WTF is bioprospecting and WTF do I care?

vial issues

Of late, I’ve been occupied by a paper for my writing seminar on Antarctica (yes, that Antarctica). While originally the piece was to be focused on transhumanism in the Antarctic context (don't ask), its emphasis soon shifted to the notion of bioprospecting. Bioprospecting is the attempt to harvest raw genetic information and indigenous knowledge for commercial processes, a process that is picking up momentum as gene sequencing and biotechnologies continue their exponential improvement. Although the material I’ve thus far encountered has been intriguing, it has also been predominantly focused on places where there are people. While this is very bad for my polar research, it actually makes for an interesting blog post (I hope). Issues of bioprospecting (and its sinister cousin, biopiracy) are of worldwide importance precisely because they tend to involve giant multinational corporations interacting with groups who are often disconnected from the global economy and legal norms. An additional source of complication is the fact that while bioprospectors tend to come from the rich, prosperous global North (the West plus Japan), the biodiversity that draws them tends overwhelmingly to be in the poor, undeveloped global South. The result of this has been a series of fairly egregious transactions, the most notable being Eli Lilly’s outright theft of the Rosy Periwinkle compound from Madagascar natives in the 1950’s (described euphemistically in the article as a time, “ prior to ethics becoming widely recognized as playing a role in business”).The compound went on to be a highly successful cancer treatment, and Madagascar received no compensation. Sadly such dealings have historically been fairly common, and many groups have been unduly cheated out of their national and cultural biological heritages.

At this point, it would be easy to condemn global pharmaceutical companies as monstrous agents of the evil Washington consensus and call for a worldwide ban on bioprospecting. Before we all line up to torch a CVS, however, its important that we consider the other side of the situation. Within an appropriate institutional market framework, bioprospecting can actually achieve many laudable goals. By providing an economic incentive to preserve biodiversity, such activities protect the rainforest and other such climate from being turned into fields or roads. The introduction of high tech businesses potentially allows for technology transfers that could better the lives of the entire population. Finally, such practices allow for the global south to acquire a valuable, renewable resource that could help bring them out of poverty and immiseration. Furthermore pharmaceutical companies would have an incentive to cooperate with such a regime on several levels. The first of these is that the “hit rate” of useful biological molecules is quite low (1 in 100,000), meaning a long term, stable investment climate is needed for such research to take place. In addition, the local knowledge of native groups is invaluable to such efforts, and in some studies raises the odds of finding a hit by fivefold. As a result, the cooperation of the host nation and its people is an invaluable asset in the search for marketable compounds.


with a vial of sufficient size, one could even bioprospect this dog

As such, should an enforceable worldwide set of market norms come into play, bioprospecting could become a global win-win situation. The way to enforce these norms, it seems, is under the auspices of the WTO. Of late, the Doha round of the World Trade Organization broke down in part because the developing world was unwilling to act to protect intellectual property. By framing biodiversity as intellectual property that would be protected, however, the North and West could create a coalition of bio-rich nations who would have a stake in ensuring strong incentives for intellectual property protection worldwide. Such a consensus would change the dynamics of current trade policy debates, and may even help to reweave the fast fraying consensus on global free trade. Ultimately, then, bioprospecting may hold the key not merely to third world development and first world pharmaceuticals, but also to a system of free trade that makes everyone better off.

Done

yes, except replace soccer ball with poll results


While I wasn’t planning on writing today, I came across a piece of news that I felt needed to be posted ASAP. Today at the gym I saw out of the corner of my eye that McCain had dropped to the third place choice among a subset of voters, behind Fred Thompson and polling 12%. Because closed captioning obscured the title of the poll, I assumed it was the results for Thompson’s home state or some obscure GOP think tank straw poll. When I checked online, however, it turns out that the poll I saw was the most recent Bloomberg/LA Times survey, taken among likely Republican primary voters nationwide. Put lightly this is very, very bad news for the McCain camp. Indeed, if these numbers hold, I cannot imagine McCain continuing the race I feel for McCain; he has been a great leader and is a national hero, and he probably got totally jacked in 2000. That said , I predict that within the next two months barring a dramatic unforeseen, McCain will cite health reasons and resign from the race. Thoughts? - DER

LA Times/ Bloomberg (4/5 – 4/9)

Who would you like to see your party nominate for president?

GOP:
Giuliani: 29 %
Thomspon: 15%
McCain: 12%
Romney: 8%

Cash Games

high stakes for 2008

Ever since the first quarter fundraising results for the 2008 presidential candidates came back earlier this month, I’ve been pondering what sort of response I ought write. The best place to start, I suppose, is with the facts of the case. Over on the Republican side the results are, from least to most surprising, Rudy Giuliani with 15 million raised, John McCain with 12.5 million raised, and Mitt Romney with 23 million raised. For Giuliani, now considered the Republican frontrunner, this is an adequate though not stunning performance. Perhaps the most notable feature of the funds, however, is that he raised 10 million of them in March alone, suggesting an exponentially accelerating funds machine. This is to be expected. More interesting than this is the paltry amount raised by former frontrunner John McCain. What makes this low total so devastating is that at this point McCain’s last remaining asset is his connection with the notional “Republican Establishment”. The theory here is that although Rudy may be getting face time now, some hidden cabal will ensure McCain a victory. I’ve previously found this to be an ill founded idea, and I think these figures prove clearly that the high power donors are not with the Arizona senator. Finally, and most unexpectedly, Mitt Romney led the pack and brought in an impressive donation total that is staggering considering his relatively low standing in the polls. Indeed, using RealClearPolitics averaging, Romney’s ratio of dollars to poll support is 6 times that of the Giuliani camp. Just why Mitt was able to pull off such an impressive feat is somewhat baffling, especially considering his inability to pass not only the two leading candidates but also several (such as Gingrich) who are not even officially in the race. No comments on this yet, but stay posted.

On the Democratic side of things, however, things got particularly interesting. Although Hillary Clinton naturally raised 20 million dollars for use in the primaries, she was bested by none other than Barack Obama, who netted in excess of 23.5 million for primary use ( note that Hillary Clinton also raised an additional 6 million, but this cannot be used unless she reaches the general election). Needless to say, the effect of this result has caused shockwaves through the blogosphere and in main stream media. Perhaps with good reason; after all, one of Hillary’s main selling point has always been her ability to bring in cold hard cash, and if she is bested within this she faces a real crises of credibility.

Assuming, for a moment, that this is a turning point, there is an interesting question that these figures raise; specifically, “ How would the race change if Hillary became the underdog?” In attempting to answer this question, Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter suggested that she ought “ Let Obama Take the Lead” because it would strengthen her campaign. The logic behind this position is that should Obama become frontrunner, he would be exposed to “all of the scrutiny the pole position entails.” As a result, Hillary could then play the role of “the scrappy underdog” while voters begin to experience “ buyers’ remorse” about her opponent. At this point, or so the plan goes, “Hillary would still be well-funded and in a position to surge past [Obama] when the primaries begin.”. Interesting. Yet although this plan echoes some of the patterns that have brought down myriad other Democratic frontrunners, there is strong reason to suspect that, to quote the now infamous youtube ad, 2008 won’t be like 1984.


insurgent she's not


Hillary can never be the underdog. No matter how far down she goes in the polls the very name recognition and infrastructure which makes her so formidable will make it impossible for her to be seen as coming from behind. Some would argue that with the right amount of spin anything is possible, but I would imagine that even less informed voters would know that she was married to the president and has been in or around power for decades. What’s more, no amount of spin in the world can erase the fact that, like all senators, Ms. Clinton has a fairly extensive voting record. Yet even if Hillary did manage to cast herself as “scrappy”, it seems almost laughable that she could somehow cast Obama in the role of inflexible, stodgy establishment. In addition, the premise that Hillary “ would still be well funded” may need to be reconsidered. To date, the Clinton campaign has had a great deal of purchase over donors precisely because of their sense of inevitability. People don’t like giving money to losers (see Mike Huckabee’s $ 500,000 catch), and thus have so far been going with Ms. Inevitability. Should Hillary be seen as the underdog, however, the investment calculus contributors are making today will undoubtedly change radically, and I can’t imagine these shifts would be to the benefit of the Clinton campaign.

At this point, we can now paint a picture of what the Clinton camp looks like with an Obama frontrunner. One finds a group that is unable to play the PR angle of the outsider while at the same time is being increasingly deprived of resources as donors begin to believe someone else is going to win. All of the drawbacks of outsider status with none of the benefits. At the same time, it seems unlikely that Obama will receive any more scrutiny at the front than where he does now. Between his talent, youth, and unique racial background the Illinois senator has gotten at least as much coverage as Hillary, and its difficult to believe that if he moved to 40% in the polls CNN would suddenly discover some horrible skeleton in the closet that managed to stay hidden when he was polling 25% and was a national celebrity. While perhaps the jump from unknown to frontrunner would entail a new level of inquiry (see Dean’s jump from small state governor to Democratic frontrunner), for all intents and purposes Barack is already there. Yet by taking the lead, Obama would convince voters nationwide that he has a real shot at winning the primary. This is important because one of the biggest hurdles Barack seems to face is that of electibility; if he can snatch first place from the Clinton camp, he will have passed a crucial test and demonstrated his campaign mettle. For Obama, then, being frontrunner would entail all of the benefits of the lead with few of the harms. As a result, then, a move to a race where Clinton is behind would be a boon for barrack and a bane for Hillary.

So does this mean Hillary is out of it if she goes down in the polls? Absolutely not. Regardless of what happens Clinton has a huge pool of talent to draw from, a tenacious work ethic and is a highly skilled tactician. Because of this, it seems probable that even if Hillary is reduced to “one of the pack”, she will not go quietly. That said, the notion that being underdog will carry any special perks for the current leader of the pack seems a highly dubious one.

NoTE: This post represents my work in official capacity within the College Democrats. Please don't sue me.

Opium and Such

destined for jack bauer's veins


I would like to begin this post by apologizing for the previous two weeks of inactivity. In my defense, I was otherwise occupied for at least some of that time with worthwhile personal pursuits. Or so I thought. In any case, tonight I would like to talk about Afghanistan generally and opium specifically. Although not blessed with many natural resources, the Afghan soil is ideal for the cultivation of poppies, the main ingredient of opium and heroin. Because of this favorable climate, it is unsurprising that when Muhjahadeen warriors in the early 1980’s sought new sources of income, they began to actively encourage the cultivation of this deleterious crop. Opium production quickly became central to the nation’s economy, and under the Taliban had several bumper crops until a 1999 crackdown (purportedly on “religious grounds”, though in practice to ensure high prices on the global market for favored cronies). Once the US invaded in November of 2001, however, the rise in opium cultivation quickly became exponential. In an environment where rule of law can charitably be described as limited and the central government’s reach has often ended at the Kabul city limits, this theoretically illegal crop has flourished. Today, according to CIA estimates, fully 1/3 of Afghanistan’s gross domestic product comes from opium exports.

As of now, stated US, NATO and Afghani policy is to destroy as much of the opium as possible. The result has been violent raids into family and community farms that greatly exacerbate tensions between the people of Afghanistan and their government. Such attacks often leave families destitute and terrified, if not worse. Needless to say, there are few more effective ways to create new Taliban recruits. And at the same time this policy galvanizes hatred against the central government it has barely made a dent in opium production. The issue is simply one of supply, demand, and risk. With the potential profits from opium exceeding by a wide margin anything else a typical farmer could do with his time or resources, and with a “capture rate” made low by rugged terrain and an ill equipped government force, all the incentives structurally draw farmers to keep producing.

Furthermore, once opium is produced, it ends up in very unsavory places. One of the main reasons that the Taliban has been able to experience a resurgence of late has been through its use of opium revenue to buy new equipment and weapons. As long as the production of this crop is below the radar of the government terrorist groups will always be able to exploit it to their advantage. This can be done in several ways, either through agreements for “protection” (aka coercion), to the outright theft of crops. Either way, it seems to be working. And even if global terrorists aren’t getting the money, regionally warlords are. This is important because Afghanistan has never had a tremendous degree of national unity, and by bringing power to the periphery the opium trade as it stands today works to keep the nation apart. No matter how one looks at it, then, the growth of poppies is bad for a stable and unified Afghanistan.

Finally, of course, there are the harms this opium causes when released worldwide. Being addicted to heroin kind of sucks, and this kind of makes it easier.


tee hee hee

So, what’s a lonely superpower and a semi-failed state to do? One possibility is obviously to redouble our efforts at destroying the crop. This is a bad option. In addition to the fact that this will only cost more hearts and minds, such a policy could also prove exorbitantly expensive. Finally, with the war in Iraq showing no signs of abatement, it may not even be militarily possible.

A second possible solution would be for the US or some other group to buy all of Afghanistan’s opium at market value and then destroy or sequester it. Such a policy would certainly have the benefit of no longer angering Afghanis, but it has flaws. Paying full price for all of Afghanistan’s opium is exorbitantly expensive. It seems unlikely that the US (or anyone else) would have the political will to endorse such a tremendous commitment to the state sponsored purchase of narcotics (particularly if no one gets to enjoy them). Additionally, as long as the US must pay full price to everyone, there will always be an incentive to grow more opium. Thus, in the long run, this could lead to a policy that is ever more expensive.

Yet if the first two choices seem bleak, there is another possibility that appears to offer a ray of hope. In a working paper recently published by the Senlis group, a policy proposal was made to allow licensed production of opium. As things stand today, only certain countries (like India) are allowed to grow poppies for legal purposes such as painkillers. Within these nation licensed opium producers are allowed to sell to pharmaceutical companies. By allowing such a program in Afghanistan, the US and other interested groups would have a cost effective way to greatly reduce the problems opium production causes. First, as it turns out there is a worldwide shortage in affordable painkillers, due largely to the high cost of opiate derivatives due to the Byzantine quota system outlined above. In allowing the opium of Afghanistan to be used in painkillers for these people, a tremendous amount of suffering worldwide could be ameliorated. Additionally, opium used in this way would by definition not be going to heroin, which seems good. Because it would be licensed, it would also be taxed, meaning the central government could get back valuable resources. Naturally, this would mean that the Taliban would lose a great deal of financial support, and that warlords would be brought in line. Finally, the fact that no licensed farms would be attacked means both that the farms can pursue expansion and economies of scale and that less hatred would be created among the Afghani people.

Of course, some would argue that this plan could never be implemented considering Afghanistan’s frayed institutions. Although this seems intuitively true, however, there are several creative ways around this. When the Taliban cracked down in 2000, they did so by holding tribal leaders accountable for their people’s behavior. Due to the close tribal ties within most of Afghanistan’s ethnic groups, this implicit social check was extremely effective at ensuring regulations were followed. In addition, the ability of the government to hold legitimate(-ish) elections last year suggests nationwide administrative projects are at least possible.

A second possible objection is that illegal opium will always pay better, so no one will ever go the legal route. Yet although illegal opium may sell for more, legal opium has several crucial advantages for the average farmer. People are risk averse, and many would accept lower profits for a 0% chance of having their farm strafed by NATO planes. Additionally, allowing one to bring his business out into the open allows for investment and expansion in ways that are impossible when farming must be clandestine. Finally, farms that enter the legal sector would have their property protected by the state, which is obviously not true for illegal drugs. Thus, it seems likely that at least some people will choose to license if given the option, and perhaps even most.


likely license candidate


In the end, however, perfection is not necessary. The beauty of this plan is that even if only 5% of farmers buy in, everyone is better off. This seems like a win win, and when set against the monstrous policy challenges Afghanistan faces, it certainly seems like the least bad option. Keep it real, DER