THE LAKE BOGORIA EXTREMOPHILE
CASE STUDY
Sarah Heuer
Background:
In the early nineties, a PhD student from the University of Leicester studied
the organisms in Kenya’s Lake Bogoria and classified and named the ones
she found. Sometime after she had collected them a biotechnology firm called
Genencor International sold an enzyme it had extracted from one of the organisms
found in Lake Bogoria—a special type called an “extremophile”—to
its business partner, Procter & Gamble. Procter & Gamble ultimately used
this enzyme to develop an extremely successful line of Tide bleach that was used
to stonewash denim. While Genencor adamantly defends its “biodiversity
expeditions”, critics of its actions are concerned about the effect that
these projects have on the autonomy of indigenous peoples and governments.
In 2004, the Kenyan Wildlife Society (KWS) in conjunction with the International
Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) announced their intention
to
bring an international lawsuit against Genencor for its violation of intellectual
property rights. The lawsuit never came to fruition and the issue remains an
unresolved and debated topic to this day.
Activity:
This activity is a role-playing exercise which will attempt to simulate the
proceedings of the international court case of the Kenyan Wildlife Service
versus Genencor International had it come to realization. The class has been
broken into four groups and you have been assigned to one of the following.
The four groups will represent interest groups; the first two are the parties
directly involved and the other two have relevant interest in the outcome
of the case.
Activity Schedule:
Step One:
Everyone should begin by individually reading Christine Gichure’s article
entitled “Who Benefits From African Research?” in order to gain
a background understanding of the details and terms of this case.
Step Two:
You should study the readings for the group to which you have been assigned.
It is only necessary to read the assignment from the group you belong to.
Write down what you believe are the main points in support of your group’s
argument. Also note some of the weaknesses of your position so that as a
group you can plan how to best defend these points.
Step Three:
Gather together with the other members of your assigned group. Discuss the
main points that you each noted as well as the potential weaknesses in your
case. Together you should develop a short (5 to 10 minute) presentation that
will demonstrate your group’s position and interests. The presentation
should be formatted as if you were testifying before the international court.
Ultimately this presentation should include whether or not your group believes
that the court should find Genencor liable.
Step Four:
Each interest group will present its case. After all the presentations each
group will have a brief chance to respond to the claims made by opposing
interest groups and to pose questions to one another or raise objections.
(This is where it will be important to have anticipated for and prepared
responses to the potential weaknesses in your group’s position.) They
will each then make a very brief closing argument.
Step Five:
After receiving questions and objections, your group will reconvene and discuss
any alterations to their position that might be necessary to strengthen it
in light of the comments. Then you and your group will work together to quickly
draft a one page brief summarizing your official petition to the court. Each
group only needs to turn in one brief.
Step Six:
Once this has been completed, there will be time to discuss the proceedings
and outcome of the activity only now you may express your own opinions and
viewpoint.
The four groups will be:
1. Genencor International
2. Kenyan Wildlife Service
3. The Kenyan People
4. Mascoma Corporation
A word about the interest groups:
You should do the best to present your group’s argument in the strongest way possible, even if you do not personally agree with the viewpoint that is being presented.
Why the KWS and the Kenyan People separately?: As will be shown in the following readings, the government of Kenya is most concerned with charging fees for permits and scientific exploration but it seems like it might be in the best interest of the people if the technology remained in the country of its origin, especially in the hands of the residents of the area. Additionally, it is possible that if the Kenyan government was able to charge and retain a fee that it would have different priorities for spending than would the people and that the latter’s interests might not be adequately served by the government’s use of the money.The research student: The research student herself has not been included as an interest group. She did not identify the potential uses of the organism; she merely categorized it. The alleged wrong in her case is an issue of research ethics, not intellectual property (the latter being the focus of this case study).
Procter & Gamble: Procter & Gamble is not included as an interest group because it legally purchased the technology from Genencor so if there is an issue of moral responsibility it seems to be more on the shoulders of Genencor. For the purposes of this case study, Procter & Gamble’s interest can be considered mostly identical to Genencor’s.