Traditional or indigenous science (IS) relates to both the science knowledge of long-resident, usually oral culture peoples, as well as the science knowledge of all peoples who as participants in culture are affected by the worldview and relativist interests of their home communities. Traditional science (TS) has been recognised only lately in Western science as a valuable source of products and treatments for health care. As a consequence, diverse components of IS have been appropriated under intellectual property rights (IPRs) by researchers and commercial enterprises, without any significant compensation to the knowledge’s creators or holders. This paper investigates whether novel forms of commercial uses of biodiversity and associated knowledge carried out by indigenous communities are possible. This understanding will be gained through the examination of the Indian Gram Mooligai Company Limited (GMCL), a community-based enterprise composed of women, which produces and commercialises phytomedicines using the local ethnomedicine knowledge. The paper aims to shows how an alternative representation of bioprospecting at the grassroots level can be an instrument to enhancing the local livelihoods of communities and promoting their empowerment and capacity building. The results show that positive outcomes of this innovative form of participative bioprospecting initiative are evident but that challenges remain.
Aguilar, G.2001 , ‘Access to Genetic Resources and Protection of Traditional Knowledge in the Territories of Indigenous Peoples’, Environmental Science and Policy, 4, pp. 241–56.
2.
Anuradha, R.V.2001 , ‘Sharing with the Kanis: A Case Study from Kerala, India’, in B. Dhar, S. Chaturvedi, R.V. Anuradha, eds, Regime of Intellectual Property Protection for Biodiversity: A Developing Country Perspective. New Delhi: RIS, pp. 122–52.
3.
Artuso, A.2002 , ‘Bioprospecting, Benefit Sharing, and Biotechnological Capacity Building’, World Development, 30(8), pp. 1355–68.
4.
Barsh, R.2001 , ‘Who Steals Indigenous Knowledge?’, Proceedings of the 95th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, pp. 153–161.
5.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C.2000 , ‘Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management’, Ecological Applications10, pp. 1251–62.
6.
Bowers, C.A. (1993a), Critical Essays on Education, Modernity, and the Recovery of the Ecological Imperative. New York: Teachers College Press.
7.
Bowers, C.A. (1993b), Education, Cultural Myths, and the Ecological Crisis. New York: State University of New York Press.
8.
Brush, S.B.2007 , ‘Farmers’ Rights and Protection of Traditional Agricultural Knowledge’, World Development, 35(9), pp. 1499–514.
9.
Chennells, R.2003 , Genetic Research Ethics and Law: Indigenous Peoples, Africa Genome Initiative’s Conference in Stellenbosch, South Africa, 19–22 March 2003.
10.
Corbridge, S.1989 , ‘Post-Marxism and Development Studies: Beyond the Impasse’, World Development, 18(5), pp. 623–39.
11.
Correa, C.2005 , ‘Do National Access Regimes Promote the Use of Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing?’, International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 4(4), pp. 444–63.
12.
Cruikshank, J.1991 , Reading Voices: Oral and Written Interpretations of the Yukon’s Past. Vancouver, British Columbia: Douglas and McIntyre.
13.
Dutfield, G.2000 , Developing and Implementing National Systems for Protecting Traditional Knowledge: A Review of Experiences in Selected Developing Countries, UNCTAD Expert Meeting on Systems and National Experiences for Protecting Traditional Knowledge, Innovations and Practices, Geneva, 30 October 1 November 2000.
14.
Elkana, Y.1981 , ‘A Programmatic Attempt at an Anthropology of Knowledge’, in E. Mendelshohn and Y. Elkana, eds., Science and Culture: Anthropological and Historical Studies of the Sciences. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel, pp. 1–77.
15.
FRLHT 2002 , Vidya Venkatesh, ed.. Medicinal Plants Scenario in India. Unpublished Report of the Foundation for Revitalization of Local Health Traditions (FRLHT), Bangalore, India.
16.
Finger, J.M., and Schuler, P., eds. 2004 , Poor People’s Knowledge: Promoting Intellectual Property in Developing Countries. Washington DC: World Bank/Oxford Press.
17.
Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., Folke, C.1993 , ‘Indigenous Knowledge for Biodiversity Conservation’, Ambio, 22, pp. 266–70.
18.
Greene, S.2004 , ‘Indigenous People Incorporated?’, Current Anthropology, 45(2), 211–37.
19.
Gupta, A.2002 , Rewarding Traditional Knowledge and Contemporary Grassroots Creativity: The Role of Intellectual Property Protection, available at http://www.sristi.org/papers.
20.
Hayden, C.2003 , When Nature Goes Public: The Making and Unmaking of Bioprospecting in Mexico, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
21.
Hardesty, D.L.1977 , Ecological Anthropology. New York: Wiley.
22.
ISMH 2002 , Indian Systems of Medicine and Homoeopathy. New Delhi: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.
23.
Iwu, M.2006 , ‘Biodiversity prospecting in Nigeria: Seeking Equity and Reciprocity in Intellectual Property Rights Through Partnership Arrangements and Capacity Building’, Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 5(1), pp. 209–19.
24.
Kansa, E., Schultz, J., Bissell, A.2005 , Protecting Traditional Knowledge and Expanding Access to Scientific Data: Juxtaposing Intellectual Property Agendas via a “Some Rights Reserved” Model’, International Journal of Cultural Property, 12, pp. 285–314.
25.
Kartal, M.2006 , ‘Intellectual Property Protection in the Natural Product Drug Discovery, Traditional Herbal Medicine and Herbal Medicinal Products’, Phytotherapy Research, 21(2), pp. 113–19.
26.
Mc Manis, C.2007 , Biodiversity and the Law: Intellectual Property, Biotechnology and Traditional Knowledge. London: Earthscan Publications.
27.
Nelson, R.K.1983 , Make Prayers to the Raven: A Koyukon View of the Northern ForestChicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 200–37.
28.
Ogawa, M.1995 , ‘Science Education in a Multiscience Perspective’, Science Education, 79, p. 593.
29.
Ogawa, M.1989 , ‘Beyond the Tacit Framework of ‘Science’ and ‘Science Education’ Among Science Educators’, International Journal of Science Education, 11, pp. 247–50.
30.
Pomeroy, D.1994 , ‘Science Education and Cultural Diversity: Mapping the Field’, Studies in Science Education, 24, pp. 49–73.
31.
Richerzhagen, C., Holm-Mueller, K.2004 , Biodiversity Conservation, Access and Benefit Sharing and Traditional Knowledge’, Ecological Economics, 53(4), pp. 445–60.
32.
Roht-Arrianza, N.2005 , The Pinochet Effect: Transnational Justice in the Age of Human Rights. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
33.
Rose, H.1994 , ‘The Two-Way Street: Reforming Science Education and Transforming Masculine Science,’ in J. Soloman and G. Aikenhead, eds, STS Education: International Perspectives on ReformNew York: Teachers College Press, pp. 155–66.
34.
Sampath, P.2005 , Regulating Bioprospecting: Institutions for Drug Research, Access and Benefit-Sharing. New York: United Nations University Press.
35.
Sampath, G., and Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B.2007 , ‘Interfacing Health Care and Innovation: Traditional Medicinal Knowledge in Nigeria’, International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 6(2), pp. 1474–2748.
36.
Sen, A.1989 , ‘Development as Capabilities Expansion’, Journal of Development Planning, 19, 41–58.
37.
Sen, A.2002 , ‘Foreword’, in Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and A.K. Shiva Kumar, eds, Human Development, Essential Readings. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
38.
Schuklenk, U., and Ashcroft, R.2002 , ‘Affordable Access to Essential Medication in Developing Countries: Conflicts Between Ethical and Economic Imperatives,’ Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 27, pp. 179–95.
39.
Shackleton, et al. 2002 , Devolution and Community-Based Natural Resource Management: Creating Space for Local People to Participate and Benefit: Natural Resource Perspectives 76. London: Overseas Development Institute.
40.
Siebenhüner, B., Dedeurwaerdere, T., Brousseau, E.2005 , ‘Introduction and Overview to the Special Issue on Biodiversity Conservation, Access and Benefit-Sharing and Traditional Knowledge’, Ecological Economics, 53(4), pp. 439–44.
41.
Simonelli, R.1994 , ‘Sustainable Science: A look at Science Through an Engineering Model to a Science Model of Experimentation’, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 14, 1–12.
42.
Timmermans, K.2003 , ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Traditional Medicine: Policy Dilemmas at the Interface’, Social Science & Medicine, 57(4), pp. 745–56.
43.
Subrat N.2002 , Ayurvedic and Herbal Products Industry: An Overview. Paper at a Workshop on Wise Practices and Experiential Learning in the Conservation and Management of Himalayan Medicinal Plants, Kathmandu, Nepal, 15–20 December 2002, supported by the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Epal, the WWF-Nepal Program, MAPPA and PPI.
44.
Tobin, B. andSwiderska, K.2001 , Speaking in Tongues: Indigenous Participation in the Development of a Sui Generis Regime to Protect Traditional Knowledge in Peru. London: IIED.
45.
Tucker, V.1999 , ‘The myth of development: a critique of a Eurocentric discourse’, in R. Munck and D. O’Hearn, eds, Critical Development Theory: Contributions to a New Paradigm. London: Zed Books.
46.
WHO 2005 , Traditional Medicine, Fact Sheet 134. Geneva: World Health Organization.
47.
WIPO-UNEP 2002 , ‘The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in the Sharing of Benefits Arising from the Use of Biological Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge, Selected Case Studies’.
