves.
Many of marine organisms are sessile and live firmly attached to coral reefs and therefore cannot
escape environmental stressors or predation by simply moving to a safer area. Instead they have
evolved defense mechanisms which rely on bioactive compounds to deter predation, fight disease and
prevent overgrowth by competing organisms (Bruckner). Chemicals with these unique properties have a
high potential to yield medicines which could end up saving lives. One problem with utilizing these
chemicals economically is that they are usually produced in minute amounts and only under specific
stressors. In terrestrial environments many of these chemical-producing mechanisms are unnecessary
for organisms and this is why bioprospecting in marine environments holds such untapped potential.
The search for pharmaceutical products from coral reef ecosystems has been in existence for many
years, although it has not been widespread. Part of this is due to the obstacles presented through
various harvesting methods as they are typically very expensive and yield a small amount of the desired
chemical. Compounds will enter the drug market only if a cost-effective source of large-scale supply is
available (Mendola). With this pressure there are a variety of harvesting methods in order to reach the
highest efficiency and output. One method is chemical synthesis which includes chemically forging the
desired chemical compound. In order for this to be economically feasible this process generally must
take less than 30 chemical reactions (Mendola). Many companies rely on wild harvest, where the costs
include the SCUBA equipment and boat, but an example shows that this process averages only 2 grams
of substance per kilogram of sponge which means that 75 tons of sponge would need to be harvested
yearly! This method is highly unsustainable and would wreak havoc with coral reef ecosystems over the
long term (Mendola). Mariculture which is also known as aquaculture is controlled marine agriculture.
These have potential for being an ecologically sustainable harvesting method, although start up costs
are high and there is trouble finding suitable areas to start these sponge farms (Mendola). Ex Situ
Culture consists of the cultivation of sponges outside of the sea in a laboratory setting. This allows for
scientists to control the specific parameters such as water temperature, light, food and nutrients. There
have been some small successes of ex situ culture, but no large-scale production has yet been achieved
(Mendola). Another possibility is developing a sponge cell culture, but this has not been achieved yet
due to complexities with many associated organisms such as bacteria, algae and fungi which live in close
proximity with sponges and make up more than 40% of all sponge biomass (Mendola). Genetic
modification holds potential, as the genetic code which codes for the specific chemical could be
transferred into a laboratory-friendly microorganism which could then turn out the desired compound.
Limitations with this method are that many of the bioactive compounds are not single proteins, but
products of extensive metabolic pathways which are hard to transfer into a different organism
(Mendola). Semi-synthesis is a final method which is comprised of the biotechnological production of an
earlier chemical step and then followed by a limited number of synthetic chemical reactions in order to
obtain the final product. Of these various harvesting methods mariculture is currently the most feasible,
while ex situ culture holds the greatest potential for future bio-production (Mendola). Despite the
imposing obstacles in harvesting chemicals for medicinal benefits, there have most certainly been
success stories. Algae have been used for cancer therapy, venom from cone snails for painkillers and
chemicals from extracts of sponges for antiviral drugs (Bruckner). There are various potential
pharmaceuticals, nutritional supplements, enzymes, pesticides, cosmetics and other commercial
products all from marine resources. Over the last decade, Japan has been the leader in marine
biotechnology investing between $900 million and $1 billion each year. The United States has invested
much less into these efforts and even so, “…U.S. marine biotechnology efforts since 1983 have resulted
in more than 170 U.S. patents, with close to 100 new compounds patented between 1996 and 1999”
(Bruckner). These extensive results encourage marine biotechnology to grow 15-20% during the next 5
years. Most of the funding for this research and development comes from universities, for-profit
companies, government agencies and conservation groups. Once a drug is identified, it is patented and
licensed to pharmaceutical companies to develop, test and market (Bruckner). Obtaining the economic
benefits from marine resources is a lengthy process, but one with significant potential which leaders
such as Japan and the U.S. are seeking to utilize. The potential economic profit which could be derived
from these pharmaceutical products is immense and many believe will play a key role in the emerging
business of ecotourism. Locals will then have a motive to protect the fragile ecosystems of coral reefs.
Bruckner states that, “If properly regulated, bioprospecting activities within coral reef environments
may fuel viable market-driven incentives to promote increased stewardship for coral reefs and tools to
conserve and sustainably use coral reef resources”. Unfortunately, a large, initial financial investment is
needed to start finding drug possibilities and this is followed by a long lapse of time before the drug is
finally developed and available to consumers (Bruckner). Many local, indigenous populations do not
have this money or time to invest in marine resources yielding economic products. Outside, affluent
nations such as the United States, arriving in the waters surrounding these local nations and profiting
from the biodiversity present without providing compensation or control of the resources to the locals
(Tangley). This imperialist situation is rampant, but healthy relationships between outside companies
and local communities do exist such as with the example of SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals. This
company is one of the largest players in bioprospecting world wide and they gather their products in
South Africa and Fiji. In exchange for the permission to gather chemicals from these countries
surrounding areas, SmithKline provides equipment, training and certification in advanced technical
diving to local scientists who can then use them on their own products. They also provide the means for
scholarships for local students who are developing marine natural products (Tangley). These wealthier
nations have the potential to provide a new economic means and bring new technology and knowledge
to poorer areas. The reason this does not occur everywhere is that the situation concerning sovereignty
over marine resources is vastly complicated. Marine resources are generally considered common
property resources which indicate that no one stakeholder hold exclusive rights to the area (Carter). This
leads to a vast amount of competition and confusion over marine resources such as, oil wells, fisheries
and the great diversity on coral reefs. There are vague boundaries which a centralized management has
devised. Internal waters such as bays, estuaries and rivers are under the jurisdiction of the costal nation
as well as the territorial sea which is the open ocean adjacent to the coast. Then extends an exclusive
economic zone where special uses such as mining, fishing and dumping is allowed only for the coastal
nation, but other nations may engage in non-destructive uses. Finally, waters outside theses designated
areas are in the high seas and open to anyone (Cutter). Definitive boundaries are lacking in marine
environments and there are many discrepancies and violations of these policies. These also allow for
wealthier nations to come and utilize the marine resources found on coral reefs without consent of the
locals (Honey). In 1993 the Convention on Biological Diversity created an agreement between
industrialized and developing countries to start implementing guidelines over the access to coastal
marine resources (Tangley). The aspects considered include conservation of biodiversity, sustainability
and fair sharing of benefits with the source country (Bruckner). These are important steps in setting up a
system which allows for marine bioprospecting to be beneficial to all countries involved. Coral reefs are
amazing ecosystems that harbor drastic amounts of unique organisms. Many of these life forms have
qualities which make them excrete bioactive compounds which can be harvested and utilized in various
pharmaceutical products. Coral reefs are currently under many stressors and are dying across the earth.
One possible method for the conservation of these magnificent ecosystems it through the knowledge of
how many life-saving products could be derived from these areas. More technological advancements
with harvesting methods need to be developed in order to make this economically profitable while
avoiding destruction to the reef itself. Then more international policies need to be created and enforced
between industrialized nations and local communities so that marine bioprospecting can serve as a
positive example of ecotourism. Coral reefs are brimming with potential medicinal benefits if only a
system can be created soon to preserve these wonderful marine ecosystems.
Bio-prospecting collapses the Antarctic Treaty System
Stephen Leahy (freelance environmental journalist) 2004 “Bio-Pirates of the Antarctic”
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/9128
Antarctic bio-prospectors are acting like bio-pirates, plundering the continent's biological treasures
before global measures to control its biodiversity can be put in place, experts warn in a United Nations
University report released Monday. "Bio-piracy is happening. But the piracy isn't illegal because they're
not stealing it from anyone, since no one owns it," says Sam Johnston of the U.N. University's Institute of
Advanced Studies. Gaps in the existing Antarctic Treaty System now allow organisms to be taken,
patented and commercialised, report co-author Johnston told IPS. The Antarctic Treaty was established
in 1961 to protect the continent from uncontrolled commercial exploitation from activities such as
mining, militarisation or direct ownership by countries. Thirty-nine nations, representing over 80 per
cent of the world's population, are signatories, including the United Kingdom, United States and Russia.
A number of other treaties now comprise the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). While commercial
activities like mining and tourism are banned or carefully regulated, there is nothing to stop "bioprospecting" for potentially lucrative organisms. Scientific expeditions to collect organisms are strictly
regulated under the ATS, which includes strong measures to protect the delicate Antarctic ecosystem.
And there is a long tradition of cooperation between scientists, which includes making all research
public. The Antarctic is unique in the world in that it is not owned by any country, Johnston observes.
"It's like the moon and Mars." ''Patents and commercialisation could change all that," he warns. "Profitmaking is completely alien to the ATS," says Josh Stevens, of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition
(ASOC), a group made up of nearly 230 NGOs from 49 countries that have flagged a trend towards
increased commercialisation of science and other activities in the region. "Bio-prospecting could bring
down the whole house of cards," Stevens told IPS. The region contains many unique species of
"extremophiles", creatures adapted to the extreme conditions there, says the U.N. University's report,
'The International Regime For Bio-prospecting: Existing Policies And Emerging Issues For Antarctica'.
Biotechnology companies in particular are scouring the area in hopes of finding organisms that will be
the basis for new drugs, industrial compounds and other commercial applications, it says. Already,
some 92 patents referring to Antarctic organisms or to molecules extracted from them have been filed
in the United States, and a further 62 in Europe. Enzymes extracted from extremophiles in other regions
have become multi-million-dollar products in laundry detergents. Another enzyme is the basis of the
300-million-dollar medical diagnosis and forensics industry. The market for biotechnology enzymes
derived from extremophiles is forecast to grow 15¡20 percent a year, growth that is part of a larger
trend, says the report. Annual sales derived from traditional knowledge using genetic resources are
three billion dollars for the cosmetic and personal care industry, 20 billion dollars for the botanical
medicine sector and 75 billion dollars for the pharmaceutical industry. Sixty¡two per cent of cancer
drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are of natural origin or modelled on
natural products, adds the report. For those reasons, companies are buying or purchasing licences to
complete collections of biological materials from various past Antarctic expeditions.. And because
research in the coldest, harshest region on the planet is extremely expensive, pharmaceutical companies
find many scientists and institutions willing to sign over commercial licensing rights in exchange for
funding. A contract signed in 1995 between the University of Tasmania and Amrad Natural Products, an
Australian company, gives Amrad the right to analyse Antarctic microbes to see if they could be used to
develop new antibiotics or other pharmaceutical products. European food giant Unilever has patented a
protein taken from bacteria found in Antarctic lake sediments that could stop ice crystals building up in
ice cream. Should that protein become a billion-dollar product, it would create a nightmare scenario for
the treaty system, says Stevens. "There's no way the ATS could withstand a commercial onslaught."
Collapse of ATS leads global nuclear war
Prakash Shah (secretary at the Indian ministry of external affairs) 1991 “The Antarctic Treaty System
in World Politics” p. 429
While the context in which Antarctica is now considered by the international community has changed
drastically since 1959, and despite metamorphosis in world polity, the Antarctic Treaty System remains
both valid and relevant and there are no viable alternatives to it. Any upheaval in the Treaty System will
open up the continent to military and nuclear rivalries, scramble for territorial occupation based on
overlapping claims, ruthless exploitation and possible colonization. As Dr. Falk so ably argues in his
paper, there are no viable alternatives to ATS. And yet, the ATS could come under strain as the major
challenge with respect to Antarctica today is that, while incorporating the distant prospect of resource
utilization and immediate need for preservation on its environment, it should be able to ensure the
continuance of the system of cooperation envisaged in the Treaty without disturbing its pristine
environment
Uniqueness/Brink
Companies want to go into the ocean for bioprospecting but there are limitations that
make its economics key
Nelson 12 RJ Dunlap Marine conservation program intern
Emily rose “Drugs from the deep: Ocean bioprospecting” University of Miami Journal
http://rjd.miami.edu/conservation/drugs-from-the-deep-ocean-bioprospecting
It is clear that the ocean has enormous medicinal potential. Unfortunately there are a number of
obstacles preventing this potential to be reached in full. One of the biggest problems is simply the lack
of supply. Underwater compounds are more difficult to reach than those on land. SCUBA and
submersibles make it easier to access these resources, however, oceanographic expeditions are quite
expensive. Also, in order to use these compounds effectively collections need to be done in very large
quantities. Large scale harvests are often deemed ecologically unsound. Because collection is almost
always not an option alternatives such as aquaculture and chemical synthesis can be used. Aquaculture
has been completed successfully, however it is difficult because little is known about the invertebrates.
Chemical synthesis is thought to be the ideal solution, giving pharmaceutical companies ultimate
control. However, this process is extremely costly, complex, and has a very low yield. Another
complication deals with political boundaries. The most diverse regions are located in areas of developing
countries. These are precisely the areas that the more developed nations wish to explore. Developing
nations are often nervous about being used, and thus hesitant to allow exploration. National and
international regulations regarding access and extraction of natural resources are then discussed. This
presents difficulty when placing value on a natural resource, including any value added to the resource
through its use as a pharmaceutical and the value it has initially in the ecosystem.
Bioprospecting in the ocean will increase – biodiversity is key
Leal et al 12 Department of Biology and CESAM, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal, Skidaway
Institute of Oceanography, Savannah, Georgia, United States of America peer-reviewed, open-access
resource from the PUBLIC LIBRARY OF SCIENCE. Reports of well-performed scientific studies “Trends in
the Discovery of New Marine Natural Products from Invertebrates over the Last Two Decades – Where
and What Are We Bioprospecting?”
Miguel Costa Leal João Puga, João Serôdio, Newton C. M. Gomes, Ricardo Calado January 20, 2012
RESEARCH ARTICLE http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0030580
Oceans, due to the area they represent and the ecosystem services they provide, are fundamental to
our planet. They also harbour a huge biodiversity of life. Of all animal phyla described so far, only
phylum Onychophora is not recorded in marine waters, while 15 phyla occur exclusively in the world's
oceans [1]. Invertebrates comprise approximately 60% of all marine animal diversity [2]. Most of them
belong to phyla Annelida, Arthropoda, Bryozoa, Cnidaria, Echinodermata, Mollusca, Platyhelminthes,
Porifera and sub-phylum Tunicata. Although tunicates belong to phylum Chordata, several studies
addressing marine invertebrates also include this group of organisms [3], [4]. Many marine invertebrates
are sessile and soft bodied, and therefore must rely on chemical defences (also known as natural
products), which arose through their evolutionary history to deter predators, to keep competitors away
or to paralyze prey [5], [6]. The abundance and diversity of natural products (NP) having biological
activity leads to an opportunity for the discovery of drugs [6]. Despite its relatively recent advent [7], [8],
the bioprospecting of new marine natural products (NMNP) has already yielded several thousand novel
molecules. Moreover, given that the ocean's biodiversity is higher than that recorded on land, it is
expected that the discovery of NMNP will increase in the years to come, providing new and improved
therapeutics for human illnesses, along with other innovative products for other industrial activities (e.g.
nutraceutics and biotechnology) [9]–[11]. In order to survey chemical diversity in an efficient and
effective way, one is required to employ optimized sampling strategies. Three different sampling
strategies are commonly used [12]: (i) exploring untapped geographical sources; (ii) exploring new
groups of marine organisms; or (iii) combining both of these sampling strategies. Geographical selection
of collection sites is a highly relevant aspect in bioprospecting efforts, as it is the first step for
discovering NMNP [6]. In addition, collection sites must be carefully chosen, in order to offer a
combination of high biological diversity and density, such that it maximizes the number of different
species being sampled and avoid adverse impacts to the collection site. Impact assessment of the
sampling site is also a major concern that is essential when monitoring chemical diversity, as the loss of
biodiversity through over-exploitation and habitat degradation are currently primary issues in marine
conservation [13]. To our knowledge, the geographical sources of NMNP have not been thoroughly
analysed and no trends for collections based upon geographical data have been published. Worldwide
marine regions can be organized by political borders (Economic Exclusive Zones - EEZ), ecological criteria
(e.g. Large Marine Ecosystems - LME) and/or biodiversity (Biodiversity Hotspots - BH). EEZ are areas over
which a state has jurisdiction concerning the exploration and use of its marine resources [14]. LME are
near shore regions characterized by similar depth, hydrography, productivity, and trophically dependent
populations [15]. LME attempts to map distinct ecological communities similar to those carried out for
terrestrial ecosystems [16]. LME were conceived as units for the practical application of transboundary
management issues[17]. BH are areas featuring incomparable concentrations of endemic species, which
are currently experiencing exceptional loss of habitat [18]. BH boundaries are determined by “biological
commonalities”, i.e., each BH features separate biota or communities of species that fit together as a
biogeographic unit. Most available reviews addressing the discovery of NMNP have ignored detailed
geographic information and have only briefly focused on the taxonomic position of source organisms
[19]–[23]. The majority of these reviews do not consider taxonomical levels lower than phylum and
mainly analyse the number of NMNP and their chemical properties.
Timeframe issue- patent expiration coming, pressure to discover more
KPMG 11 (KPMG is a global network of professional firms providing high quality services in the fields of
audit, tax and advisory. We work for a wide range of clients, both national and international
organizations. In the complexity of today's global landscape our clients are demanding more help in
solving complex issues, better integration and collaboration across disciplines and faster returns on their
investments through value-added partnerships, “Biodiversity and ecosystem services: Risk and
Opportunity analysis within the pharmaceutical industry”, May 2011, Natural Value Initiative, pg. 15
//nz)
Market: Many drugs are reaching the end of their patents, leading to increasing pressure to discover
new drugs. Companies that fail to adequately manage stakeholder relations, observe the rights of local
communities or abide by national regulations and best practice guidance on access and benefit sharing
may risk losing access to patents. This has implications for future revenues and for brand value.
Bioprospecting Links
Companies are deterred by a lack of certainty about access – the process is
prohibitively expensive without assurances of profitability and biodiversity
RedOrbit 2005
(RedOrbit, International news organization, June 8, 2005 “U.N.: Ocean ‘Bioprospecting’ Needs Rules”
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/154680/un_ocean_bioprospecting_needs_rules/ )
But the report said unfettered access could threaten the fragile habitats. And companies — which might
find a cure for AIDS or cancer in the depths — were deterred from investing by a lack of clarity about
access or ownership. The report says 32 of the 34 broadest categories of animals — from vertebrates
like humans to molluscs or arthropods — live in the seas. Up to 1,000 different species had been found
per square meter in some Pacific or Indian Ocean waters. “It’s very difficult to quantify how many deep
seabed organisms are now used in commercial products,” said Charlotte Salpin, a lead author of the
UNU report. But she said, for instance, French company Sederma or U.S. group California Tan used
enzymes from a heat-loving deep sea bacteria called ‘thermus thermophilus’ in suntan creams. “So far
very, very few private companies have the funds to carry out research themselves in the deep sea bed,”
she said. Every trip to the ocean bed costs about $1 million, according to a Japanese government
agency.\
Marine bio-prospecting gold rush inevitable – uncertainty over biodiversity access
chills investment and deters research
Morelle 2014
(Rebecca Morelle, Science correspondent, BBC News May 8, 2014 “Ocean medicine hunt: A Wild West
beneath the waves?” http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27295159 )
The oceans cover more than two thirds of Earth's surface, yet we've only dipped our toes in the water
when it comes to our understanding of this vast expanse - just 5% has so far been explored.
And it's this untapped potential that is sparking a medical gold rush. Investment in this area is growing
steadily. In the next phase of the European Union's research budget, 145m euros is heading for the seas.
Dr John Day, a marine scientist from Sams, says much of what is "findable" on land has already been
found. But he adds: "Historically (the ocean) isn't a place that people have looked, so they haven't
exploited it. "In addition there's a whole raft of new technologies allowing one to screen more
methodically and more scientifically and produce more useful data that can point you towards a final
product. "And of course a political will - we're looking to how can we exploit other parts of the planet to
produce new industries and technologies." But a lack of clarity over legislation could prove a setback for
this burgeoning area of research. Within 200 nautical miles of a country's coastline is the Economic
Exclusion Zone (EEZ). In these territorial waters, there are clearly defined laws about how the sea can be
exploited. And if a country has signed up to the Nagoya Protocol, an update to the UN's Convention on
Biological Diversity, they have an additional responsibility to ensure that any exploitation in their waters
is fair and sustainable. But beyond that boundary are the high seas: the stretch of international ocean
that nobody owns. And this area is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
This regulates activities such as mineral exploitation, but it doesn't cover so-called ocean bioprospecting.
The hoff The deep sea is especially rich in life - this crab, nicknamed 'The Hoff', was found more than
2,000m down Dr Day explains: "In open waters, this is a very grey and murky area as far as I'm
concerned. "At present, as far as I'm aware, there are very few laws that would cover exploitation of
that material. "The Law of the Sea focuses on what is on the ocean floor or beneath it, and it also
specifies non-mobile organisms - and there doesn't seem to be definitive legislation with regards to
what is in the water column." This is a concern, because this Wild West of the seas is home to an
extraordinary range of creatures and plants. Simply to survive, they have to adapt to extremes of
temperature, pressure and darkness - and it's this hardiness that makes them so attractive to scientists.
Coral reef Without clear legislation fragile ecosystems could be damaged The worry is that, without
regulation, fragile habitats could be damaged beyond repair. Environmental damage would be limited,
says the co-director of the Seabiotech consortium Prof Linda Harvey from the University of Strathclyde,
because most research involves collecting relatively small samples to analyse back at the lab. But she
believes the dearth of clear rules could cause other problems. "It's particularly important for companies
to have legal clarity when they're working in open waters because they're making a huge investment,"
she explains. "It will cost money to develop the drug and put it through clinical trials and if they don't
have legal certainty they will potentially lose the right to produce that drug and it's not acceptable to
them. "And in my opinion that would put companies off investing in taking samples from the deep-sea
environment." In Belgium, scientists, UN representatives and conservationists have been meeting to
discuss the problem. Prof Marcel Jaspars, from the University of Aberdeen, runs Pharmasea - another
EU-funded consortium carrying out research in this area. He says that a new mechanism is needed to
make sure any profits from the deep sea are shared. "If you were to discover anything, any royalties
would lie in the future," he explains. "The question is how to police that 20 years hence?
Biodiversity collapse makes gene exploitation impossible – it’s the biggest threat
Whelan et al 14 Medical College of Wisconsin Bleser Family Endowed Chair in Neurology
Harry, Heather Annis, and Phillip Guajardo “From Land to Sea; Embracing a Renewable Future”
http://omicsonline.org/open-access/from-land-to-sea-embracing-a-renewable-future-2155-952X.S6003.pdf
One of the greatest threats to taking advantage of the sea’s gene potential is loss of biodiversity
through our alteration and destruction of ecosystems. 48.6% of the FDA approved drugs over the past
25 years have a natural product in their history, [29] but there is concern because 30 to 50% of the
world’s species face extinction by mid-century (Ibid 2004) with extinctions occurring at dozens per day
[30]. A similar bounty lies within the ocean. We must not allow destruction to befall the marine world.
Threats such as overfishing, dumping of nuclear and other wastes, and destruction of coastal
ecosystems imperil the biodiversity of the oceans and the utilization of potential resources. Marine
fisheries collapse reached 65% by 2003, and global collapse of all commercially exploited fish
populations is expected by 2048 if we do not act to curb the plunder [31]. Tropical reefs shelter as many
as one third of all marine species [32] but between a third and two thirds of the coral reefs are damaged
or dying, causing extinction of as many as a third of reef species [33]. The coral reefs are unlikely to
survive the 21st century if nothing is done to prevent increasing ocean temperatures, acidification,
pollution, sedimentation and direct impact from over fishing (12th International Coral Reef Symposium
2012) [34]. It is vital that we act at the level of governmental and international policy to prevent
irreparable damage to the last frontier even before we have the technology to benefit from the secrets
of the deep.
BioD loss coming- creates financial risks for pharmaceutical industry
KPMG 11 (KPMG is a global network of professional firms providing high quality services in the fields of
audit, tax and advisory. We work for a wide range of clients, both national and international
organizations. In the complexity of today's global landscape our clients are demanding more help in
solving complex issues, better integration and collaboration across disciplines and faster returns on their
investments through value-added partnerships, “Biodiversity and ecosystem services: Risk and
Opportunity analysis within the pharmaceutical industry”, May 2011, Natural Value Initiative, pg. 4 //nz)
We are experiencing unprecedented rates of biodiversity loss. Sixty percent of the ecosystem services
(such as freshwater, fisheries, pollination and climate regulation) which biodiversity underpins are either degraded or in
decline'. Predictions are that this trend will worsen. It is clear that this has severe economic implications, not only for society
but also for business as most industries depend on ecosystem services to function. The pharmaceutical sector is both
dependent on and impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services, or BES. Approximately twenty five to
fifty percent of the pharmaceutical market is derived from active ingredients from nature2. The sector's
dependence on BES stems from the use of active ingredients from nature in drug discovery and manufacture, the use of water and a reliance on
inert raw materials such as fish oils, soya and palm oil in drug manufacture. Impacts include water pollution from drug manufacturing and use,
overexploitation of active ingredients from nature that cannot be readily synthesized and the use of
inert ingredients linked with environmental degradation. For the pharmaceutical sector, this may pose
reputational, operational, regulatory and market risks as well as new opportunities linked to new drug
discovery. Pharmaceutical industry investors may also face reputational and financial risks if the
companies in which they invest do not adequately manage their own BES risks. Robeco, the Dutch asset manager,
undertakes a broad programme of engagement on environmental and social issues that are deemed to pose a risk to their investments. In
2010. Robeco identified S3LS management within the pharmaceutical industry as a potential area of risk and
commissioned KPMG Sustainability and the Natural Value Initiative to examine how the pharmaceutical industry is addressing its BES risks. We
evaluated ten companies using the Ecosystem Services Benchmark, which was developed by the Natural Value Initiative in conjunction with a
range of BES experts and stakeholders and adapted for application to this sector. All companies reviewed have started to consider the business
implications of declining BES. However, none are managing BES in a comprehensive manner. The
focus of corporate activity has
been on understanding site-level impacts on biodiversity such as risks associated with potential impacts on protected
areas or water consumption and on ensuring adequate controls over the sourcing of active ingredients from nature. Significant sourcing
of active ingredients from nature is no longer commonplace in the industry; only two of the companies
reviewed were undertaking bioprospecting in any substantial way. Less attention has been paid by the industry to
impacts and dependence on BES throughout the supply chain related io inert materials. The level of risk that this issue poses to
the sector is not currently clear, particularly in relation to dependence on BES within the supply chain. A
first step in better understanding this risk is for pharmaceutical companies to assess their dependencies
and impacts on BES throughout their supply chains, and to disclose their impacts. The companies that are already
doing this have identified a number of risks that they are now taking steps to manage.
BioD loss disincentives bioprospecting
KPMG 11 (KPMG is a global network of professional firms providing high quality services in the fields of
audit, tax and advisory. We work for a wide range of clients, both national and international
organizations. In the complexity of today's global landscape our clients are demanding more help in
solving complex issues, better integration and collaboration across disciplines and faster returns on their
investments through value-added partnerships, “Biodiversity and ecosystem services: Risk and
Opportunity analysis within the pharmaceutical industry”, May 2011, Natural Value Initiative, pg. 15
//nz)
Security of supply and maintenance of operating margins: Despite a trend in outsourcing and
downscaling of bioprospecting, sourcing of pharmaceutical ingredients from natural products remains
important to some companies. Biodiversity loss places access to new active ingredients under threat.
Increasing scarcity of raw materials - both wild and cultivated - as a result of ecosystem services failure
or overexploitation may lead to a narrowing of profit margins or disruption to operations through
security of supply issues. Failure to ensure ethical labour practices for cultivated goods may also impact
on security of supply. This may lead to higher input costs.
Bioprospecting expanding slowly now- small fraction of species exploited
KPMG 11 (KPMG is a global network of professional firms providing high quality services in the fields of
audit, tax and advisory. We work for a wide range of clients, both national and international
organizations. In the complexity of today's global landscape our clients are demanding more help in
solving complex issues, better integration and collaboration across disciplines and faster returns on their
investments through value-added partnerships, “Biodiversity and ecosystem services: Risk and
Opportunity analysis within the pharmaceutical industry”, May 2011, Natural Value Initiative, pg. 10
//nz)
The most obvious link between the pharmaceutical industry and BES is with the sourcing of active
ingredients from nature". It is estimated that only a fraction of the 53,000 species used medicinally
worldwide have been used by the pharmaceutical industry in drug discovery'2. Given current species
extinction rates, the pharmaceutical industry may well be missing out on new drugs. One estimate
suggests the Earth is potentially losing one major drug every two years13. However, trends in sourcing
of active ingredients from nature have changed over time, suggesting that the reliance of the industry
may be less than it was historically. Though initially pharmaceutical companies ran extensive natural
product discovery, or "bioprospecting" programmes, many have shut them down in recent years. This
move away from natural product-based research and development is due to concerns about long
discovery times compared to synthetic molecules, as well as challenging sourcing logistics. Nonetheless,
Pharmaceutical Insight recently identified the search for medically active compounds either by using
indigenous knowledge of species or by screening compounds as a key industry trend14, indications are
that bioprospecting is expected to grow to a US$ 500 million industry by 2050,5. Active ingredients from
natural products cannot always be replicated by modern chemistry. They can also act as pathfinders to
new modes of clinical action. For example, the compound paclitaxel (found in Taxus spp. and source of
the anti-cancer drug, Taxol) was described as the kind of molecule that no chemist would ever sit down
and think of making.
Biodiversity is key to biopiracy – corporations exploit diverse ecosystems
Global Exchange (a membership-based international human rights organization dedicated to
promoting social, economic and environmental justice around the world) 2007 “Biopiracy: A New
Threat to Indigenous Rights and Culture in Mexico”
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/mexico/biopiracyReport.html
Bioprospecting is the search for biological resources and accompanying indigenous knowledge -primarily for the purpose of commercial exploitation. As such, while bioprospecting is not inherently
contrary to the interests of indigenous peoples or a threat to biodiversity, it facilitates biopiracy. In other
words, bioprospecting identifies biological resources and traditional knowledge with commercial
potential, while biopiracy appropriates these resources and knowledge (or privatizes them for
commercial gain) without obtaining Prior Informed Consent (PIC) or awarding just compensation. 3.
Why is biodiversity a strategic resource and how is it being threatened? Biological diversity, or
biodiversity, refers to the broad range of life forms found within a given ecosystem and is the backbone
of food security and basic health needs. As the source of primary material and active ingredients for
many commercial products -- foods, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, biotechnology, veterinary science,
seeds and agrochemicals -- it is now recognized as a highly strategic resource with commercial potential
comparable to that of petroleum or uranium. This strategic importance of biodiversity is compounded
by the largely untapped potential of the emerging genetic engineering sector. In conjunction with
advances in modern technology and the exploitation of traditional knowledge, biodiversity has the
market potential to be extraordinarily lucrative. In fact, commerce involving biological products and
processes now accounts for almost half of the world economy, with profits concentrated in the
emerging "life science" industry (food, pharmaceutical and agricultural production.) The following
market figures (annual net sales) illustrate the importance of biodiversity as a strategic resource of the
21st century (RAFI, Wall Street Journal, Agriculture News-2000): Approximately 90% of the world's
remaining biodiversity is concentrated in tropical and sub-tropical regions within developing countries,
mostly located in the southern hemisphere. The Worldwatch Institute has identified the following
countries as regions of "mega-diversity" due to their exceptionally high levels of cultural and biological
diversity and high concentration of endemic plant species: Mexico, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Australia and
The Democratic Republic of Congo. Not surprisingly, these mega-diverse countries are the focal points
for biopiracy ventures.
New models for bioprospecting forecast economic viability when there is higher
biodiversity
Polasky et al, 05, Professor of Ecological/Environmental Economics
University of Minnesota Regent's Professor (STEPHEN, CHRISTOPHER COSTELLO, ANDREW SOLOW, “THE
ECONOMICS OF BIODIVERSITY”, Handbook of Environmental Economics, Volume 3, Chapter 29,
ScienceDirect)
Simpson, Sedjo and Reid (1996) then use this maximum estimate for value of mar- ginal species along with species–area curves and estimates
of endemism (species unique to an area) to estimate the maximum marginal value of a hectare of land in each of 18 global biodiversity
estimates range from a maximum of $20.63 per hectare in Western Ecuador to only $0.20
per hectare in the California Floristic Province. On the basis of their theoretical and empirical results, Simpson,
Sedjo and Reid (1996) conclude that the incentive to conserve biodiversity for bioprospecting purposes is
almost certainly too small to offset the opportunity cost of development. Polasky and Solow (1995) used a similar
hotspots. These
model to value a collection of species. If the probability of success on any given trial is p and the revenue upon success is R, then the expected
value of a collection of N species is V (N ) = R[1 − (1 − p)N ], which is the same as by Simpson, Sedjo and Reid (1996) when c = 0. Polasky and
Solow (1995) considered two variants of the simple model to allow for imperfect substitutes among species that generate success for the same
product, and dependence in probabilities of success across species that relate to genetic similarity. Both extensions are motivated by the
experience of bioprospecting. When taxol was found in the bark of the Pacific yew tree, there was an intensified search of related species. It
was found that the needles of the European yew tree could be used to get taxotare, an imperfect substitute for taxol. With imperfect
substitutes, the marginal value of species need not fall as fast as indicated by Simpson, Sedjo and Reid (1996). On the other hand, accounting
for species interrelationships tends to reduce the marginal value of species. 1528 S. Polasky et al. Rausser and Small (2000) challenge the
empirical conclusions of low value from bioprospecting found in Simpson, Sedjo and Reid (1996). The existence of prior in- formation makes it
unlikely that all species will have the same probability of success in yielding a valuable product.
Under the assumption that the
probability of success is independent and differs across species, it is optimal to organize the search in
order of descending success probability of success. When this is done, the value of conserving a species
with a high probability of success may be large. Rausser and Small (2000) apply their model to the empirical case examined by
Simpson, Sedjo and Reid (1996), with the assumption that probabilities are proportional to the density of
endemic species in each region, which range from one in ten thousand (Western Ecuador) to one in a mil- lion (California Floristic
Province). Rausser and Small find optimal search yields an incremental value of $9177 for the most promising
hectare of land in Western Ecuador compared with a marginal value of only $20.63 for the same hectare
in Simpson, Sedjo and Reid (1996). This result suggests that the benefits of protecting biodiversity hotspots for
future biological prospecting may indeed outweigh the costs.
Bioprospecting Destroy Ecosystems
Companies are only recently turning towards bioprospecting – they’ll over exploit
Warner 08 PHD Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of
Wollongong
Robin m “Protecting the diversity of the depths: environmental regulation of bioprospecting and marine
scientific research beyond national jurisdiction” law papers
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=lawpapers
A fourth option to consider is leaving the open access situation which currently applies to the genetic
and biochemical resources of the deep seabed and to bioprospecting activities in these areas
undisturbed. This option would parallel the free market conditions which applied to all high seas
fisheries before the advent of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and regional fisheries management
organization involvement in the management and conservation of straddling stocks and highly
migratory stocks in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction. As one commentator has observed, this
may lead to some long term advantages for human kind in general as the competition engendered
competitive exploitation of genetic and biochemical resources found on the deep seabed will stimulate
new inventions and research techniques.87 On the other hand commercial investors will have little
incentive to introduce costly measures for the conservation and sustainable use of genetic and
biochemical resources and the protection of deep seabed biodiversity. Marine scientists and other
commentators have predicted that the failure to implement environmental protection measures for
deep seabed environments such as hydrothermal vents, cold seeps and seamounts risks rapid loss of
species and general degradation of fragile habitats.88 In addition, the primary motive for commercial
investment will be the maximisation of profits rather than any commitment to the fair and equitable
benefit sharing of global commons resources for current and future generations. While bioprospecting
activities continue to be predominantly conducted by state sponsored research institutions with the
dual purpose of marine scientific research, voluntary codes of conduct introduced by deep sea scientists
will afford some level of protection for the surrounding marine environment. The next section will
examine the content of one of these codes. These measures are voluntary, however, and will not bind
commercial operators who conduct bioprospecting activities in a private enterprise framework.
Ultimately failure to address the regulation of bioprospecting activities could lead to rapid over
exploitation of these valuable resources of the deep seabed and the loss of important genetic and
biochemical material not yet discovered by marine scientists.
Bioprospecting will increase the impact on ocean organisms
Warner 08 PhD Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of
Wollongong
Robin m “Protecting the diversity of the depths: environmental regulation of bioprospecting and marine
scientific research beyond national jurisdiction” law papers
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=lawpapers
The extreme environment of the deep seabed is host to a wide array of biological communities which
exhibit high biodiversity and contain genetic and biochemical resources with multiple commercial
applications in fields such as medical science, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, food processing, waste
treatment, mining and the cosmetics industry.12 As bioprospecting activities in the deep seabed
intensify so will their impact on the fauna associated with particular deep seabed features such as
hydrothermal vents and cold seeps. Since their discovery in 1977, hydrothermal vents have attracted
the most extensive scientific research and bioprospecting activity on the deep seabed.13 More than
500 new species, mostly invertebrates have been discovered in hydrothermal vent communities both
within and beyond national jurisdiction.14 These invertebrate species are dependent on
chemosynthetic activity rather than photosynthesis for their existence and are surrounded by microorganisms which oxidise sulphides and other chemicals from the hydrothermal vents such as hydrogen,
iron or manganese converting them into organic matter which nourishes both the micro- organisms
themselves and other vent species.15 The capacity of these species to adapt to extreme physical and
chemical conditions has excited the interest of scientists who consider that the extraordinary diversity
of species present in hydrothermal vent communities will contribute to a better understanding of basic
life processes.16 Commercial enterprises have also been attracted to the vent communities as they can
envisage a variety of uses for the bacteria, known as extremophiles, particularly hyperthermophiles or
thermophiles, derived from such environments.17 The discovery of hydrothermal vent communities has
also prompted scientists to re-examine theories of the origin of life on earth18 and to consider
geothermal energy as a potential source for biosynthesis.19
Bioprospecting hurts the species on the seabed things like noise disrupt their natural
processes
Warner 08 PhD Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of
Wollongong
Robin m “Protecting the diversity of the depths: environmental regulation of bioprospecting and marine
scientific research beyond national jurisdiction” law papers
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=lawpapers
Bioprospecting, while not as invasive as deep seabed mineral exploration, does entail physical
disturbance, alteration and introduction of alien elements to deep sea habitats.31 Current deep sea
research projects, principally on hydrothermal vent sites, have progressed beyond simple observation of
the benthic fauna from manned or remotely controlled submersible vessels to actual sampling of the
fauna and faunal infrastructure and installation of scientific instruments in the deep seabed
environment to record experimental observations on a regular basis.32 As well as disturbing the
physical habitat, research vessels and scientific equipment also introduce light and different noise
patterns into the fragile deep sea environment and may discharge marine pollutants and alien biological
material into the previously pristine environment of the deep seabed.33 The negative impact of
frequent research expeditions on particular deep seabed sites and the potential for conflicting or
incompatible research activities which duplicate adverse effects on fragile deep sea sites has also been
noted by scientists and other commentators.34 The absence of compulsory environmental protection
measures such as environmental baseline data collection, ongoing environmental impact assessment of
sampling sites and impact reference zones could result in
A2 No Bioprospecting - Regulations
Bioprospecting has little regulatory barriers to contracts now
Muradian and Rival 13 (Roldan and Laura, Center for International Development Issues, Radboud
University Nijmegen, Department of International Development, University of Oxford, “Governing the
Provision of Ecosystem Services”, Springer, pg. 92 //nz)
Note- Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Well-defined property rights are generally held as a precondition for reducing uncertainty in investment
decisions (Pindyck 1988; Caballero 1991; Dixit and Pindyck 1994; Bell and Campa 1997). This argument
has been put forward also for bioprospecting, leading to the idea of the need for clear regulatory
frameworks (Bhatti 2003; Larson-Guerra et al. 2004) to facilitate negotiation of new projects (Tobin
2002). Prior to the CBD, access to GR was often gained without consent of GR holders, leading to
situations known as biopiracy. Demanders used to identify and locate GR that appeared valuable for
their aims. Bioprospecting projects were conducted largely without formal contracts, but instead
demanders of GR would sometimes pay a small amount of money up-front to the provider of GR, as a
compensation only for the labour time local people who helped to locate the GR being sought. However,
under the CBD, countries have the right to vest the property rights over GR located in their territory and
grant these rights to the state or alternatively on individual or collective owners of the land where the
GR can be found (CBD, Article 15). As a result, the CBD has strengthened GR providers' claims on benefit
sharing (e.g. ten Kate and Laird 1999; Tobin 2002).*
Bioprospecting has no clear regulations
UNEP No Date The United Nations Environment Programme is an agency of the United Nations that
coordinates its environmental activities, assisting developing countries in implementing environmentally
sound policies and practices
http://www.unep.org/delc/Portals/119/Biosprecting-Issuepaper.pdf Article
Bioprospecting has the added potential to cause negative impacts on delicate ecosystems of the deep
seabed and Antarctica. In situ experiments in and around the Deep Seabed can introduce light and noise
or change water temperature, which, in-turn, can affect procreation and the survival of organisms in
these areas. Bioprospecting activities can also produce pollution in the form of debris or discharge from
vessels and equipment. Additionally, inadvertant movement of organisms through disrupting currents or
discarding of scientific samples can lead to biological contamination. Finally, there is the usual possibility
of over-exploitation in harvesting organisms in these regions and the flow on environmental impacts.
Yet, this aspect is unclear due to the lack of information about ecosystems in these marine habitats. In
this respect, the precautionary principle7 would seemingly apply to any future environmental
regulations developed to govern bioprospecting activities in the High Seas and Antarctica. The Millenium
Ecosystem Assessment (‘the Assessment’) estmates that the current and projected future impact of
bioprospecting on ecosystems is low, because the amount of material that needs to be harvested is
normally small.8 The Assessment also states that there is a strong synergy between biodiversity preser-
vation and bioprospecting, since the latter benefits from preserving the former. However, it warns that
great uncertainty remains about the potential impact of bioprospecting activities.9 As the projected
impact is minimal, although uncertain, bioprospecting does not presently implicate provisions of
international agreements which regulate actions likely to have serious adverse environmental impacts in
the commons. The legal implications of any potential environmental impacts from bioprospecting are
not explored in detail through this issue brief, but must be a consideration for decision-makers in
drafting future laws and policies to regulate this activtity. materials between States, particularly for
developing nations. Additionally, there are no clear guidelines on the environmental standards
bioprospecting expeditions must meet. The content and interplay between the existing laws governing
bioprospecting in the High Seas and Antarctica are examined below, along with the legal gaps and
uncertanties this exposes in the current framework.
Link - Ocean Development
As ocean development and exploration increases so will biorprospecting
Global ocean commission 13 an international organization working towards reversing degradation
“Bioprospecting and marine genetic resources in the high seas” Policy Options Paper # 4:
http://www.globaloceancommission.org/wp-content/uploads/GOC-paper04-bioprospecting.pdf
Marine bioprospecting – the search for novel compounds from natural sources in the marine
environment – has increased rapidly in recent years. Much of the increase in activity may be attributed
to technological advances in exploring the ocean and the genetic diversity it contains. Much of the
marine biome remains under-investigated and the prospect for new and unique findings is high,
particularly in the microbial realm1 . It can therefore be expected that the rate of discovery will continue
to increase as technology develops. The problem of how to conserve and sustainably use marine
biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) is one of the most controversial topics
now under discussion in international fora. There are no clear international rules in place specifically
addressing bioprospecting in these areas. Furthermore, since very few States have the necessary
technological and intellectual know-how to carry out bioprospecting, the discussion has also focused on
the need for an access and benefit-sharing regime to improve equitable use of high seas resources.
From the perspective of the biotechnology industry, there are concerns that the current uncertain and
unpredictable legal and regulatory framework may hamper the flow of ideas and products from the
marine biome and inhibit future research, development and commercialisation of novel compounds to
treat disease.
Link - AUVs
New technological developments like AUVs increase the likely hood of bioprospecting
Global ocean commission 13 an international organization working towards reversing degradation
“Bioprospecting and marine genetic resources in the high seas” Policy Options Paper # 4:
http://www.globaloceancommission.org/wp-content/uploads/GOC-paper04-bioprospecting.pdf
The marine realm contains a very rich variety of organisms, many of which remain undescribed. Because
of their high biological diversity, marine ecosystems are particularly suited for bioprospecting, a process
that aims to identify and isolate natural compounds from genetic material. Today, about 18,000 natural
products have been reported from marine organisms belonging to about 4,800 named species. The
number of natural products from marine species is growing at a rate of 4% per year2 . The increase in
the rate of discoveries is largely the result of technological advances in exploring the ocean and the
genetic diversity it contains. Advances in technologies for observing and sampling the deep ocean, such
as submersibles and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), have opened up previously unexplored areas
to scientific research. Coordinated scientific efforts such as the Census of Marine Life3 have also given
added impetus to scientific research, resulting in many new and exciting discoveries. At the same time,
developments in molecular biology, including high throughput genome sequencing, metagenomics and
bioinformatics, have increased our capacity to investigate and make use of marine genetic material.
Link - Plankton
An increase in plankton increases the use of bioprospecting
Abida et al 13 author and scientist on phytoplankton
Heni, Sandrine Ruchaud, Laurent Rios, Anne Humeau, Ian Probert, Colomban De Vargas, Stéphane
Bach, and Chris Bowler, “Bioprospecting Marine Plankton” Published online Nov
14,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3853748/
About 3.5 billion years ago the ocean was probably the birthplace of life, and today marine microbes
number in the millions in every liter of seawater. They represent more than 95% of marine biomass and
are present in many different environments, e.g., in the water column, in ocean sediments, or
associated with other organisms. Many of them drift with the currents together with other microscopic
organisms such as zooplankton and are collectively referred to as plankton, from the Greek word
“planktos” meaning “drifter”. Planktonic organisms are found in all marine environments, including
extreme conditions, and are extremely diverse in taxonomic groups (with representatives from all
kingdoms of life), trophic groups and sizes (Table 1). Representatives include viruses, bacteria, the
photosynthetic phytoplankton, and a wide range of larger zooplankton that graze on the smaller
organisms. The abundance of different plankton varies according to size, with viruses present typically at
up to 10 billion particles/L, bacteria at up to one billion cells/L, phytoplankton at up to 10 million cells/L,
and zooplankton at up to 1000 organisms/L. Marine planktonic ecosystems are highly dynamic
environments subject to a wide range of external forces. Some organisms, referred to as holoplankton,
are constitutively planktonic whereas others (known as meroplankton) are part of this community only
during a specific phase of their life cycle, usually the larval stage. It is important not to overlook these
latter organisms in bioprospecting because they may represent novel sources of molecules (e.g., used in
defense mechanisms) that are not found in their mature counterparts. Such metabolites have been
reported in larvae from Luffariella variabilis [13], asteroid eggs [14], ascidian larvae [15], polychaetes
[16], and bryozoan larvae [17], none of which were detected in their mature—non-planktoni
Impacts
Impact – ATS
ATS strong now – key to preventing armed conflict
Michael Richardson (former Asia Editor of The International Herald Tribune, is a visiting senior
research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore) January 2009 “Nations here put
discord on ice” http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/nations-here-putdiscord-on-ice/1399665.aspx?storypage=0
!The Dome A research is part of wider cooperation that links the 46 member nations of the 1959
Antarctic Treaty and associated accords. The signatories include developed and developing economies,
accounting for about 80 per cent of the world's population. They are parties to a treaty system designed
to ensure that the wars which have disfigured other continents do not occur in Antarctica, that the
environment is protected, and that scientific research and collaboration have priority. Signatories
undertake to use Antarctica for peaceful purposes only. Military operations, nuclear explosive tests and
the disposal of radioactive waste are not permitted. All commercial mining is banned. !Of course, many
of the things that fuel human greed and armed conflict elsewhere are not present or readily exploitable
in Antarctica. There are no indigenous inhabitants, arable land or forests. Only 2 per cent of Antarctica's
14 million square kilometres is ice-free and even that is ill-suited for human settlement. The onshore
population of international scientists swells to over 4000 in summer, but dwindles to about 1000 in
winter. !The Antarctic Treaty is not exclusive. It allows any member of the United Nations to join. Of the
46 countries that have done so, 28 are consultative parties with the right to make collective decisions
about management of the continent. Consultative status is open to any country that can show its
commitment to Antarctica by conducting significant research there. In their regular meetings,
consultative parties make decisions by consensus, not by voting. !This is not, by any means, a perfect
system of administration. Unregulated fishing and environmental damage still occur. But generally,
human impacts are far more effectively controlled in and around Antarctica than on other continents.
Perhaps the local circumstances that make this kind of multi-national governance possible are unique.
However, it certainly shows what enlightened leadership can do when nation-states put their
differences aside and work together for the common good. !What could upset the Antarctic treaty
system? Intrusion of the same kinds of territorial and resource rivalries that bedevil relations among
people and countries on other continents. Seven of the consultative parties Australia, Argentina, Britain,
Norway, France, New Zealand and Chile have made territorial claims to around 75 per cent of the
continent. Some of the claims overlap. Australia alone asserts sovereignty over 42 per cent of
Antarctica. !The treaty does not recognise or dispute territorial claims and no new ones can be asserted
while it is in force. Oil, gas and minerals are known to exist in Antarctica and beneath its continental
shelf. If global demand for them were to become acute and technology was available to exploit them,
the treaty system might be challenged. But that seems unlikely for many years.
ATS collapse causes war
Richard Faulk (professor of international law at Princeton) 1991 “The Antarctic Treaty System in World
Politics” p. 402
The third sense of viability that seems relevant represents certain regressions from ATS that could occur
in the event that either the existing procedures rupture as a result of internal tensions, or collapse as a
consequence of either the reemergence of geopolitical rivalry among claimant states that refuse to
suspend their inchoate sovereign claims any longer or through a repudiation of ATS by powerful political
actors. One could imagine such negative viability as producing a situation of chaos (ie collapse of a
previously operative overall regulative framework) laden with tensions and conflict. It is likewise
possible to envisage a variety of territorial grabs via claims of sovereign appropriation, singly or in
combination. This prospect is far from fanciful as several states continue actively to harbor geopolitical
ambitions to extend their soveriegty into Antarctica. Overlapping claims to the same sector of territory
exist making intense conflict plausible under some circumstances, and even warfare, among claimant
states becomes conceivable. The point here is not to sound alarmist, but to ensure that appraisal fo ATS
takes itno account both directions of a post-ATS setting, and not merely suppose that it is a matter of
upholding the ATS status quo or finding a better regime. Regressions are also possible, especially when
we appreciate that ATS was brought into being initially to avoid the propect of drifting toward an
Antarctica future in which the continent would be carved up by greedy states with territorial ambitions,
engaged in traditional forms of rivalry, reminiscent of the approach taken by Europe in the 19th century
to sub-Saharan Africa. When assessing the dangers of dismantling the ATS, as we as the drive to
overcome its weaknesses as a regime, it as assumed that our objectives center on the preservation of
Antarctica as a peaceful, demilitarized, and denuclearized domain in which environmental quality is
effective protected and scientific inquiry is allowed to flourish. It is also assumed to be desirable to
facilitate easy access by all states to the main benfits of Antarctica, including, if it is their wish, the
possibility of joinging ATS and participating in the administration of the ATS regime
ATS solves your aff – it serves as a model for international cooperation the empirically
prevents wars from escalating
Adnaan Wasey (writer for Online NewsHour at PBS.org) February 2007 “International Agreements
Hallmark of Antarctica”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/science/poles/antarctica.html.
It's the least hospitable place on Earth with its extreme cold and wind, and sovereign claims have been disputed for decades, yet Antarctica has
become a model for international cooperation. At the center of the collaboration is the Antarctic Treaty System, an international framework
developed as the United States and Russia, in the midst of a Cold War, were preparing to lay strategic territorial claims on the continent.
Eschewing a territorial war in 1959, the two countries, joined by other Antarctic claimants -- Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand,
Norway and the United Kingdom -- and nations with interests in the area -- Belgium, Japan and South Africa -- agreed on a diplomatic
solution: The nations would shift focus exclusively to the scientific research that had come to the forefront in the International Geophysical
Year of 1957-1958. The countries, freezing their claims, declared that all Antarctic activity would be for peaceful purposes, preventing nuclear
testing and militarization; any new establishments would have to be built for scientific research, not enforcement of previous claims. The U.S.
government, as a point of policy, has been clear that military presence only take the form of support for scientific ventures, providing resources
such as icebreakers and vehicles to transport the more than 1,000 U.S. researchers that make up the bulk of the Antarctic population. In total,
about 4,000 researchers worked on the continent in the 2005-6 summer peak, with groups of more than 200 from Russia, Argentina, Chile,
Australia and the United Kingdom, which operate primarily along the coasts. "Because of the remoteness of the area, any country that's really
capable of a major effort in Antarctica is probably a signatory or at least accedes to it," said Mahlon Kennicutt, a professor of oceanography at
Texas A&M University and the U.S. representative to the body that coordinates research in Antarctica, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic
Research. Any government that wanted to participate could as long as they can adhere to the treaty's basic precepts. To date, 48 have become
signatories with major research-conducting nations comprising the 28 Consultative Parties. With funding of about $300 million, the National
Science Foundation carries out U.S. policy that extends from the Antarctic Treaty. The NSF maintains the year-round U.S. facilities at the
coastal McMurdo and Palmer stations and the Amundsen-Scott South Pole station, as first mandated by President Nixon in the 1970s and
President Reagan in 1982. In the absence of a military presence, the NSF and Department of Justice enforce the U.S. law in the continent,
1978's Antarctic Conservation Act, which imposes fines or jail time for anyone disrupting the Antarctic ecosystem. With no mechanism for
enforcement built into the treaty, order is maintained by peer pressure and laws passed by individual member nations, representing two-thirds
of the worlds population, to protect Antarctic interests. Working by unanimous consent, the Antarctic Treaty System has spawned a series of
resolutions, regarding plants and animals in 1964, seals in 1972, and marine life in 1980. While discussing a crisis over mining issues in
Madrid in 1991, the group drafted its most comprehensive framework, the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, which
comprehensively limited human interaction with the continent, including a ban on any activities related to mining not for scientific research.
The United States updated its Antarctic policy in 1996 for the first time in two decades, incorporating the recommendations from the Madrid
Protocol. Donald Rothwell, a professor of international law at Australian National University, said Antarctic policy develops slowly in the
absence of crises, such as the mining concerns that led to the creation of the Madrid Protocol. "The legal issues have been fairly well
identified. What we need is political will on the part of the Antarctic Treaty Parties," Rothwell said. Evan Bloom, a deputy director for polar
affairs at the U.S. Department of State and head of the U.S. delegation to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, said the uncertain
environmental impact of growing tourism could be a major point of discussion at the April 2007 Consultative Parties meeting. Colin
Summerhayes, the executive director of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, said illegal fishing poses the largest risk to the treaty,
but noted that bioprospecting, the search for species whose biology could be exploited for medicinal or other commercial applications, could
become an issue. "It's like an Amazon rainforest under the sea: It's very diverse. So the potential exists for unique chemical compounds,"
Summerhayes said. Rothwell said bioprospecting falls in a legal grey area, because it is a combination of scientific research promoted by the
treaty and the mining that it prohibits. Should Antarctic species become valuable, Rothwell added, the issue could unravel the treaty, whether
by infringement or the reestablishment of claims. Though the United States continues to disregard claims on Antarctica and reserves the right
to lay claims of its own, the State Department doubts any would be made while the treaty was intact. "I don't think there's any thinking at all,
and there hasn't been for decades, about doing that, because there's no need," said Bloom. Bloom said the treaty remains one of the most
successful in promoting international cooperation.
Impact turns and outweighs the aff – ATS is modeled globally as a conflict
management mechanism – empirically prevented hostile conflicts from escalating
globally – only collapse makes your impacts possible
Sir Guy Green AC KBE CVO (The Governor of Tasmania) Spring 2002 “Antarctic treaty, science under
scrutiny in inaugral Phillip Law lecture” http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=4379
I think that those who are engaged in difficult international negotiations should take heart from the
example of the negotiation of the Antarctic Treaty which showed that sometimes it is possible to
overcome apparently intractable differences through honest open discussion informed by principle and
good sense. [Treaty's success inspiring and instructive; provides new perspective on and better
understanding of nature of international relations and United Nations role. In UN in 1983 Treaty System
said to be exclusive, not accountable, 'neo-colonial; push for its replacement by universal UN-controlled
regime. Australia and other Treaty nations saw strong arguments for status quo. Richard Woolcott,
former Australian UN Ambassador, said (2) that Treaty is open to any UN member, is consistent with UN
Charter, encourages open scientific research and has reduced international tension by dealing
effectively with sovereignty claims. Richard Rowe, leader of Australian delegation to Treaty Consultative
Meeting, observed (3) that Treaty system is 'robust framework for action in Antarctica'. Inclusive spirit of
Treaty continues today with Australia's help to Indonesia and Malaysia to participate in Antarctic
science. Treaty system is model for effective, principled international arrangement in accord with UN
philosophy. Treaty has extraordinary record as vehicle for civilised discussion in difficult times, such as
meeting recalled by Woolcott (4) between Russian and US ambassadors in which agreement was
reached on vital tactics and procedures despite personal insults. Woolcott observed that at Cold War's
height, Antarctica was main area of effective Soviet–US cooperation.] And I have my own memory of
receiving at Government House on 2 June 1982 delegations from Argentina and the United Kingdom
who had been working together at a meeting of an Antarctic Treaty organisation just two months after
… [the start of] a war between the two countries. The … Antarctic Treaty System has also been …
[adopted] as a model in other fields… The principles upon which the 1967 Outer Space Treaty was based
were in essence identical with the philosophy of the Antarctic Treaty System. …The other major area of
human endeavour in Antarctica … is the doing of science. Originally this was seen as being primarily
concerned with discovering, describing and understanding the properties of the continent and the
region below, above and around it. And that still remains a major function of Antarctic science. But what
has changed is that much of the science which is being done is now understood to have far wider
ramifications so that Antarctic science has now become truly global science.
Bioprospecting = ATS collapse
Bioprospecting causes ‘gold rush’ for Antarctica
Alex Kirby (writer for BBC News) February 2004 “UN wants rules on bioprospecting in Antarctica”
http://www.grain.org/bio-ipr/?id=328
Antarctic organisms face an onslaught by prospectors anxious to exploit their unique nature, the United
Nations says. The UN University says "extremophiles", creatures adapted to life in the polar wastes, are
being relentlessly hunted in what is virtually a new gold rush. A regulated search could uncover new
drugs, industrial compounds and some commercial applications, the UN says. It says the existing
Antarctic Treaty System cannot adequately regulate the possible consequences to Antarctica. The UN
University's report, "The International Regime For Bioprospecting: Existing Policies And Emerging Issues
For Antarctica", is published by its Institute of Advanced Studies, based in Tokyo, Japan. SURVIVAL
MYSTERIES The publication comes a week before the start of a meeting on 9 February of the UN's
Convention on Biological Diversity in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The report says prospectors are now
looking at hydrothermal vents, the bed of the deep sea, and the polar ice caps in their quest for
promising organisms. The "extremophiles" that live on these remote frontiers have evolved to survive
in very cold, dry or salty conditions -- and they could hold immensely valuable secrets. The report says
the search to unlock those secrets could be a repeat of the 19th century's gold rush, a free-for-all to find
and patent new cancer treatments, antibiotics and industrial products. Dr A H Zakri, the institute's
director, said: "Biological prospecting for extremophiles is already occurring and is certain to accelerate
in Antarctica and the southern ocean. "This report suggests that efforts to exploit this new frontier are
now threatening to outpace the capacity of national and international law to regulate... ownership of
genetic materials, the issuing of patents... and the potential environmental consequences of harvesting
these resources."
Bioprospecting collapses the ATS
Adnaan Wasey (writer for Online NewsHour at PBS.org) February 2007 “International Agreements
Hallmark of Antarctica”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/science/poles/antarctica.html.
Colin Summerhayes, the executive director of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, said
illegal fishing poses the largest risk to the treaty, but noted that bioprospecting, the search for species
whose biology could be exploited for medicinal or other commercial applications, could become an
issue. "It's like an Amazon rainforest under the sea: It's very diverse. So the potential exists for unique
chemical compounds," Summerhayes said. Rothwell said bioprospecting falls in a legal grey area,
because it is a combination of scientific research promoted by the treaty and the mining that it
prohibits. Should Antarctic species become valuable, Rothwell added, the issue could unravel the treaty,
whether by infringement or the reestablishment of claims.
And bioprospecting is unique – now is key – any small discovery causes a new gold
rush that magnifies our impacts
The Guardian February 2004 “Cold rush threatens pristine Antarctic”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/feb/02/science.research
The problem, according to a report by Hamid Zakri and Sam Johnston at the university's Institute of
Advanced Studies, is that although commercial activities such as mining and tourism are banned or
regulated, there is nothing to stop biotech companies going into Antarctica and hunting or
"bioprospecting" for potentially lucrative organisms. "If bioprospecting is done properly, it can be
useful and beneficial for all and can have a minimum impact on the environment, but you want it to be
controlled to prevent companies from causing significant environmental damage or disrupting the
scientific operations down there," Dr Johnston said. "It's a pristine, global park and it needs to be
preserved." Agreeing rules for companies keen to work in Antarctica is fraught with difficulties.
Antarctica has long been used by scientists and international agreements such as the Antarctic treaty
ensure that scientific knowledge is made freely available to all. Commercial exploitation, and the
inevitable close guarding of secrets, is against the spirit, if not the letter, of the treaty. While few
scientists believe the threat to Antarctica is imminent, things could change drastically in the next 10
years. "It's similar to the old American gold rush in California. If someone finds a hint of something down
there, everyone else will rush in," said Kevin Bowers, an expert in Antarctic microbes at the University of
Maryland Biotechnology Institute. "If there are no controls in place, there's nothing to stop them."
Blurred lines But the line between scientific research and commercial activity is already blurred. A
contract signed in 1995 between the University of Tasmania and Amrad Natural Products, an Australian
pharmaceutical company, gives Amrad the right to analyse Antarctic microbes to see if they could be
used to develop new antibiotics or other pharmaceutical products.The food giant Unilever, meanwhile,
has patented a protein taken from bacteria found in Antarctic lake sediments that could stop ice crystals
building up in ice cream. The Antarctic treaty group's advisory body, the Scientific Committee on
Antarctic Research, raised concerns about bioprospecting in a recent report. It stated: "While no current
instance of harvesting for biotechnology is known, there are obvious environmental ramifications of the
taking of animals and plants as a commercial venture." The report concludes that bioprospecting should
be watched closely as it "may develop into important pressures on Antarctic resources". Another
concern is that companies with patents on Antarctic organisms, or extracts from them, may prevent
scientists from working on them freely. Dr Johnston says now is the time to deal with the issue.
Regulations to control bioprospecting will have to be agreed upon by the many countries that control
different parts of Antarctica. But if biotech companies start making agreements with individual
governments, it will be much more difficult to reach a global agreement. "It's going to be much easier to
put regulations in place that are effective and meaningful before there are vested interests," Dr
Johnston said. "It is imminent that biotechnology companies will take up bioprospecting and will be
significant in the next 10 years. After that, the horse may have bolted."
Impact - Bioweapons
Bioweapon terror in the future because of bio-break throughs
The Hindu October 23, 2001 http://www.hindu.com/2001/10/23/stories/13230291.htm
The biotechnology holds the promise of a great future but like any other technological breakthrough, it
is a double-edged sword. Biotechnology could be panacea for eliminating hunger and disease from the
globe but the same biotechnology tools can be used in a deadly manner against the [hu]mankind.
Modern technologies that add efficiency, power and wonder to our lives inevitably deliver the same
benefits to evildoers. According to Bill Joy, the chief scientist of Sun Microsystems, "the tragedy of
September 11 was nothing like what might be possible with biological weaponry." In his forthcoming
book titled Why the Future Doesn't Need Us, Joy has predicted that the coming age of biotech will
undoubtedly make programmable bacteria and viruses more accessible — to doctors, business and bioterrorists. "The things which we are worrisome about haven't happened yet." And having in mind all
these, Harvard biologists, Matthew Meselson and Leading, have suggested a convention making any
individual involved in the production of biological weapons liable as an international criminal,
prosecutable anywhere, as is already the case for pirates and airplane hijackers. This proposal would
permit countries to research and plan defensive work against biological warfare agents.
Extinction
John Steinbrunner, Senior Fellow at Brookings, 1998, Foreign Policy Winter 1998, Pg. 85
That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a
singular event. Most of the damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay
rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably predictable manner. Even before a nuclear warhead is
detonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely
level of radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning.
The use of a pathogen, by contrast, is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely
controlled. For most potential biological agents, the predominant drawback is that they would not act
swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon But for a few pathogens--ones most likely to have
a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use-the
risk runs in the other direction. A lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread from one victim to
another would be capable of initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten
the entire world population. The 1918 influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global
contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit.
Bio-prospecting = Bioweapons
This causes creation of lethal bioweapons
Edward Hammond (Director of the US Office of the Sunshine Project) April 2002 “Making Biosafety
and Bioweapons Security Work Together” http://www.ukabc.org/cop6_eco9.pdf
The last decade has witnessed dramatic and rapid changes in bioscience that are easing the
development of biological weapons. Genetic engineering can be used to make organisms more lethal,
resistant to antibiotics or vaccines, easier to handle, harder to detect, or more stable in the
environment. A recent Australian experiment with mousepox created an extremely lethal genetic
engineered virus when researchers added a gene believed to be “harmless”. As early as 1986, US
researchers inserted a deadly anthrax gene into a harmless stomach bacteria. US Navy scientists are
taking natural microorganisms that degrade plastics, rubber, metals and other materials and using
genetic engineering to make powerful superbugs. One can destroy plastic aircraft coatings in 72 hours.
Last year, British researchers pleaded guilty to charges that they improperly handled a genetically
engineered hybrid of the viruses causing hepatitis C and dengue fever. The German Army works with
tularemia bacteria genetically engineered to be resistant to antibiotics. The US, following Russian
research, recently announced plans to genetically engineer anthrax to attempt to create GE varieties
that can evade existing vaccines. Science fiction? Unfortunately not. The examples are real. Biosafety
and biological security both relate to genetic engineering and the release of living organisms into the
environment. Both biosafety regulators and bioweapons control specialists are concerned about
examples like those above, and share a concern to prevent harm from these GMOs. The future threat of
biological warfare agents is directly linked to regulation of genetic engineering.
Biological science leads to destructive bioweapons
Epstein, BioScience May 1, 2002 (Defense Threat Reduction Agency US Department of Defense)
A tougher conceptual problem for the scientific and policy communities is what might be called
"contentious" research-- research that, because it has immediate weapons applications, raises questions
as to how, or even whether, it should be conducted. Biological science, of course, is not unique in having
the potential to harm as well as to advance human welfare. However, the stakes in biology may be
higher. Unleashing a highly contagious, highly lethal biological agent would be an unparalleled disaster.
Moreover, the journey from a laboratory to such a calamitous outcome could be shorter, and less
outwardly visible, in biology than in almost any other field. In addition, future biological weapons could
be more subtle and insidious than existing infectious diseases. The more that science learns about the
processes that underlie human health, human behavior, and even human consciousness, the greater the
possibility that those processes could be tampered with or subverted.
Even honest research can be pilfered by bioweaponeers
Sternberg, USA TODAY, November 14, 2001
Much of the work so far has focused on disease-causing germs and germs that can be used for
environmental cleanup. But other researchers are focusing on germs that may shed light on the history
of life on Earth, germs relevant to agriculture and germs that live in extreme environments. Legitimate
scientists have tinkered with microbial genes for decades. As early as 1973, scientists spliced a drugresistance gene from an unrelated microbe into the DNA of the benign intestinal microbe E. coli.
Although this pioneering gene-splicing experiment was done by civilians seeking insights into biology, it's
exactly the kind of enhancement that might be made by a bioweaponeer. Bioweapon designers have
achieved their own breakthroughs. Although much of their work has been cloaked in secrecy, hints of
their accomplishments have surfaced.
Bioprospecting is one of the most immediate causes for expanded biological warfare
Moodie et al, 08, a consultant to CTNSP who has worked for more than 15 years on chemical and biological weapons issues in
government and the policy research community. He headed the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute and served as assistant director
for multilateral, the report was done by a group of experts writing for the Center for Technology and National Security Policy National Defense
University (Michael,
Cheryl Loeb, Robert Armstrong, and Helen Purkitt, “Good Bugs, Bad Bugs:A Modern
Approach for Detecting Offensive Biological Weapons Research”, Center for Technology and National
Security Policy National Defense University,
September 2008,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA487268)
A second NAS committee took a different approach. It identified four major categories of advances in
the life sciences
that will have high-impact, near-term consequences for the life sciences and could enhance or alter the
nature of future biological threats. These categories of activities include: • Acquisition of novel biological or
molecular diversity (e.g., DNA synthesis, DNA shuffling, bioprospecting, and high-throughput screening), • Direct design (e.g.,
rational drug design, synthetic biology, or genetic engineering of viruses), 42 National Research Council, Biotechnology Research in an Age of
Terrorism (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004), also known as the “Fink Report,” after Dr. Gerald Fink, who chaired the
committee that produced it. 24 • Understanding and manipulation of biological systems (e.g., RNA interference, computational biology and
bioinformatics, systems biology, and genomic medicine), and • Production, delivery, and packaging (biopharming, mirofluidics and
mircrofabrication, bionanotechnology, mircroencapsulation technology, aerosol technology, and gene therapy technology).43 Sponsorship
of work in these areas—especially related to the first set of seven experiments—would certainly raise a
warning flag about a country’s possible BW plans, especially if it is less than transparent about such work.
Exteremophiles will be used for highly advanced attacks by bioterrorists
Daly, 01, Co-Director of Department of Genetics at Harvard University (MJ, “THE EMERGING IMPACT
OF GENOMICS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS Threats and Benefits Posed by
Engineered Extremophiles”, CLINICS, IN Labrotory MEDICINE
VOLUME 21, NUMBER 3, SEPTEMBER 2001, PubMed)
In discussing this subject, the
question arises as to why bioterrorists would develop a sophisticated
extremophile BW agent given the relative ease of using conventional pathogenic microorganisms. The
answer may be as simple as " if something can be done, it will be done," particularly in light of the dramatic reduction in
costs and technical difficulties associated with genetic engineering in the last years. There is also a
psychological component that should not be ignored; a genetically engineered extremophile would
dramatically enhance the terror factor of a BW weapon. For spores, such as those of B. anthracis, nature has made
them hardy for the specific purpose of resisting environmental stresses. It is, however, unlikely that this hardiness
could ever be enhanced to a level approaching that found in D. radiodurans. For example, based on its radiation resistance profile, background
radiation, and environmental oxygen free-radical levels, it is conservatively estimated that desiccated D. radiodurans could survive without loss
in viability in excess of 10,000 years. It is noteworthy that members of the Deinococcus family have been isolated from an area of the Antarctic
Dry Valleys where there is no evidence for liquid water over the last 2 million years. Further, with its survival extending beyond 2,000,000 radsP
a D. radiodurans BW warhead would also likely survive in-flight sterilization attempts by atomic blast, or by conventional decontamination
efforts following environmental dissemination. The characteris tics of D. radiodurans that have justified its development for biotechnology1 are
the same as those that make it a su.itable candidate for the development as a potentially devastating BW agent: 1. Extreme resistance to acute
and chronic radiation (y-rays and UV)'.I+1U8 2. Extreme resistance to des icca tion3~ 3. Very high resistance to decontamination (e .g.,
hydrogen peroxide)SO 4. Very tolerant to the effects of solvents2? 5. Highly transfonnable and amenable to genetic engineering'" 27 and has
been subjected to genomic sequencing and analysis (Makarova K5 et aI, unpublished data)29. 31..52- The potential threat by such
extremophiles is not limited to the Deinococcaceae. It is possible that other very desicca tion-resistant microorganisms40 that are not yet
described as radiation- or DNA damage-resistant also could be engineered for BW. For example, experiments conducted aboard. a variety of
spacecraft including the European Retrievable Carrier and the Long Duration Exposure Facility indicate that a variety of common terrestrial
bacteria are able to withstand the harsh environment of space for periods as long as 6 years. Because the radiation-resistance characteristics of
many common organisms (and most extremophiles) are unknown, it is conceivable that as such characteristics are morc broadly examined,
many bacterial pathogens may become classified as desiccation- or radiation-resistant and could pose
threats as engineered BW agents.
Even the threat of bioterrorism creates global instability
Larry Bell, Contributor of Forbes, 7/21/13 [“Bioterrorism: A Dirty Little Threat With Huge Potential
Consequences”, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/07/21/bioterrorism-a-dirty-littlethreat-with-huge-potential-consequences/] JH
Following the anthrax letter incidents in 2001 in the United States, a flurry of books, internet articles,
and mostly clueless "talking heads" on international television, openly described the necessary
characteristics of a successful biological aerosol, and one former FBI agent even went so far as to
actually name one of the classified additives used for dry biological agent preparation. If the terrorists of
the world did not previously know the potential of biological weapons for their cause before, the U.S.
media made sure that now they would. Although federal efforts involving numerous agencies to combat
the threat of bioterrorism expanded rapidly following the 2011 anthrax letter attacks, which killed five
people and infected 17 others, various congressional commissions, nongovernmental organizations,
industry representatives and other experts have highlighted flaws in these activities. It went on to say
"The Commission further believes that terrorists are more likely to be able to obtain and use a biological
weapon than a nuclear weapon." Making matters worse, unlike most other terrorist attacks, a biological
attack could infect victims without their knowledge, and days could pass before victims develop deadly
symptoms. To address this problem, the U.S. has been forced to implement air quality monitors
throughout the country and stockpile antibiotics for emergency use. A 2011 study conducted by the
Congressional Research Service observes that: "Unfortunately, the nature of the bioterrorism threat,
with its high consequences and low frequency, makes determining the bioterrorism risk difficult. To
believe otherwise could potentially be a deadly mistake
Impact - Diseases
Bioprospecting causes spread of infectious diseases
BBC News February 2002 “The Dangers of Bio-prospecting”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2002/boston_2002/1823770.stm
As scientists scour our planet for previously undescribed and exotic lifeforms, they are acutely aware of
the health dangers they could also be digging up. Probably less than one percent of all the microbes on
Earth have been categorised by science, and some of the as yet unidentified species could show us how
to tap new energy sources and make novel drugs. But it is also likely that many of these simple
organisms - were they ever to come into contact with large numbers of people - could trigger the
emergence of new infectious diseases. "It's not so much that we are worried that a devil is going to
emerge from the bowels of the Earth, but there is no need to take the chance," said Professor Abigail
Salyers, the current president of the American Society of Microbiology. She was making her comments
at a symposium sponsored by the society at the annual meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science in Boston. Out of this world "We must accept the fact that we don't know how
many microbes in nature really are capable of causing disease in humans. We thought we knew - but we
don't. We don't even know what 99.8% of the organisms are." The issue is a pertinent one because of
the growing interest in extremophiles, the microbes that can live in extraordinary environments that
many thought, just a few years ago, would be utterly lifeless. Scientists are now finding bugs in
hydrothermal vents on the deep-ocean floor, in the dry deserts of Antarctica and in rocks and springs
hundreds of metres below the surface of the Earth. These amazing organisms have fundamentally
different metabolisms, "breathing" not oxygen but hydrogen, methane, and compounds of sulphur.
They can withstand extremes of temperature, radiation, salinity, and metal toxicity. Scientists think the
microbes will tell us about how life first formed on the Earth and how it might now thrive on other
planets, perhaps even in our own Solar System. They could also yield novel technologies and drugs.
Martian bugs "There are all sorts of chemical processes that we're discovering, things that the chemists
told us were impossible but that we now know micro-organisms are doing," Professor Salyers said. But
the question arises and needs seriously to be addressed about what impact these new organisms could
have on our health. "We are still not sure when and under what conditions micro-organisms evolve the
capacity to cause disease," said Professor Salyers.
Extinction
John Steinbruner (Senior Fellow at Brookings Institution) 1998 “Biological weapons: A plague upon all
houses,” Foreign Policy, Dec 22, LN
It is a considerable comfort and undoubtedly a key to our survival that, so far, the main lines of defense
against this threat have not depended on explicit policies or organized efforts. In the long course of
evolution, the human body has developed physical barriers and a biochemical immune system whose
sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could design or as yet even fully understand. But
evolution is a sword that cuts both ways: New diseases emerge, while old diseases mutate and adapt.
Throughout history, there have been epidemics during which human immunity has broken down on an
epic scale. An infectious agent believed to have been the plague bacterium killed an estimated 20
million people over a four-year period in the fourteenth century, including nearly one-quarter of
Western Europe's population at the time. Since its recognized appearance in 1981, some 20 variations of
the HIVvirus have infected an estimated 29.4 million worldwide, with 1.5 million people currently dying
of aids each year. Malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera-once thought to be under control-are now making a
comeback. As we enter the twenty-first century, changing conditions have enhanced the potential for
widespread contagion. The rapid growth rate of the total world population, the unprecedented freedom
of movement across international borders, and scientific advances that expand the capability for the
deliberate manipulation of pathogens are all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the
future than it has ever been in the past. The threat of infectious pathogens is not just an issue of public
health, but a fundamental security problem for the species as a whole.
War - General
Bioprospecting would eventually be regulated which would create massive
sovereignty disputes
Leary,08, a member of the biodiplomacy initiative team at University-Institute of Advanced Studies (
David,” Bi-polar Disorder? Is Bioprospecting an Emerging Issue for the Arctic as well as for Antarctica?”,
Review of European Community & International Environmental Law
Volume 17, Issue 1, pages 41–55, April 2008, Wiley Online Library)
Although there have been periodic challenges to its legitimacy, the main international governance regime applying to Antarctica is the ATS.9
The ATS is composed of five main treaties: the Antarctic Treaty (1959),10 the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals (1971),11 the
Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (1980),12 the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral
Resource Activities (1988)13 and the Madrid Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty (1991).14¶ One of the other major achievements of the
Antarctic Treaty is the way it has dealt with actual and potential disputes with respect to territorial claims in
Antarctica. Seven countries – Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the UK –
each claim parts of Antarctica as their sovereign territory. The US, Russia, Japan, Germany, the Netherlands and India,¶
although parties to the Antarctic Treaty, do not recognize the validity of any of these claims, while both Russia and the US have reserved the
right to make their own claims to any or all of Antarctica.15 Article IV(2) of the
Antarctic Treaty effectively freezes all claims
and potential claims to Antarctic territory. Despite these provisions, sovereignty remains a source of
underlying tension within the ATS and it is not clear what limits the treaty places on acceptable behaviour by States that made
claims prior to signing the treaty.16 One vexing aspect of the bioprospecting question in Antarctica is the potential
it has to re-open debates on the legitimacy of territorial claims in Antarctica, especially in marine
areas.17 Any unilateral attempt by individual States to regulate access and benefit sharing has the
potential to re-open disputes as to the legitimacy of territorial claims in Antarctica which the Antarctic
Treaty has so successfully frozen for nearly 50 years.
Bioprospecting opens up a slew of problems that create security concerns
Hemmings, 12, Canberra-based specialist on Antarctic governance and Adjunct Associate Professor at
Gateway Antarctica at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. The author of a hundred plus
articles on Antarctic affairs, he is also co-editor of Looking South: Australia’s Antarctic Agenda (Alan,
“Antarctic Security in the Twenty-First Century: Legal and Policy Perspectives”, p.201)
4 Bioprospecring as an ATS issue¶ Bioprospecring first surfaced as an issue of interest in an ATCM when it was¶ raised b}, The Scientific
Commerce on Antarctic Research ( CAR) in 1999."¶ Then, ar ATCM XXV in 2002, the
United Kingdom tabled a short working¶
paper that suggested three serious concerns about the onset of bioprospecting¶ activities in the
Antarctic. l¶ First, the potential for conflict existed between¶ free access co scientific information as
guaranteed in the Antarctic Treaty and¶ the confidentiality that inevitably surrounds the commercial
Exploitation of¶ bioactive material (i.e. parenring)". Second was the issue of wherher and how¶ regularion of bioprospeC
ting hould proceed, and if so, who would oversee it.¶ Third, rhere was the issue of how to regulate revenues derived
from commercial¶ exploitation of Anrarctic species. The United Kingdom's paper was¶ imporrant, for it
became the catalyst for the ATCPs realizing the need to give¶ serious consideration co bioprospecring in
the polar south and alerted them to¶ potential legal , political and scientific complications that those
activities¶ might present to the ATS. In this contexr, rhe rerm 'securiry" is construed ro¶ mean rho e environmenral issue, includi ng
bioprospecring, rhat threaten rhe¶ inregrir)/, efficiency and institurional effectiveness of the AT b}' tormenti ng¶ conAicr or dissent ion among
the member governments, especially the ATCPs.¶ That
is to say, the principal consideration in the security of the ATS
include¶ the legal assecs and polirical inreresrs , as well as the integrity of the ATC to¶ function as an
efficacious regime amongst its member parties in its respective¶ cooperative institutions. 14 lr is rhe urgen r
necessiry to preserve such assers and¶ interes ts rhar legirimize and makes essen rial rhe ro le of a secure, fu ncriona l,¶ cooperarive reg ime for
governing rhe otl[h Polar region.¶
War - Arctic Conflict
Bio prospecting commercializes the arctic which breaks down the basis of all arctic
cooperation
Leary,08, a member of the biodiplomacy initiative team at University-Institute of Advanced Studies (
David, “Bioprospecting and Governance Regimes in Polar Regions:
A Comparative Analysis of Existing Law and Policy Regimes and Options for the Future”,
http://polaris.nipr.ac.jp/~ipy/usr/sympo/proc-files/61-Leary.pdf)
Over the past half century or more the
whole governance mechanism for the Antarctic has been built on the
“implicit assumption...that somehow Antarctic science was a thing apart, a means of benignly meeting national interests in
real-estate, sovereignty, resource potential. It was international, generally sharable and collaborative” (Hemmings and RoganFinnemore 2005). But changing patterns of scientific research in Antarctica fundamentally challenge this
assumption. The new era of “genome enabled” biology in Antarctica offers new possibilities across a wide
range of disciplines including systematics, microbiology, ecology, evolutionary biology, physiology, biochemistry and molecular biology (U.S.
National Research Council 2003). But with
these new opportunities come new challenges for the management of
scientific research in Antarctica. The increasing commercialization of Antarctic research and in particular
the emerging interest of the biotechnology industry in Antarctica’s possibilities potentially challenges a
major assumption upon which international governance in Antarctica is built.
Arctic conflicts go nuclear
Wallace and Staples 10 Michael Wallace is Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia;
Steven Staples is President of the Rideau Institute in Ottawa, March 2010, “Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear
Weapons A Task Long Overdue”, http://www.arcticsecurity.org/docs/arctic-nuclear-report-web.pdf
The fact is, the Arctic is becoming a zone of increased military competition. Russian President Medvedev has announced the
creation of a special military force to defend Arctic claims. Last year Russian General Vladimir Shamanov declared that Russian troops would step up training for Arctic combat, and that
Russia’s submarine fleet would increase its “operational radius.” Recently, two Russian attack submarines were spotted off the U.S. east coast for the first time in 15 years. In January 2009, on
the eve of Obama’s inauguration, President Bush issued a National Security Presidential Directive on Arctic Regional Policy. It affirmed as a priority the preservation of U.S. military vessel and
The Bush
administration’s disastrous eight years in office, particularly its decision to withdraw from the ABM
treaty and deploy missile defence interceptors and a radar station in Eastern Europe, have greatly
contributed to the instability we are seeing today, even though the Obama administration has scaled back the planned deployments. The Arctic has figured in this
aircraft mobility and transit throughout the Arctic, including the Northwest Passage, and foresaw greater capabilities to protect U.S. borders in the Arctic.
renewed interest in Cold War weapons systems, particularly the upgrading of the Thule Ballistic Missile Early Warning System radar in Northern Greenland for ballistic missile defence. The
Canadian government, as well, has put forward new military capabilities to protect Canadian sovereignty claims in the Arctic, including proposed ice-capable ships, a northern military training
base and a deep-water port. Earlier this year Denmark released an all-party defence position paper that suggests the country should create a dedicated Arctic military contingent that draws on
army, navy and air force assets with shipbased helicopters able to drop troops anywhere. Danish fighter planes would be tasked to patrol Greenlandic airspace. Last year Norway chose to buy
48 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets, partly because of their suitability for Arctic patrols. In March, that country held a major Arctic military practice involving 7,000 soldiers from 13 countries
in which a fictional country called Northland seized offshore oil rigs. The manoeuvres prompted a protest from Russia – which objected again in June after Sweden held its largest northern
military exercise since the end of the Second World War. About 12,000 troops, 50 aircraft and several warships were involved. Jayantha Dhanapala, President of Pugwash and former UN
From those in the international peace and security sector,
deep concerns are being expressed over the fact that two nuclear weapon states – the United States and the
Russian Federation, which together own 95 per cent of the nuclear weapons in the world – converge on the
Arctic and have competing claims. These claims, together with those of other allied NATO countries –
Canada, Denmark, Iceland, and Norway – could, if unresolved, lead to conflict escalating into the threat or use of nuclear
weapons.” Many will no doubt argue that this is excessively alarmist, but no circumstance in which nuclear powers find themselves in
under-secretary for disarmament affairs, summarized the situation bluntly: “
military confrontation can be taken lightly. The current geo-political threat level is nebulous and low – for now, according to Rob Huebert of the University
of Calgary, “[the] issue is the uncertainty as Arctic states and non-Arctic states begin to recognize the geopolitical/economic significance of the Arctic because of climate change.”
War - South China Sea
Bio prospecting creates an economic motive for conflicts in the South China Sea
Schofield et al, 11, writing for The National Bureau of Asian Research, a nonprofit, nonpartisan
research institution dedicated to informing and strengthening policy. NBR conducts advanced
independent research on strategic, political, economic, globalization, health, and energy issues affecting
U.S. relations with Asia (Clive Schofield, Ian Townsend-Gault, Hasjim Djalal, Ian Storey, Meredith Miller,
and Tim Cook, “from disputed waters to seas of opportunity
Overcoming Barriers to Maritime Cooperation in East and Southeast Asia”, nbr special report #30 | july
2011, http://maritimesecurity.asia/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/SR30_MERA.pdf)
Also of note is growing interest in and use of marine genetic resources, which offer an additional
dimension to traditional marine living resources. Marine biota (plants and animals) represent a relatively
untapped resource offering developmental potential for a range of applications in the fields of medicine,
agriculture (providing specialist health foods and dietary supplements, as well as agricultural chemicals
such as herbicides and pesticides), cosmetics, and in industries where marine products can provide
valuable enzymes and catalysts in industrial processes. This has led to the emergence of marine
“bioprospecting” and this type of activity represents a potentially rich resource and opportunity for
coastal states. Indeed, products related to marine biotechnology were estimated to be worth $100
billion in 2000 alone. The potential for further growth in marine bioprospecting, especially from
relatively unknown areas subject to competing jurisdictional claims or located in deepwaters is
underscored by the fact that, of over 30,000 marine natural products reported since the 1960s, less than
2% derive from deep-sea organisms. The extremely biodiversity-rich yet underexplored waters of the
East China Sea, South China Sea, and Gulf of Thailand seem to offer great potential in this regard.
South china sea is rife with tensions – leads to escalation
Perlez ‘12
Chief diplomatic correspondent in the Beijing bureau of The New York Times. She covers China and its
foreign policy, particularly relations between the United States and China, and their impact on the Asian
region.(Jane, “Dispute Flares Over Energy in South China Sea,” December 4th, 2012,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/world/asia/china-vietnam-and-india-fight-over-energyexploration-in-south-china-sea.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0&pagewanted=print
China and two of its neighbors, Vietnam and India, were locked in a new dispute on Tuesday over energy
exploration in the South China Sea, a signal that Beijing plans to continue its hard line in the increasingly
contentious waterway. Vietnam accused a Chinese fishing boat of cutting a seismic cable attached to
one of its vessels exploring for oil and gas near the Gulf of Tonkin, an act apparently intended to inhibit
Vietnam from pursuing energy deposits. Vietnam said Tuesday that in retaliation, it would send out new
patrols, which would include the marine police, to guard against increasing encroachment by Chinese
fishing boats in the South China Sea. India, which operates several joint ventures with Vietnam’s
national energy company, Petro Vietnam, said it would consider sending navy vessels to protect its
interests in the South China Sea. The latest episode followed an announcement by Hainan Province in
southern China last week that Chinese vessels would board and search ships in contested areas of the
waterway, which includes vital shipping lanes through which more than a third of global trade moves.
The new tensions among China, Vietnam and India illustrate in stark terms the competition in the South
China Sea for what are believed to be sizable deposits of oil and gas. Some energy experts in China see
the sea as an important new energy frontier close to home that could make China less dependent on its
huge oil imports from the Middle East. On Monday, China’s National Energy Administration named the
South China Sea as the main offshore site for natural gas production. Within two years, China aims to
produce 150 billion cubic meters of natural gas from fields in the sea, a significant increase from the 20
billion cubic meters produced so far, the agency said. Earlier this year, China’s third-largest energy
company, the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corporation, began drilling with a rig in deep
water in nondisputed waters off the southern coast of China. The escalation in the South China Sea
comes less than a month after Xi Jinping took office as China’s leader. Mr. Xi appears to have taken a
particular interest in the South China Sea and the serious dispute between China and Japan over the
islands known as Diaoyu in China and as Senkaku in Japan. Whether any of China’s most recent actions
in the South China Sea were associated with Mr. Xi was not clear. But Mr. Xi does lead a small group of
policy makers clustered in the Maritime Rights Office, which serves to coordinate agencies within China,
according to Zhu Feng, a professor of international relations at Peking University, and other Chinese
experts. The unit is part of the office of the Foreign Affairs Leading Small Group, Mr. Zhu said. The
leading small group, now headed by Mr. Xi, is widely believed to be China’s central policy-making group.
China’s Foreign Ministry reiterated on Tuesday that China opposed oil and gas development by other
countries in disputed waters of the sea. China maintains that it has “undisputed” sovereignty over the
South China Sea, and that only China is allowed to develop the energy resources. “We hope that
concerned countries respect China’s position and rights,” said the Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hong
Lei. Vietnam, which has long been wary of China but enjoys a relationship through its governing
Communist Party, summoned the Chinese ambassador on Monday to protest the cutting of the seismic
cable, the Vietnamese news media reported. A Web site run by Petro Vietnam, the oil company,
reported that the company’s exploration vessel Binh Minh 02 had its seismic cable severed by a Chinese
fishing vessel on Friday. In May 2011, the Vietnamese authorities said a similar cable of the Binh Minh
02 was cut by three Chinese surveillance ships, resulting in weeks of anti-China protests in Hanoi. In its
decree on the new patrols, Vietnam said that civilian ships, supported by the marine police and a border
force, would be deployed starting next month to stop foreign vessels that violate fishing laws in waters
claimed by Vietnam. A senior official of Petro Vietnam, Pham Viet Dung, was quoted in the Vietnamese
news media as saying that large numbers of Chinese fishing boats, many of them substantial vessels, had
recently entered waters claimed by Vietnam. The fishing vessels interfered with the operations of the oil
company, he said. India, whose state-run oil company, the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, has a 45
percent interest in exploration with Petro Vietnam, also reacted strongly. The head of the Indian Navy,
Adm. D. K. Joshi, said that India was prepared to send navy vessels to protect its interests in the sea.
“Now, are we preparing for it? Are we having exercises of that nature? The short answer is ‘yes,’ ”
Admiral Joshi told reporters in India.
AFF
Bio-prospecting Inevitable
The impact is inevitable – limiting access to diverse marine ecosystems causes even
more destructive corner-cutting by bioprospectors
Kushal Qanungo (writer for Science Development Net, a London-based science news/analysis
organization, January 2002 “Time for a new deal on marine bioprospecting”
http://www.scidev.net/global/biodiversity/opinion/time-for-a-new-deal-on-marine-bioprospecting.html
Such countries, however, are already sensitive to concerns over ‘biopiracy’, and generally believe that
they do not get a fair share of benefits from any bioprospecting activity. As the long-term economic
potential of marine genetic resources becomes clear4, coastal states are therefore putting in place
complex laws restricting access to their marine biodiversity. These laws, together with the high
expectations that coastal states have of their marine biodiversity, are making access for both scientific
and commercial marine bio-prospecting increasingly difficult3. There are a number of reasons why
restricting access to marine biodiversity will do little to stop marine bioprospecting in tropical coastal
seas. Firstly, a bioprospector can always negotiate ocean access with a neighbouring coastal state, which
is likely to share common marine flora and fauna. Secondly, restricting access to biological resources is
likely to make pharmaceutical companies seek alternative sources of novel molecules — such as modern
combinatorial chemistry — that can provide large libraries of new molecules very quickly for drug
discovery. In other words, not only will restricting access fail to hold back the pursuit of intellectual
property, but the coastal state denying access would also lose the chance to profit from its marine
biodiversity. If marine diversity is to be translated into monetary value, therefore, the best option for all
tropical coastal nations to pursue is a principle of open access.
A2 Bioprospecting Unethical
No runaway development - companies have ethics
Rose et al 12 - Department of Management, Technology, and Innovation @ Grenoble School of Management
(Janna, Cassandra Quave,
and Gazi Islam, “The Four-Sided Triangle of Ethics in Bioprospecting: Pharmaceutical Business, International Politics, Socio-Environmental
Responsibility and the Importance of Local Stakeholders,” Ethnobiology and Conservation, 10/4/12,
http://ethnobioconservation.com/index.php/ebc/article/view/14/13)
While public health and intellectual property debates around genetic information dominate the ethical spectrum (Blaustein 2006; Eaton 2004;
Finegold 2005; Holloway 2006), ethical
issues pertaining to the intercultural contact surrounding early-stage
bioprospecting are difficult to come across in ethical scholarship (Rosendal 2006). In terms of corporate social
responsibility (CSR) actions, several pharmaceutical companies have integrated CSR into production and
research practices (Lindgreen et al. 2009a) and at the end of the bioprospecting process by selling or
donating products to poor or marginalized groups in need of healthcare. To provide a few illustrations, Merck
announced in September 2011 that it will make maternal care and obstetrics a focal issue for CSR
(www.merckformothers.com), working with the UN to provide accessible treatment for women in poor
regions. Royal DSM, a Dutch chemical company, donates nutritional supplements and health foods in
conjunction with the World Food Programme (Beard and Hornik 2011), and Brazilian managers of Proctor & Gamble
pushed for less expensive quality products that could help poorer individuals live more comfortable lives (Kanter 2011). In 2002, Novartis
established a non-profit research center in Singapore to study diseases that most commonly affect tropical, less developed regions and are
neglected in treatment research in more developed countries (http://www.nibr.com/research/developing_world/NITD/index.shtml).
Novartis states in its 2010 Global Reporting Initiative that it supports the CBD and works to maintain
recognition of national sovereignty over resources and to develop education and drug research
opportunities for scientists in other countries, thereby simultaneously contributing to social and
environmental responsibility.
No Bioprospecting
Too many barriers for bioprospecting development
Rose et al 12 - Department of Management, Technology, and Innovation @ Grenoble School of Management
(Janna, Cassandra Quave,
and Gazi Islam, “The Four-Sided Triangle of Ethics in Bioprospecting: Pharmaceutical Business, International Politics, Socio-Environmental
Responsibility and the Importance of Local Stakeholders,” Ethnobiology and Conservation, 10/4/12,
http://ethnobioconservation.com/index.php/ebc/article/view/14/13)
After a researcher conducts fieldwork to collect natural specimens, chemicals or proteins are extracted
from the specimens. These extracts are screened for effectiveness against one or more diseases or pathogens. If they exhibit
favorable activity, they are further tested for toxicity (against human or mammalian cells), and they are
chemically analyzed to identify the one (or sometimes multiple) chemicals or molecules that are
responsible for their activity. This can take several months to a few years to complete, and at any stage,
the compound might be dropped for showing toxicity, having too complex a chemistry, solubility (and
thus delivery) concerns, or already being known. If the chemical or molecule is identified and tests show that it is effective
and non-toxic, then the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics will next be explored, as well as the specific mechanism of action with the
target of a disease. This is often carried out using animal testing and basically means that researchers have to pinpoint exactly how the
molecule will act in the human body and how the body will respond to it. This also means that researchers have to know exactly how the
molecule is interacting with the target in order to treat the disease. Researchers might also slightly alter the molecule at this point to optimize
these interactions. At this stage in development, a molecule is seen as very promising. Its value has been increasing at each stage in the R&D
pipeline, although it is difficult to enumerate the value. This might be a critical point for large firms to consider purchasing or investing in the
product’s future R&D (Amir-Aslani and Mangematin 2009; McGrath and Nerkar 2004). Indeed,
if the molecule is to continue to
clinical trials, major funding allocations must be met, as this is the most expensive part of the drug
development process. Most academic research laboratories or small biotechnology firms do not have
enough monetary resources available to pursue clinical trials. In fact, even the pre-clinical stages of development that
meet regulatory standards often require costly GMP (good manufacturing practice) production of the compound(s) and GLP (good laboratory
practice) testing that is typically outsourced to large CRO’s (contract research organizations) that specialize in this field. Thus large firms with
substantial capital devoted to R&D are increasingly necessary in this lengthy, risky process, as they have the assets to carry them through the
short term until expected (high) revenues can be generated. A firm
must apply for permission to conduct clinical trials
through the US’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or another similar institution (in Europe or other
countries). The regulations of each respective regional institution must be met in order for a drug to be marketed and sold in that
jurisdiction. The FDA protocol is considered to be the most rigorous and most expensive to complete. Clinical trials involve at least
three stages, using different samples of the population (a few healthy individuals, the very sick, and the
population at large). Participants in the trials are usually compensated for their time and any negative effects. If all three stages of trials
show that the drug is beneficial in treating disease and does not cause serious side effects, then an application for approval of the drug must be
compiled and submitted again to the FDA or governing health institution of a region. This is the point when a drug is launched onto the market.
Production quality and standards must be upheld, and the product must be packaged, marketed, and advertised. Well after a drug is approved,
the FDA continues to check safety and quality standards of drugs and biotechnological products on the
market. On average, it is estimated that the expense of bringing a new drug from the discovery phase, through the FDA regulatory hurdles,
and to market ranges from approximately $800 million to $2 billion USD.
Too many barriers prevent bioprospecting development
Rose et al 12 - Department of Management, Technology, and Innovation @ Grenoble School of Management
(Janna, Cassandra Quave,
and Gazi Islam, “The Four-Sided Triangle of Ethics in Bioprospecting: Pharmaceutical Business, International Politics, Socio-Environmental
Responsibility and the Importance of Local Stakeholders,” Ethnobiology and Conservation, 10/4/12,
http://ethnobioconservation.com/index.php/ebc/article/view/14/13)
Potential problems with this model include the use of a large pharmaceutical company as initial researchers in the process of bioprospecting.
Increasingly, large pharmaceuticals are not engaging in direct bioprospecting ventures because of the
legal ambiguity of property rights and fears of parties not fulfilling their obligations or discontinuing
agreements. Thus, researchers from academic institutions or small firms are often the first to engage in
bioprospecting research. With less funding, manpower, and resources, these researchers are more likely
to conduct small studies, and they usually cannot afford to pay in advance for access to natural
resources or information. Still, they can draw up an ABS agreement and stipulate what should happen if their research is carried out
and another researcher or large firm wants to acquire access to the resources. However, if transnational rules were established for different
types of researchers and stakeholders in the bioprospecting process, these contracts could be drawn up and enforced more easily across
borders. Moreover, transnational laws would enforce universities, who in fact are the owners of any IP generated by their faculty (the
“inventors” on patentable technology), to adhere to such agreements, ensuring that ABS agreements are incorporated in the package of any
relevant IP to companies wishing to pursue R&D for eventual commercialization.
Bioprospecting structurally not profitable enough to spur major investment
Firn 3 (Richard, Department of Biology, University of York, “Bioprospecting – why is it so
unrewarding?”, Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 207–216, 2003, pg. 209//nz)
Bioprospecting must thus be seen not as an independent process but as a contributor to a larger
activity. The fact that so many large, successful pharmaceutical and agrochemical companies spend much
more on making and screening synthetic chemicals than they do on isolating and testing natural
products suggests that bioprospecting must bring with it disadvantages as well as advantages. The extent of
this neglect of bioprospecting is brought into sharp focus when it is appreciated that the much publicised $1 million bioprospecting investment
by Merck and Co. in INBio in 1991 was less than 0.1% of that company’s R & D budget for that year. Although evidence has been presented (ten
Kate and Laird 1999) as to the extent and value of natural product screening programmes to some pharmaceutical companies, it
is
sometimes overlooked that the total expenditure on such projects remains at best a very small fraction
of the R & D budget of the major companies. Indeed, several major pharmaceutical companies have totally
eliminated or scaled down their natural product screening programmes (Cordell 2000). A recent survey of companies
involved in bioprospecting concluded that no major pharmaceutical company had found investment in
bioprospecting especially rewarding (Macilwain 1998). However, a recent sophisticated economic analysis (Rausser and Small
2000) has suggested that technological advances could increase the success of bioprospecting. Unfortunately, that analysis ignored some
fundamental scientific considerations and it is only
by appreciating these factors that a realistic evaluation of the
potential for bioprospecting can be achieved.
Conclusions Prospecting has always tended to enrich the dreams and build up the hopes of some sectors of the community. There is no doubt
that there are many exciting, very valuable chemicals awaiting discovery in organisms but they lie hidden among a much larger number of
chemicals that are currently of little human value. The developing understanding of secondary metabolite production suggests that
combinatorial (bio)chemistry was evolved by organisms to enhance the chances of finding the rare, potent, biologically active molecule that
enhanced the fitness of the producer. Given that humans often have quite different needs to those of other organisms in terms of the types of
biological activity that could be beneficial, it is rational for humans to develop and utilise their own high throughput screening programmes to
find the biological activity they seek. Once such a screen is operating, the most efficient method of proceeding is to test the widest range of
chemical compounds that can be obtained most cheaply, preferably using chemicals that can be made economically on a large scale. It is easier
to identify ways by which human knowledge can be used to improve combinatorial chemistry or combinatorial biochemistry in the laboratory
than it is to see how knowledge can be used to improve the success rate of bioprospecting in the field. The scientific realities discussed in this
paper underpin the previous economic analyses (Barbier and Aylward 1996; Simpson et al. 1996; Simpson 1997), which suggested that the
economic potential for bioprospecting is, and is likely to remain, very limited.
Limited research and investment in bioprospecting- no positive cost motive
Firn 3 (Richard, Department of Biology, University of York, “Bioprospecting – why is it so
unrewarding?”, Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 207–216, 2003, pg. 207 //nz)
Abstract. Some
economic analyses have placed high values on the chemical diversity residing in threatened
habitats [Balick and Mendelsohn (1992), Conservation Biology 6: 128–130; Principe (1996), In Biodiversity and its Importance to Human
Health, Columbia University Press, New York; Rausser and Small (2000), Journal of Political Economy 108: 173–206]. Consequently,
bioprospecting (searching for new biologically active chemicals in organisms) is considered by some to be a way of
funding the preservation of biodiversity, especially in the less developed countries. However, the large
multinational pharmaceutical and agrochemical companies spend very little of their research effort on
bioprospecting [Cordell (2000), Phytochemistry 55: 463–480].Why is this? The answer lies in the fact that any chemical (whether a
synthetic or a natural product) has a very low probability of possessing useful biological activity. The common belief that every natural product
has been selected by its producer such that only biologically active natural products are made is not correct. Given that random collections of
synthetic or natural products have a similar chance of containing a chemical with specific activity against any one target, and given that
synthetic chemicals are nearly always much easier to synthesise on an industrial scale,
it is predictable that major agrochemical
and pharmaceutical companies will devote only a limited amount of their R & D budget to
bioprospecting. Although Rausser and Small (2000) argued that scientific advances will make bioprospecting more cost-effective in future,
an alternative scenario is presented where current biotechnological developments will further erode the value of bioprospecting. It is
concluded that there should be no reliance on large-income streams being available from
bioprospecting agreements to help fund the preservation of biodiversity.
Biodiversity => Stability
Biodiversity key to ecosystem stability
Oksanen 04 (Department of Behavioural Sciences and Philosophy, University of Turku 4
Markku “Philosophy and biodiversity” P 85-86)
Stability, generally speaking, refers to the ability of systems to withstand changes. For instance, a
community’s ability to resist invasion can be taken as an indication of its stability. In ecological theory,
definitions of stability in terms of the idea of equilibrium have been common: a stable system returns
easily to its equilibrium after small perturbations, and system stability increases as time required to
return to equilibrium decreases. The main problem with such definitions is the difficulty of specifying
the notion of equilibrium in ecological systems. Constant competition for food as well as genetic
variability cause continual changes in populations, and ecologists have adopted measures of stability
which rely on variability in population or community densities (see McCann 2000). In general, stability
increases as densitymoves further from extremely low or high densities, that is, when variation in
density decreases. Recent experimental results indicate that diversity measured as species richness
within an ecosystem tends to be positively correlated with stability measured as decreased variability in
community density.1 This, however, should not be taken to mean that diversity is the driver of this
relationship, but that ecosystem stability depends on the ability of the species in the communities to
respond differentially to perturbations. By regulating their interaction processes like food-web
structures, rich ecosystems are able to protect themselves against internal and external destabilizing
factors, and decreasing biodiversity tends to increase the overall mean interaction strength and thereby
the probability that systems undergo destabilizing dynamics and collapse (McCann 2000, 233).
Bioprospecting Solves Disease
Bioprospecting is key to solve super diseases
Wangchuk 8 - researcher at James Cook University
(Phurpa, “Health Impacts of Traditional Medicines and Bioprospecting: A World
Scenario Accentuating Bhutan's Perspective,” Journal of Bhutan Studies, June 2008
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/41223486/health-impacts-traditional-medicines-bioprospecting-world-scenario-accentuatingbhutans-perspective)
Despite these developments, of the known 30,000 human diseases or disorders, only one-third can some how be treated symptomatically with
drugs and that too at a great economic and social cost.
This is because of the fact that the drugs available today are still
not very effective particularly with respect to the fight against drug resistant pathogens and newly
emerging infections. This includes infectious diseases such as AIDS, influenza, tuberculosis and malaria
as well as other chronic disorders like cancer, autoimmune disorders and central nervous system
disabilities (e.g. Alzheimer’s disease). They are incurable and often fatal causing great suffering and
disability. Hence, these diseases including resistant pathogens are of special concern to communities worldwide. There is an urgent
need to find concrete solutions for combating such epidemics. Prevention of famine, drought, poverty,
flood, war, political upheaval, economic failure, environmental depletion and pollution would be good
solutions to reduce infections and the development of resistance. Strengthening and developing Journal of Bhutan
Studies 118 traditional medicines through evidence-based research for use against the diseases especially the chronic ones and also against
drug resistant pathogens is another potential area. Another
most important strategy to combat both new as well as
the re-emerging infectious diseases is to develop an arsenal of new drugs. New drugs could be
developed synthetically, but experience has taught us that the natural products are rich in structurally
diverse bioactive molecules that quite often become potential candidates for new drugs. In fact, in 1996, six
out of the top 20 pharmaceutical prescription drugs dispensed were natural products. Therefore, it is very important that
mankind value and appreciate the role and impacts of natural products, traditional medicines and
modern drugs discovered from natural products. This paper presents the role and the impacts of the natural products,
traditional medicines and the nature-based drug discoveries. It also describes the potential, constraints and future directions in the area of
natural product-based traditional medicines and nature-based drug discovery programs accentuating Bhutan’s perspectives.
Disease spread will cause extinction
Steinbruner 98 – Senior Fellow at Brookings Institution [John D., “Biological weapons: A plague upon
all houses,” Foreign Policy, Dec 22,A
It s a considerable comfort and
undoubtedly a key to our survival that, so far, the main lines of defense against this threat have not
depended on explicit policies or organized efforts. In the long course of evolution , the human body has developed physical barriers
and a biochemical immune system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could
design or as yet even fully understand. But evolution is a sword that cuts both ways: New diseases
emerge, while old diseases mutate and adapt. Throughout history, there have been epidemics during
which human immunity has broken down on an epic scale. An infectious agent believed to have been the plague bacterium killed
an estimated 20 million people over a four-year period in the fourteenth century, including nearly one-quarter of Western Europe's population at the time. Since its
some 20 variations of the mv virus have infected an estimated 29.4 million
worldwide, with 1.5 million people currently dying of AIDS each year. Malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera-once thought to be under control--are now making a comeback. As we enter the twenty-first century, changing conditions have
enhanced the potential for widespread contagion. The rapid growth rate of the total world population, the
unprecedented freedom of movement across international borders, and scientific advances that expand the capability for the deliberate
manipulation of pathogens are all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the future than it has ever been in the
past. The threat of infectious pathogens is not just an issue of public health, but a fundamental security
problem for the species as a whole.
recognized appearance in 1981,