Chapter 42 : Contracts for Bioprospecting: the Yellowstone National Park Experience

MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.

Ebook: Choose a downloadable PDF or ePub file. Chapter is a downloadable PDF file. File must be downloaded within 48 hours of purchase

Buy this Chapter
Digital (?) $15.00

Preview this chapter:
Zoom in

Contracts for Bioprospecting: the Yellowstone National Park Experience, Page 1 of 2

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555817770/9781555812676_Chap42-1.gif /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555817770/9781555812676_Chap42-2.gif


In 1997, the National Park Service (NPS), Yellowstone National Park (YNP), and Diversa Corporation, a California-based biotechnology company, signed the first benefit-sharing agreement for commercial bioprospecting on federally owned lands in the United States. Globally, bioprospecting has been touted as a way to fulfill the three goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of biological resources, and equitable sharing of the benefits of using those resources. The idea that the CBD's three goals can be fruitfully combined underlies the Yellowstone agreement. The experience of Yellowstone, the world's first national park, with bioprospecting provides an important case study because Yellowstone, by sharp contrast with the earliest targets of bioprospecting, is in the developed world and already enjoys strong legal protection of its natural resources. The Yellowstone-Diversa agreement is couched as a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA), a type of agreement specifically authorized by the U.S. Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA). In March 1998 three small nonprofit groups filed a lawsuit challenging the CRADA. The three were Alliance for the Wild Rockies, which describes itself as working to secure the ecological integrity of the northern Rockies bioregion; the Edmonds Institute, primarily interested in the regulation and implications of biotechnology; and the International Center for Technology Assessment, which concentrates on the social, environmental, and other impacts of new technologies, including biotechnology.

Citation: Doremus H. 2004. Contracts for Bioprospecting: the Yellowstone National Park Experience, p 450-457. In Bull A (ed), Microbial Diversity and Bioprospecting. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817770.ch42

Key Concept Ranking

Taq Polymerase
Thermus aquaticus
DNA Polymerase
Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...


1. Barinaga, M. 1996. Promega wins round in fight over Taq. Science 273:1039.
2. Bear, D. 1989. NEPA at 19: a primer on an "old" law with solutions to new problems. Environ. Law Rep. 19:1006010069.
3. Brock, T. D. 1995. The road to Yellowstone—and beyond. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 49:128.
4. Brock, T. D. 1997. The value of basic research: discovery of Thermits aquaticus and other extreme thermophiles. Genetics 146: 12071210.
5. Chester, C. C. 1996. Controversy over Yellowstone's biological resources: people, property and bioprospecting. Environment 38:1036.
6. Doremus, H. 1999. Nature, knowledge and profit: the Yellowstone bioprospecting controversy and the core purposes of America's national parks. Ecol. Law Q. 26:401488.
7. Eeles, R. A.,, and A. C. Stamps. 1993. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR): The Technique and Its Applications. R. G. Landes Co., Austin, Tex..
8. Farrier, D.,, and L. Tucker. 2001. Access to marine bioresources: hitching the conservation cart to the bioprospecting horse. Ocean Dev. Int. Law 32:213239.
9. Heller, M. A.,, and R. S. Eisenberg. 1998. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomédical research. Science 280:698701.
10. Hugenholtz, P.,, C. Pitulle,, K. L. Hershberger,, and N. R. Pace. 1998. Novel division level bacterial diversity in a Yellowstone hot spring. J. Bacteriol. 180:366376.
11. Milstein, M. 1995. Yellowstone managers stake a claim on a hot-springs microbe. Science 270:226.
12. National Park Service. 2001a. Benefits-sharing for conservation? Environmental Assessment Scoping Newsletter. National Park Service, Washington, D.C..
13. National Park Service. 2001b. General Conditions for Scientific Research and Collecting Permit. National Park Service, Washington, D.C..
14. Pace, N. R. 1997. A molecular view of microbial diversity and the biosphere. Science 276:734740.
15. Rabinow, P. 1996. Making PCR: A Story of Biotechnology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill..
16. Reid, W. V.,, S. A. Laird,, R. Gámez,, A. Sittenfeld,, D. H. Janzen,, M. A. Collin,, and C. Juma,. 1993. A new lease on life, p. 152. In W. V. Reid,, S. A. Laird,, C. A. Meyer,, R. Gámez,, A. Sittenfeld,, D. H. Janzen,, M. A. Gollin,, and C. Juma (éd.), Biodiversity Prospecting: Using Genetic Resources for Sustainable Development. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C..
17. Smith, C.1997. Yellowstone Park's deal: some call it "biopiracy." The Salt Lake Tribune, Nov. 9, 1997, p. Al.
18. U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 1986. Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986. Committee Report No. 99-283. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C..
19. Varley, J. D.,, and P. T. Scott. 1998. Conservation of microbial diversity a Yellowstone priority. ASM News 64:147151.
20. Yellowstone Center for Resources. 1997. Investigators' Annual Reports, Yellowstone National Park, 1996. Yellowstone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wyo..
21. Yellowstone Center for Resources. 2000. 1999 Investigators' Annual Reports, Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wyo..
22. Yellowstone National Park, Division of Interpretation. 2001. Yellowstone Resources and Issues. Yellowstone National Park, Wyo. 1992.

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error