washington

A pioneering but controversial agreement that would have allowed Yellowstone National Park to collaborate with a Californian biodiversity company has been suspended by a US court. The plan to exploit the commercial potential of the park's biota was blocked for failing to provide a full environmental impact statement.

Judge Royce Lambarth of the US District Court for Washington ruled last week that the National Park Service, which runs the park, should subject its agreement with Diversa of San Diego to a formal environmental assessment.

The assessment, which will take place under the terms of the National Environmental Protection Act, will require the park service to compare the environmental impact of the agreement with alternative policies.

Yellowstone struck the deal — announced by US vice-president Al Gore in 1997 — to ensure that it will share in any bonanza resulting from the commercial use of genetic material from its plants and microbes.

The park's geothermal springs were the original home of the enzyme Taq polymerase, which is used worldwide in polymerase chain reaction (PCR) equipment. Hoffman-La Roche holds patents for its use and the national park stands to gain nothing from its huge commercial success.

But critics say that the deal is not in keeping with the mission of the national parks, and last year sued the park service to halt it (see Nature 392, 117; 1998).

Judge Lambarth ruled that the agreement amounted to a significant change of US government policy on bioprospecting on land owned by the federal government, and as such should be subject to public review.

The judge did not rule on other areas of contention, including whether the royalty payments should be published. Immediately after the ruling, the park service said it would suspend the agreement until the environmental assessment was completed.

Jay Short, chief executive of the San Diego-based company, responded to the judgement by announcing that Diversa, while complying with it, would voluntarily pay royalties to Yellowstone from any products which it derives from the bioprospecting it has already undertaken at the national park, pending the environmental assessment.

The small environmental groups that have attacked the agreement welcomed the judgement. “It effectively prevents the exploitation of our national parks solely for commercial gain,” says Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Technology Assessment in Washington.