Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 5 March 2008 | Nature 452, 7 (2008) | doi:10.1038/452007a
News
Entomologists stifled by Indian bureaucracy
'Biopiracy' concerns thwart insect hunters.
An international collaboration to study insects in the Western Ghats mountains in southern India has been unable to get off the ground because of government concerns over biopiracy.
The Indian–American project aims to sample insects from different ecosystems at various elevations, and incorporate about 200,000 specimens into national insect collections.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
The recommendation by NBA Secretary Venkataraman to send photographs or digital images to collaborators abroad instead of actual specimens demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how insect systematics works. It is often impossible to even identify known insect species by a single dorsal habitus photograph, much less diagnose one that is undescribed. Secretary Venkataraman and the Indian NBA should strongly reconsider the impact this regulation will have on the ability of Indian scientists to participate in biodiversity research.
The NBA secretary Venkataraman should reconsider the decision of studying specimens via photographs, as photographs severely undermine the importance of a character for describing species. The relaxation of decision will help in understanding the diversity which can be used for conservation management.
NBA and other agencies must understand the magnitude of "erosion of taxonomic expertise" in India over these years. They should also learn about "biopiracy" from Brazil and other biologically rich nations. So before putting a full stop on "export of specimens" and international collaborations in taxonomy, they must also initiate actions that will foster growth of Indian taxonomists.
It is justifiable to endorse the concern of Krishnamoorthy Venkataraman on the NBA’s stand to mitigate the possible biopiracy on the export of specimens in large numbers. However, it is not possible to identify the species just with photographs of the specimens, as has been suggested. India is rich in its biodiversity and it needs to be documented with accuracy, and ensured monitoring the same. We too have competency in taxonomy, but not adequately to address the issue in Toto. Therefore, it is as well the NBA’s responsibility to identify the gaps in such areas of expertise, and strengthen the capacity building to meet the requirement on a sustained way. Posted by: Sabesan S
The NBA's stand on the possible biopiracy owing to export of specimens in large numbers is on one hand justifiable, but on the other hand, this shouldn't come in the way of such a project important to the nature & our economy. True that that many number of specimen can't be send out of the country which can amount to biopiracy, but it can be done in a phased manner keeping the specimen numbers manageable and traceable at any moment. I think NBA should consider this ambitious project an excellent opportunity for the country as so many number of experts are coming together. I hope this will work out nicely and the world's one of the diverse ecosystems could be evaluated for insect diversity for better management options.
International access to biological material is essential for taxonomic knowledge to progress and it is surely possible to secure institutional agreements with safeguards against fears (whether justified or not) of biopiracy. This is not simply a matter of overseas specialists being allowed access to material. Indian taxonomists need to be able to take their collections overseas in order to directly compare their samples with type material in overseas collections. We should be mindful of why there is an urgent need to name biological diversity. If we cannot name the units of biological diversity we cannot communicate about them. Being able to name organisms is the first step in understanding living diversity and how we might conserve it.
Insects are important for any eco-system. So is research about them. There are suitable ways available to ensure that 1. what is exported is for research only and not for commercial use. 2. if at all there are any patents or the like made anywhere, the country of origin of the humble insect would surely be mentioned. 3. if any commercializations is envisaged at any time, then surely, the country of origin will benefit from royalties and more. e.g research partnerships with R & D organizations in India. 4. we still know very little about how insects protect themselves from infection, through bacteria, fungi, viruses etc. Hopefully, one day the humble insects will be wished a friendly bon voyage.
Being an entomologist and biodiversity researcher from India, I am sympathetic towards the issues raised in this News. However, self-reflection is required on part of Indian entomologists. Why do Indian entomologists have to send such a large number of specimens out for mere identifications? Note that the NBA secretary does not seem to wish to completely prevent any specimens from leaving the country, he seems to be objecting to the whopping number. How long before indigenous expertise builds in India? Isolation of Indian entomologists due to the new regulations is not at all a threat; Indian entomology has largely been isolated since independence over 50 years ago. During the same time, Indian botanists have developed as competent, independent taxonomists. Lately, India has also produced a handful internationally well-known herpetologists. So the problem seems to be not only with restrictive government regulations, but also with a certain class of taxonomists. If anything, I view the new restrictions as an impetus for capacity-building in the country and a forced step towards taxonomic independence. The stifling government rules should be changed but there are other options as well: train yourself in the top Western museums, study their collections, and then work in Indian museums with your own specimens. Western museums have always been open to sending material to competent Indian taxonomists for comparative taxonomic work , so working within the country should not be such an unsurmountable obstacle. There is a wide gap between collaborative research and crippled taxonomic dependence.
I respect the recommendation by NBA Secretary Venkataraman to send photographs or digital images to collaborators abroad but according to our experience this will not work. There are certain keys characters, which based on texture of plant part, which is not possible to understand by photograph. Even for taking photographs for minute character it needs a very good kind of camera which needs to purchase at individual or organizational level. In plant taxonomy there are number of identification complex based on morphological characters. We need to investigate molecular taxonomy and in relation to this very little work has been carried out in India. We have limited infrastructure. To compare results with previous, it needs collaborative work at national and international level. In this case how can we study photographs. Permission must be given with alternative regulation. It is necessary to reconsider the impact.
The recommendation by NBA Secretary Venkataraman to send insects photographs or digital images to expert entomologists instead of specimens demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how Scientists works. I am sure that NBA Secretary will remember that Entomology is a Science, and that Science study facts, not pictures ! I am sure that NBA Secretary will remember that progress in Science is always the result of international collaboration.
It is interesting to see a badly designed law that is unimplementable (one among many created in or retained from colonial traditions of "rule" or "raaj") and one that actually affects a section of the people with the ability to lobby and raise public conscience. The Act has been very loosely worded, making even kitchen gardens ("biodiversity collection") into entities that need to be registered. Apart from being impossible to implement, the scope for corruption and victimization has been pointed out in many critiques and apart from wasting vast administrative talent and tax-payer funds it enables true bio-piracy by freeing all species that are in commerce. In effect one could pirate a tonne of cultivated crop varieties with valuable genome resources without a problem.
NBA rules are necessary for the management of bioresources and biodiversity of India but it should not be at the cost of advancement in the knowledge on bioresource and biodiversity. Especially once a bioresource is identified the next issue is about identification. There is no dearth for Indian taxonomists but the skills need to be honed to match with the newer developments happening around them otherwise Indian taxonomists will become rustic and going the way dinosaurs. For other science it is graphs and tables are the language but for botanists or zoologists it is specimens, the typical “typesâ€. Sharing specimens basically provides opportunities for them to talk in the language the fellow taxonomists can understand. No way Indian Botanists are different from entomologists or any other taxonomists in being impeded by the new regulations that governs India’s bioresoruces and biodiversity. For example when I interact with other plant taxonomists out side India who involved in floristic revisions, the first issue brought to me was about the difficulty in accessing Indian collections as they are not deposited in International herbaria after 1950s. Secondly the request for sharing specimens did not honored by Indian botanists as it was practiced as a professional ethics of taxonomy in the past. In fact the taxonomists once study the material generally return it back to the Institution that lend the specimens. One taxonomist blamed Indian botanists for multitude of synonyms for Indian plants as we do not study the collections available elsewhere due to non-availability of resource or do not send the specimens to fellow taxonomists specializing in particular group because of several unknown reasons. In addition to this in the recent times the National Biodiversity Authority adds to this owe much more. As a signatory of CBD we have to document the diversity what we have with us but it does not mean that we should document incomplete information, I mean incomplete taxonomy. This incompleteness could be burgeoning in the recent past as it goes unnoticed under the pretension that we are law abiding “taxonamists†but not professional taxonomists. This will give lot of loopholes for people who want to really exploit the biological resources of India for wrong reasons. It is not only in India taxonomists are into difficulty and may be in other countries too. Instead of blaming each other and keeping issues too close to our heart, we all should seriously revisit the Biological diversity Act and other issues related to bioresource management and biodiversity documentation so that all the porosity are properly plugged and the proper filters are installed to regulate the bioresource management in India.
It is interesting to note the suggestions by Dr. Vikas Malik and Dr.K. Kunte. Yes, a large number of specimens must be taken abroad in a phased manner and at the same time Indian taxonomists must attain the required expertise. However, at the same time I can bearly restrain myself from pinching the Indian bureaucrats - what about politicians or their close relatives involved in illegal felling of trees and thus destroying the ecosystem? Perhaps these bureaucrats have understood that soon there will be no need to study biodiversity in India. Ananda Mookerjee, INSERM, France.
The comment by the author is specially noticeable- “We have to send the specimens abroad for identification as we do not have the expertise at home,â€- India has a large man power and efficient brains. Rather than compelling the government to export the specimen, why can’t we pressurize the government to establish the facilities in India and recruit some people whom we can send abroad and give training to work in this facility?