Gene editing technologies like CRISPR have opened new avenues in biotechnology, but in the Global South, these advancements are entangled with ethical dilemmas, neocolonialism, and the exploitation of traditional knowledge. India's Genome India Project, for instance, has ignited debates over patents on traditional medicinal compounds and the rights of tribal communities.

Agenda

• Introduction: Overview of biotech in the Global South. Importance of ethics in biotech advancements.
• Gene Editing and Traditional Knowledge: CRISPR technology and its applications. Patenting traditional medicinal compounds. Tribal communities' demands for royalty shares.
• Critical Ethical Issues: Nagoya Protocol violations. Patenting climate-resilient crop traits. DNA database expansions under health initiatives.
• Neocolonialism and Exploitation: Historical context of neocolonialism in biotech. Exploitation of indigenous genetic resources.
• Global Implications and Case Studies: "Vaccine Diplomacy 2.0" in Africa. Similar initiatives globally.
• Conclusion and Recommendations: Summary of ethical concerns. Proposed solutions for equitable benefit sharing.

Introduction: Biotech Ethics in the Global South

Biotechnology has emerged as a pivotal field in the Global South, offering transformative solutions in agriculture, medicine, and environmental conservation. The rapid growth of biotechnology research in developing countries has been driven by its potential to address pressing issues such as food security, health challenges, and environmental sustainability. Countries like China, India, and Brazil are leading the way in biotechnology innovation, with significant advancements in areas such as genetically modified crops and disease-resistant plant varieties.

However, alongside these advancements, ethical concerns have become increasingly prominent. Gene editing technologies, such as CRISPR, have raised questions about safety, equity, and the potential misuse of genetic engineering. Moreover, the integration of traditional knowledge with modern biotechnology poses challenges related to intellectual property rights and cultural appropriation. As biotechnology continues to evolve, it is crucial to address these ethical dilemmas to ensure that its benefits are equitably distributed and its risks are mitigated. This article explores the role of biotechnology in the Global South, highlighting both its potential and the ethical considerations that must be navigated to ensure responsible development and application.

Gene Editing and Traditional Knowledge

• CRISPR Technology and Its Applications

CRISPR technology, particularly CRISPR-Cas9, has revolutionized various fields by enabling precise and efficient gene editing. Its applications span agriculture, medicine, and biotechnology, offering solutions for disease modelling, gene therapy, and crop improvement. CRISPR-Cas9 has been instrumental in creating targeted gene knockouts, developing disease models, and exploring therapeutic strategies. In agriculture, it enhances crop traits such as disease resistance and nutritional content, providing a rapid alternative to traditional breeding methods.

• Use of CRISPR-Cas12 in Patenting Traditional Medicinal Compounds

While CRISPR-Cas12 systems are being explored for their potential in gene editing and diagnostics, there is limited information on their specific use in patenting traditional medicinal compounds. However, the broader context of CRISPR technology raises concerns about intellectual property rights when traditional knowledge is involved. Traditional medicinal compounds often rely on indigenous knowledge, and their modification using CRISPR could lead to issues of biopiracy if not properly regulated. Ensuring equitable benefit-sharing and recognizing the contributions of Indigenous communities are crucial in such scenarios.

• Tribal Communities' Demands for Royalty Shares

Tribal communities, who are often the custodians of traditional knowledge, are increasingly advocating for recognition and compensation for their contributions. The patenting of traditional medicinal compounds, potentially enhanced by gene editing technologies like CRISPR, highlights the need for robust legal frameworks that protect indigenous rights. These frameworks should include provisions for royalty shares and involve indigenous communities in decision-making processes related to the use of their traditional knowledge. This ensures that benefits are equitably distributed and that cultural appropriation is avoided.

In summary, while CRISPR technology offers significant advancements in biotechnology, its integration with traditional knowledge requires careful consideration of ethical and legal issues to ensure fair outcomes for all stakeholders involved.

Critical Ethical Issues in Biotechnology: From Traditional Knowledge to Genomic Databases

The rapid advancement of biotechnology has brought forth unprecedented opportunities for addressing global challenges in health, agriculture, and environmental conservation. However, these developments have also raised significant ethical concerns, particularly in the Global South. This report examines three critical ethical issues at the intersection of biotechnology and social justice: violations of the Nagoya Protocol in ethnobotanical research, corporate patenting of climate-resilient crop traits, and ethical implications of expanding DNA databases under health initiatives.

Violations of the Nagoya Protocol in Ethnobotanical Research

The Nagoya Protocol, adopted in 2010 as a supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), was specifically designed to address "biopiracy" of genetic resources. Biopiracy refers to the biotechnological utilization of genetic resources that violates either the provider country's legislation or mutually agreed contractual obligations. This international framework represents a significant shift from the previous "common heritage" paradigm that provided unrestricted access to biological resources, now affirming sovereignty over bioresources by nation states.

Despite its importance, the Nagoya Protocol faces significant implementation challenges. The agreement predominantly focuses on compliance management while lacking necessary enforcement provisions for deterring non-compliance through effective monitoring and sanctions. This structural weakness allows parties to exploit legal ambiguities to soften the Protocol's regulatory impact on domestic industries, undermining its effectiveness in protecting traditional knowledge and genetic resources.

In ethnobotanical research, these shortcomings become particularly problematic. While the Protocol stipulates that prior informed consent and providing benefits for knowledge holders is international law, not merely good ethics, enforcement remains inconsistent. Traditional knowledge holders, often indigenous communities, find themselves vulnerable to exploitation despite the Protocol's protections. The distributive conflict between provider and user countries, coupled with practical difficulties in monitoring the transnational utilization of genetic resources, creates conditions where violations can occur with limited consequences.

Some researchers have attempted to implement the Protocol's principles in their work. The Proyecto Ethnobotanico Chácobo represents one such effort, focusing on documenting current traditional knowledge of plants, inventorying the regional flora, and repatriating acquired knowledge to the community. This approach acknowledges that traditional knowledge represents both "stock knowledge" (known but not actively used resources) and "mass knowledge" (actively used resources), recognizing indigenous communities' strategic preservation of alternatives to meet future needs.

Corporate Patenting of Climate-Resilient Crop Traits

As climate change intensifies, major agricultural biotechnology companies have aggressively pursued patents on "climate-ready genes" – genetic sequences claimed to help crops withstand environmental stresses like floods, drought, heat, cold, and salinity. Over 530 patent applications belonging to 55 patent families have been filed for climate-ready genes, with Monsanto (now Bayer) and BASF leading the charge with 27 of these patent families. These companies have invested heavily in bioengineering climate-resistant crops, with partnerships like the $1.5 billion research project between Monsanto and BASF aiming to commercialize these solutions.

Critics argue that these patent applications represent a form of biopiracy. According to environmental activists like Vandana Shiva, the climate-ready genes that companies claim as their inventions already exist in varieties familiar to local farmers. The companies collect seeds from regions with extreme climatic conditions, map their genomes to identify desirable genetic traits, and then develop methods to transfer or over-express these traits in transgenic plants. For instance, scientists discovered a farmers' variety of flood-resistant rice called Dhullaputia in the flood-prone state of Orissa in India, and researchers have found traditional African rice varieties that can withstand drought and heat.

The implications of these patents extend beyond intellectual property rights. Broad patent applications can potentially cover multiple crop types, as exemplified by DuPont's patent claim for improving drought or cold tolerance, which may extend to maize, barley, wheat, oat, rye, sorghum, rice, soybean, and several other crops. If granted, these patents could prevent farmers from saving or exchanging seeds for replanting, forcing them to purchase climate-tolerant seeds for each crop cycle.

In recent years, the use of patents has fueled significant consolidation in the seed industry, resulting in the erosion of genetic diversity and prioritizing traits that increase profits – such as uniformity and high yield – over characteristics essential to sustainable food systems, including taste, nutrition, resilience, and soil health. This consolidation of power particularly affects staple crops like corn and soybeans, where patented varieties dominate the market.

Some companies have employed intimidation tactics against smaller seed producers. For instance, BASF sent letters to regional seed companies making broad claims about plant varieties and genetic traits covered by their patents, warning that unauthorized use would violate their intellectual property rights. Such tactics aim to preemptively discourage small seed producers from working with seeds or traits over which these corporations claim ownership, rather than pursuing more expensive litigation to enforce patent compliance.

Ethical Implications of DNA Database Expansions Under Health Initiatives

The expansion of DNA databases under health initiatives raises significant ethical concerns regarding privacy, discrimination, and informed consent. While the search results don't specifically address the PM-Jan Arogya Yojana initiative, they highlight broader ethical considerations applicable to any large-scale collection of genetic information.

Breaches of confidentiality in DNA databanks can lead to discrimination or stigmatization, with potential implications for important personal choices, including reproductive decisions. This risk is particularly concerning for marginalized communities who may already face systemic discrimination. Furthermore, the sensitive nature of genetic information raises questions about data security, ownership, and access, especially in contexts where regulatory frameworks might be underdeveloped.

Medical ethics emphasizes that individuals who contribute to research involving DNA databanks have a fundamental right to be informed about the nature and scope of the research and to make decisions about how their information may be used. Physician-researchers involved in genomic research must obtain informed consent with special emphasis on disclosing specific privacy standards, including whether information will remain identifiable to researchers or be anonymized.

The expansion of DNA databases under health initiatives like national health programs requires careful consideration of these ethical principles. Without adequate safeguards, such databases could potentially be misused for purposes beyond their stated intentions, raising concerns about surveillance, commercial exploitation of genetic information, or discriminatory practices. Particularly in the Global South, where power imbalances between researchers and participants may be more pronounced, ensuring truly informed consent and appropriate benefit-sharing remains challenging.

The ethical issues examined in this report – violations of the Nagoya Protocol, corporate patenting of climate-resilient crop traits, and the expansion of DNA databases – share common threads of power imbalance, inadequate regulatory frameworks, and the potential exploitation of vulnerable communities. They highlight the tension between technological advancement and social justice, particularly in the context of the Global South.

Addressing these ethical concerns requires strengthening international agreements like the Nagoya Protocol with more robust enforcement mechanisms, reforming patent systems to prevent biopiracy and protect farmers' rights, and developing comprehensive frameworks for the ethical governance of genetic information. Without such measures, biotechnological innovations risk exacerbating existing inequalities rather than fulfilling their potential to address global challenges equitably and sustainably.

Neocolonialism and Biotechnology: The Exploitation of Indigenous Knowledge and Genetic Resources

The intersection of biotechnology advancements and neocolonialism represents a significant yet often overlooked aspect of global power dynamics. As biotechnology continues to evolve, particularly in areas related to genetic resources and traditional knowledge, its applications have increasingly reflected colonial patterns of exploitation and control. This report examines how biotech advancements have become inextricably linked to neocolonial practices, with a particular focus on the exploitation of indigenous knowledge systems and genetic resources.

Historical Context of Neocolonialism in Biotechnology

The evolution from traditional colonialism to neocolonialism in biotechnology reflects a fundamental shift in power dynamics and control mechanisms. In what scholars term "neo-agro-colonialism," the control over what Dillon and Lobo-Guerrero conceptualize as 'pluripotent' life has become an essential factor of capitalist agriculture through the regulation of strategic genetic resources. This represents part of a larger project that takes place by controlling both biotechnology and territories as an expression of fungible power, effectively turning geopolitics into biopolitics and vice-versa.

The historical roots of this transformation can be traced to the Second Green Revolution in the 1970s, which marked the introduction of biotechnology into agricultural systems. This period initiated new methods of control that no longer required physical occupation of territories but instead exerted influence through technological means. As biotechnology advanced, the control over people's lives became essential for those benefiting from the multilateral free trade system, drawing a distinction between traditional colonial control through slave labor and contemporary control through biotechnology.

Neocolonialism in biotechnology operates through coordinated efforts by former colonial powers and other developed countries to block growth in developing nations while retaining them as sources of cheap raw materials and labor. This system functions through indirect forms of control, particularly through economic, financial, and trade policies of transnational corporations and global multilateral institutions. The neocolonialist approach has been characterized by four major elements: imposing top-down solutions without consulting local communities, emphasizing biomedical "magic bullet" solutions without addressing social determinants of health, improving population health to more efficiently exploit labor, and using health interventions to gain undue political and economic influence.

Exploitation of Indigenous Genetic Resources

The exploitation of indigenous genetic resources manifests most prominently through biopiracy – the unauthorized use of traditional knowledge and genetic resources without proper acknowledgment or compensation. This occurs when pharmaceutical companies and researchers utilize local knowledge about plants, animals, and natural resources without recognizing that this information constitutes the intellectual property of indigenous peoples. Consequently, these companies receive the profits and recognition, while indigenous communities receive nothing in return for their centuries of accumulated knowledge.

This form of exploitation has deep colonial roots, reflecting historical misconceptions of Western cultural superiority that legitimized assimilation or marginalization practices directly affecting indigenous cultures. The colonial "civilizing mission" validated the dispossession of indigenous heritage under the claim of "saving indigenous knowledge from extinction". In contemporary contexts, this takes the form of creating an impression of absence to undervalue local practices of resource management, perpetuating the myth that peasant agriculture is incapable of supplying a growing population and positioning technology as the solution to global famine.

Recent efforts to address these issues include the World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO) new treaty on genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, adopted on May 24, 2024. This treaty, the culmination of over two decades of negotiations, establishes a disclosure requirement mandating that patent applicants reveal the indigenous people or local community who provided the traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources when filing patent applications. While representing a modest step forward, this treaty attempts to address the "blind spot" in traditional knowledge recognition within the intellectual property system.

Impact on Local Communities and Economies

The neocolonial exploitation of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources has profound impacts on local communities and economies. Traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources – including practices related to ethnobotany, traditional medicine, ecology, and agricultural crops – forms an integral part of indigenous identity and economic systems. When this knowledge is appropriated without authorization, it directly harms the source communities while benefiting external entities.

The disruption of traditional knowledge systems and peasant agriculture through biotechnological mechanisms creates new dependencies. By controlling "pluripotent" life such as seeds, corporations gain leverage over agricultural systems, forcing communities to abandon traditional practices in favor of commercialized alternatives. Patents resulting from biotechnological advances have become tools of control, enabling companies to claim ownership over life itself and restricting indigenous communities' access to their own heritage.

Economically, this exploitation perpetuates inequality through investments of multinational corporations that, while enriching a few in underdeveloped countries, maintain those countries in a position of dependency. These investments cultivate underdeveloped regions as reservoirs of cheap labour and raw materials rather than empowering local economic development. The commodification of traditional knowledge transforms communal heritage into privatized assets, undermining indigenous economic models based on shared resources.

The social impacts extend beyond economic considerations to include the erosion of cultural identity and community cohesion. As traditional knowledge systems are devalued and replaced, communities lose vital connections to ancestral practices that have sustained them for generations. This cultural disconnection further weakens community resilience and autonomy, reinforcing cycles of dependency and marginalization.

Biotechnology advancements, while offering potential benefits, have become deeply entangled with neocolonial power structures that enable the continued exploitation of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources. This exploitation operates through sophisticated mechanisms of control that no longer require direct territorial occupation but instead function through patents, intellectual property regimes, and market dominance.

The 2024 WIPO treaty represents a modest step toward addressing these inequities, but much more comprehensive approaches are needed to truly decolonize biotechnology and ensure that indigenous communities maintain sovereignty over their traditional knowledge. Moving forward, any ethical approach to biotechnology must recognize and respect indigenous knowledge systems as valuable intellectual contributions deserving of protection and fair compensation.

Ultimately, challenging neocolonialism in biotechnology requires recognizing the historical continuities of exploitation while creating new frameworks for equitable collaboration that center indigenous rights and perspectives. Only through such fundamental shifts can biotechnology fulfil its potential to benefit humanity without perpetuating colonial patterns of exploitation and control.

Global Implications of Biotechnology: Case Studies from Africa

The emerging landscape of biotechnology ethics presents complex challenges with far-reaching global implications. This report examines two significant case studies from Africa: "Vaccine Diplomacy 2.0" and malaria gene drives. These examples illustrate how biotechnological interventions intersect with geopolitics, ethics, and public health priorities in the Global South.

"Vaccine Diplomacy 2.0" in Africa

The concept of "Vaccine Diplomacy 2.0" represents an evolution from traditional health diplomacy to a more sophisticated geopolitical instrument where vaccines become tools for expanding influence and securing strategic partnerships. China's approach exemplifies this strategy, with Beijing pivoting from its earlier "mask diplomacy" to a comprehensive vaccine diplomacy initiative across Africa. This strategy includes donations of COVID-19 vaccines to 50 African countries and the African Union Commission, demonstrating China's use of biotechnology as soft power.

Beyond simple donations, China's approach includes capacity-building initiatives like the African Vaccine Manufacturing Partnership (AVMP), launched in April 2021 in cooperation with the African Union. This partnership aims to develop sustainable vaccine production capabilities within Africa, reducing dependency on external suppliers while simultaneously strengthening China's influence in the region's healthcare infrastructure.

The African response to vaccine diplomacy demonstrates both receptivity and strategic autonomy. Through the Africa Vaccine Acquisition Task Team (AVATT), the African Union secured 670 million vaccine doses for distribution in 2021 and 2022. This initiative represents an important step toward African self-determination in healthcare, as recipient countries secure financing with support from the African Export-Import Bank, which advances procurement guarantees to manufacturers.

However, significant challenges remain in the implementation of vaccine programs across Africa. A November 2020 analysis by the WHO scored the continent's readiness to roll out vaccines at just 33 percent, substantially below the desired benchmark of 80 percent. This gap between vaccine acquisition and effective distribution highlights the multifaceted nature of global health diplomacy, where technological solutions must be paired with infrastructure development and capacity building.

Malaria Gene Drives in Africa

Gene drive technology represents one of the most promising and controversial approaches to malaria control in Africa. Unlike conventional genetic modification, gene drives employ a system of biased inheritance that allows a genetic element to pass from parent to offspring at rates exceeding the standard 50% predicted by Mendelian inheritance. This technology can take two forms for malaria control: population suppression, which disrupts mosquito reproduction, or population alteration, which modifies mosquitoes to prevent them from carrying malaria parasites.

Recent advances in this field demonstrate significant progress. A mathematical modelling study published in November 2024 by Target Malaria UK projects that gene drives could reduce mosquito malaria vector populations by 71% to 98%, leading to significant decreases in malaria cases. The study, which incorporated data from 16 locations across 13 malaria-endemic countries in West Africa, suggests that at least 60% more clinical cases could be averted by adding gene drives to intervention packages that include vaccines and improved bed nets.

The development of gene drive technology in Africa involves international collaboration with increasing African leadership. Scientists in Burkina Faso have obtained authorization from their National Biosafety Agency to import "sterile male" transgenic mosquitoes without any gene-drive for capacity building, public engagement, and strengthening of internal regulatory processes. Similar progress is occurring in Mali and Uganda, where teams are preparing for contained trials. This gradual transfer of technology and expertise represents a potentially more equitable approach to biotechnology development than historical patterns.

The gene drive approach targets the four major malaria vectors in West Africa: Anopheles gambiae, An. coluzzii, An. arabiensis, and An. funestus. Experts suggest that a single release of gene drive mosquitoes could have a strong impact on the number of averted cases, especially in rural and remote areas, due to the self-sustaining nature of the technology. However, the timeline for field deployment remains extended, with estimates suggesting approximately 10 years before field-ready approaches are available—primarily due to stakeholder engagement and regulatory requirements rather than technological limitations.

Similar Initiatives in Other Regions

The biotechnology approaches demonstrated in African case studies reflect broader global patterns where health technologies intersect with geopolitics, ethics, and development. Similar initiatives in other regions include:

• Biotech firms in Australia and New Zealand are conducting clinical trials for various conditions, from dermatology to obesity and COVID-19, highlighting how smaller countries can become important testing grounds for biotechnology development.
• Large-scale collaboration and cooperation in biotechnology research and development is occurring globally, with both formal international agreements and grassroots initiatives accelerating progress in addressing health and environmental challenges.
• Global competition in biotechnology expertise is intensifying, with firms in the United States, China, and other countries developing advanced capabilities similar to those seen in artificial intelligence.
• Signed treaties, conventions, and shared recognition of the need to prevent future pandemics are encouraging global acceptance of certain biotechnology applications, potentially motivating more people to pursue formal study in biosciences.

The case studies of "Vaccine Diplomacy 2.0" and malaria gene drives in Africa illustrate the complex interplay between biotechnology, ethics, and global power dynamics. While these technologies offer significant potential benefits for addressing pressing health challenges, they also raise important questions about equity, autonomy, and the distribution of both benefits and risks.

As these biotechnological approaches continue to evolve, ensuring meaningful participation from affected communities and developing robust regulatory frameworks will be essential to realizing their potential while minimizing negative consequences. The experiences in Africa provide valuable lessons for similar initiatives worldwide, highlighting both the promise of biotechnology and the importance of addressing its ethical and political dimensions.

Conclusion and Recommendations: Addressing Ethical Challenges in Biotechnology

The intersection of biotechnology with traditional knowledge and genetic resources raises significant ethical concerns, particularly in the context of neocolonialism and equitable benefit sharing. This conclusion summarizes the key ethical challenges and proposes solutions to address these issues effectively.

Summary of Key Ethical Concerns

• Neocolonialism in Biotechnology: The exploitation of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources through biopiracy and patenting practices perpetuates neocolonial power dynamics. This involves the commodification of life and the control of strategic genetic resources, often without fair compensation or recognition of indigenous contributions.
• Lack of Equitable Benefit Sharing: Traditional knowledge holders often receive inadequate benefits from the commercial use of their knowledge, highlighting the need for robust legal frameworks to ensure fair and equitable benefit sharing.
• Ethical Governance of Genetic Information: The expansion of DNA databases and genetic engineering technologies raises concerns about privacy, informed consent, and the potential for discrimination or exploitation.

Proposed Solutions for Addressing Neocolonialism and Ensuring Equitable Benefit Sharing

• Strengthening International Agreements: Enhance the Nagoya Protocol and similar frameworks to ensure strict enforcement of prior informed consent and fair benefit-sharing mechanisms. This includes documenting and protecting traditional knowledge to prevent biopiracy.
• Decolonization of Global Health and Biotechnology: Promote decolonization by empowering local communities and governments to lead in health and biotechnology initiatives. This involves challenging existing power imbalances and fostering greater diversity in global health governance.
• Ethical Oversight and Regulation: Establish independent, stringent ethical oversight systems in the Global South to monitor research and ensure compliance with international bioethical standards. This helps prevent neocolonial exploitation in clinical trials and biotechnology research.
• Community Engagement and Education: Foster dialogue and education among indigenous communities about their rights and the implications of biotechnology. This empowers them to make informed decisions regarding their traditional knowledge and genetic resources.

Call to Action for Policymakers and Stakeholders

Policymakers and stakeholders must prioritize the following actions:

• Legislative Reforms: Develop and enforce robust laws that protect indigenous rights and ensure equitable benefit sharing from biotechnology advancements.
• International Cooperation: Collaborate globally to address the ethical challenges of biotechnology, promoting mutual respect and understanding between nations.
• Community-Led Initiatives: Support initiatives led by indigenous communities to document, protect, and benefit from their traditional knowledge.
• Ethical Research Practices: Encourage researchers to adhere to high ethical standards, including obtaining informed consent and engaging in transparent collaboration with local communities.

By addressing these ethical challenges proactively, we can ensure that biotechnology serves humanity equitably and sustainably, respecting the rights and contributions of all stakeholders involved.

.    .    .

Disclaimer: This content aims to stimulate thoughtful discussions about the ethical challenges in biotechnology, particularly concerning traditional knowledge and genetic resources. The views and examples provided highlight systemic issues and potential solutions without targeting or defaming specific individuals, groups, or nations. While rooted in research and observations, it reflects a broader analysis and should not be construed as absolute or exhaustive. Readers are encouraged to approach the content critically, seek additional perspectives (such as insights from experts in bioethics and international law), engage constructively in conversations about fostering equitable biotechnology practices—and consider exploring resources like those offered by organizations focused on biodiversity conservation and indigenous rights (e.g., the Convention on Biological Diversity).