Magazine R169 Researchers are calling for a strengthening of the Antarctic Treaty in the face of expected growth in the search for organisms on the continent that may provide lucrative material for biotechnology companies. The call comes because of the background of scientific collaboration that has been in place for more than 40 years which has helped maintain an almost unique international collaboration to preserve the continent and the species that inhabit it. But the environment of the polar continent makes it especially appealing for biotech companies. Organisms that thrive in the frozen soils and surrounding waters do so because they have developed unique biological coping strategies. If researchers can unravel the secrets of life in a cold climate, the financial rewards could be huge for businesses involving chilling and freezing technologies. Bioprospectors are starting to turn their attention to many of the last frontiers, such as hydrothermal vents, the deep seabed, the water column of the high seas and polar ice caps, raising concerns about the unique environment and status of Antarctica. Scientists have already discovered fish that survive Antarctic waters by producing their own ‘anti-freeze’. The molecule responsible has been patented and could be used commercially to protect frozen food, or keep ice cream soft in freezers. Other organisms, amongst the ‘extremophiles’ which flourish in harsh environments, are believed to have unique enzymes that could revolutionise industrial processes. There is also hope such novel organisms may lead to the discovery of othr chemicals such as antibiotics. According to researchers at the United Nations University in Tokyo, interest from the biotech companies in Antarctica’s biological riches is growing. Already, some 92 patents referring to Antarctic organisms or molecules extracted from them have been filed in the US and a further 62 patents have been filed in Europe. News focus Chill wind over Antarctic biodiversity A new report seeks to strengthen the cooperation between states with an interest in Antarctica in the face of growing commercial interests in the potential of polar organisms, writes Nigel Williams. Cold shoulder: Researchers are keen to ensure that the protection afforded to all Antarctic wildlife over the past 40 years is main- tained in the face of growing commercial pressures. Bioprospecting for organisms and their constituents is raising increasing alarm for the future of one of the most unspoilt environments on Earth. (Photograph: Oxford Scientific Films.)
Transcript
MagazineR169
Researchers are calling for astrengthening of the AntarcticTreaty in the face of expectedgrowth in the search fororganisms on the continent thatmay provide lucrative material forbiotechnology companies. Thecall comes because of thebackground of scientificcollaboration that has been inplace for more than 40 yearswhich has helped maintain analmost unique internationalcollaboration to preserve thecontinent and the species thatinhabit it.
But the environment of the polarcontinent makes it especiallyappealing for biotech companies.Organisms that thrive in the frozensoils and surrounding waters do
so because they have developedunique biological copingstrategies. If researchers canunravel the secrets of life in a coldclimate, the financial rewardscould be huge for businessesinvolving chilling and freezingtechnologies.
Bioprospectors are starting toturn their attention to many of thelast frontiers, such ashydrothermal vents, the deepseabed, the water column of thehigh seas and polar ice caps,raising concerns about the uniqueenvironment and status ofAntarctica. Scientists have alreadydiscovered fish that surviveAntarctic waters by producingtheir own ‘anti-freeze’. Themolecule responsible has been
patented and could be usedcommercially to protect frozenfood, or keep ice cream soft infreezers. Other organisms,amongst the ‘extremophiles’which flourish in harshenvironments, are believed tohave unique enzymes that couldrevolutionise industrial processes.There is also hope such novelorganisms may lead to thediscovery of othr chemicals suchas antibiotics.
According to researchers at theUnited Nations University inTokyo, interest from the biotechcompanies in Antarctica’sbiological riches is growing.Already, some 92 patents referringto Antarctic organisms ormolecules extracted from themhave been filed in the US and afurther 62 patents have been filedin Europe.
News focus
Chill wind over Antarctic biodiversityA new report seeks to strengthen the cooperation between states with aninterest in Antarctica in the face of growing commercial interests in thepotential of polar organisms, writes Nigel Williams.
Cold shoulder: Researchers are keen to ensure that the protection afforded to all Antarctic wildlife over the past 40 years is main-tained in the face of growing commercial pressures. Bioprospecting for organisms and their constituents is raising increasing alarmfor the future of one of the most unspoilt environments on Earth. (Photograph: Oxford Scientific Films.)
In 2002, Spain granted a patentfor the wound healing and skin,hair and nail treatment propertiesof a glycoprotein extracted fromAntarctic bacteria. In the sameyear, an extract from an Antarcticgreen algae was patented inGermany for use in cosmetic skintreatment.
The problem, according to areport by Hamid Zakri and SamJohnston at the university’sInstitute of Advanced Studies, isthat although commercialactivities such as mining andtourism are banned or regulated,there is nothing to stop biotechcompanies going into Antarcticaand searching or ‘bioprospecting’for potentially lucrative organisms.
“If bioprospecting is doneproperly, it can be useful andbeneficial for all and can haveminimum impact on theenvironment, but you want it to becontrolled to prevent companiesfrom causing significantenvironmental damage ordisrupting the scientificoperations down there,” Johnstonsaid.
Agreeing rules for companieskeen to work in Antarctica isfraught with difficulties. Antarcticahas long been used by scientistsand international agreementssuch as the Antarctic Treatyensure that scientific knowledgeis made freely available to all.Commercial exploitation, and theinevitable close guarding ofsecrets, is against the spirit of thetreaty.
The treaty was signed in 1959by the 12 countries active inAntarctic research. Thesecomprised the US, Argentina,Australia, Belgium, Chile, France,Japan, New Zealand, Norway andthe UK. The countries signed upto a pledge that Antarctica shouldbe used for peaceful purposesonly and that military personnel orequipment should be used onlyfor scientific research or otherpeaceful purpose.
The treaty also requirescountries to exchange informationregarding plans for scientificprograms in Antarctica to thegreatest possible extent and thatscientific personnel should beexchanged between expeditionsand stations and that scientific
observations and results fromAntarctica should be exchangedand made freely available.
While few scientists believe thethreat to Antarctica is imminent,things could change drastically inthe next 10 years.
Explorers first laid eyes on theislands of the Antarctic peninsularin 1819. They had speculated thata southern continent existed andgiven it a name — Terra incognitaAustralis, the unknown southernland. In 1820, the Russian explorerFabian Gottlieb vonBellingshausen became the firstperson to see the mainland. Thefirst camp was set up by aNorwegian in 1899 and a flurry ofsurvey trips followed so that bythe 1940s, Antarctic explorationwas no longer the preserve ofprivately funded entepreneurs asgovernments established baseson the continent.
The new report warns that sofar biological prospecting inAntarctica has usually beencarried out be consortia made upof public and private bodies,principally universities, researchcentres and biotechnology andpharmaceutical companies. “Thishas made it difficult to draw aclear line between scientific andcommercial activities,” it says.
The Antarctic Treaty group’sadvisory body, the ScientificCommittee on Antarctic Research,also raised concerns aboutbioprospecting in a recent report.It stated: “While no currentinstance of harvesting forbiotechnology is known, there areobvious environmentalramifications of the taking ofanimals and plants as acommercial venture.” Their reportconcludes that bioprospectingshould be watched closely as it“may develop into importantpressures on Antarcticresources.”
The new report highlights thatdeveloping commercial productsfrom naturally occurring geneticresources or biochemichalprocesses is typically a long,expensive and uncertain process,Even so, annual sales derivedfrom traditional knowledge usinggenetic resources are $3 billion forthe cosmetics and personal careindustry, $20 billion for the
botanical medicine sector and$75 billion for the pharmaceuticalindustry. More than 60 per cent ofthe cancer drugs approved by theUS Food and Drug Administrationare of natural origin or aremodelled on natural products.
Another concern is thatcompanies with patents onAntarctic organisms, or extractsfrom them, may prevent scientistsfrom working on them freely.Johnston says now is the time todeal with the issue. Regulations tocontrol bioprospecting will haveto be agreed upon by the manycountries that control differentparts of Antarctica. But if biotechcompanies start makingagreements with individualgovernments, it will be much moredifficult to reach a globalagreement. “It’s going to be mucheasier to put regulations in placethat are effective and meaningfulbefore there are vested interests,”Johnston said. “It is imminent thatbiotechnology companies willtake up bioprospectingcompanies and will be significantin the next 10 years. After that, thehorse may have bolted.”
David Walton, chief scientist atthe British Antarctic Survey saidthe Antarctic treaty group hadrecently discussedbioprospecting. “As always, it’sup to individual states todetermine what will be agreed.Like all international activity ittakes a long time to geteverybody to understand what theproblem is and do somethingabout it,” he said.
Johnston said gettingregulations right in Antarctica nowwould set a precedent for otherenvironments around the worldwhere flora and fauna couldattract biotech companies. “It’s away of showing how the worldshould deal with bioprospectinggenerally,” he said.
The report concludes thatalthough the physical impact ofbioprospecting is currentlyaddressed by the treaty,establishing the legal and policybasis that controls thecommercialisation of geneticresources, in line with the basicprinciples of the treaty as well asequity and fairness, is a morecomplex matter.
