This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 October 2020 and 16 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Geoplatka.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Proposal: merge biopiracy and bioprospecting into Biopiracy and bioprospecting.
Reasons: terms refer to the same thing, simply evaluated differently; biopiracy is the most commonly recognized term, but bioprospecting also has weight in the field. Practical measure which may finally end all remains of the NPOV dispute.
Caravaca 14:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
This question of naming things !! Connotations !! Whispers in dark rooms !! Rumours ! Forgive the self evident statement that both bioprospecting and biopiracy terms could be applied depending on the exploited life form and case circumstances. I don't want to hurt any rhododendron's feelings. AK4722:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC) 84.92.162.77 ( talk)
This merge - and the current article - has a huge PoV-problem. For instance, the main article should be "Bioprospecting" and in a neutral in tone. A "Controversy" or otherwise critical section could deal with "Biopiracy". That it is done long time ago, does not excuse the rampant PoV-pushing to be found here. As one of many examples of bioprospecting that were done without stepping on the toes of anyone, the history of Kalata-Kalata could be added. -- EthicsGradient ( talk) 00:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
noun; "bioprospecting, regarded as a form of exploitation of developing countries". Problem Solved???
What about genetic resources taken from a country post-CBD with no traditional knowledge attached to the resource. E.g. Fungi isolated from Grevillea in Australia, taken to the US without access or benefit sharing with potential for the next antibiotic (against Bacillis anthracis (cause of anthrax) and plasmodium (malaria). Can that be classed as biopiracy? 11:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)bootsie007
I am noting that a lot of people who are calling this article 'POV' aren't familiar with how IP works on an international level - it's not a criticism, it's a statement and I hope it is taken as such. I would request that people actually read through the external links on this article before inserting their own POV into this discussion. Ideally, I agree with how the intellectual property laws should work - but the fact is that these laws do not, at present, work the way that all those inserting POV claims are discussing. The Enola Bean is a blaring example. Brazil's creation of drugs for HIV being disputed is another example. The facts are there, and while the term may be considered strong by many, the phrase is in use in academic papers around the world.
One person claims that this entry is allowing people to move their political agenda forward, and yet... nobody has dealt with the facts regarding actual cases. Folks, if you want to call this POV - fine - but address the facts, and know the topic, please. The way the system actually works is obviously - based on fact - not the way you think it should work. Which is sort of the whole point. :-)
I'm removing the POV notice now. Address the facts, and understand the actual cases, please. -- TaranRampersad 18:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
This article is POV down to the title which, I'd imagine, is not used by anyone who is not a true believer. jdb ❋ ( talk) 10:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
One person disagrees and there's a 'dispute'? Honestly, Biopiracy is a common phrase used in the developing nations, and is one of the words by the United Nations and even WIPO with regard to unlicensed use of plants that are patented. This is a major issue for the developing nations. I would think that this article, if disputed, would be disputed in a more constructive manner and with more detail than a broad brush stroke saying, basically, 'I don't believe it'. I call for this article to be moved out of dispute until such time that those with disputes at least put more effort into their disputes. Further, if there are disputes they should be about objectivity.
Also, please clarify what a 'true believer' is.-- TaranRampersad 15:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since no clarification was given, I have removed the dispute tag until such time that there is more than vague accusations of 'dispute'. Edit the article objectively if you are in a position to dispute, per the guidelines of the dispute link - and if you cannot, give more than a broad brush stroke, please. If there are issues, they cannot be addressed by the above. -- TaranRampersad 03:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I haven't been here for months. Please see below. jdb ❋ ( talk) 23:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I have removed folowing:
The statement make these three claims:
For this I am removing this paragraph. -- Alvin-cs | Talk 13:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Although I am aware that development of biological warfare, abusive animal testing, hunting endangered species and recently human cloning are illegal and thus unauthorized, the article does not look like mean these. Can anyone give an example of use that would require authorisation (propably from goverment body)?
This sounds like unauthorised use general knowledge being wrong in some sense. Many companies exploit e.g. the day-and-night cycle or that the best grocerry near our block is Tom's. So, because noone authorises use of traditional knowledge, this can not be sign of an activity and so should be deleted.
Would be 50:50 share of income equal? Rubbed down to "not sharing of benefits ..."
These flaws in definition make term "biopiracy" vague. Can someone fix this? Without this, fixing rest does not have a sense.
I looks to me like this article in general being WP:POV duplicate of GMO#Controversy and Controversy paragraphs in related articles. If nobody determines the scope of "biopiracy", I would suggest merging with GMO or something alike. -- Alvin-cs | Talk 13:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Here's some perpective from the April 2000 issue From the Council for Responsible Genetics
"DNA Patents Create Monopolies on Living Organisms"
The hunt for new genes to exploit for profit is regarded as a vast new frontier in science and industry. "Bioprospectors" are mining the rich genetic resources of the Third World for pharmaceutical compounds and other products, often using indigenous knowledge as their guide. As a result, indigenous communities could end up paying royalties for products based on plants and knowledge that they have been using for centuries.
Are patents necessary to provide incentive to scientists and business? Searching the world over
As new DNA sequences on our chromosomes are being identified, entrepreneurial scientists are applying for patents in order to claim exclusive rights to research and profits from thousands of such gene sequences. The Human Genome Organization (HUGO) is an international membership organization of individual scientists dedicated to coordinating efforts in genome research. HUGO recently released a statement in favor of the right of those who have determined the biological functions or products of the genes to patent their work. Patents are necessary, they claim, to provide financial incentive for scientists to do meaningful research. Does the research of molecular biologists give them the right to own genes? A gene bank project aims to preserve the genes of disappearing cultures.
A project associated with HUGO is the Human Genome Diversity Project. Designated by critics as the "Vampire Project," it aims to collect blood, hair and cell samples from up to 700 indigenous communities throughout the world. The stated goal is to gather genetic information from "vanishing" indigenous communities before these people disappear as a result of increasing industrialization and political repression. Many indigenous groups are outraged that researchers might patent genes without the consent of the communities of origin. All of the targeted groups agree that the goal of cultural preservation could be achieved by better methods than merely keeping their genes frozen away in a laboratory tissue museum. As Chief Leon Shenandoah of the Onondaga Council of Chiefs wrote in a letter to the National Science Foundation, "If there is a concern for our demise, then help us survive on our terms."
I'm going to throw my hat into the ring and say this article is POV. To start with, just examining this bullet point:
patenting of biological resources with no respect to patentable criteria (novelty, non-obviousness or inventive step and usefulness or industrial applicability).
Is biopiracy a critique on the exploitation of markets or one of the patent law system? Patenting of isolated and purified substances has repeatedly been upheld by courts in the United States. So that's hardly "with no respect to patentable criteria."
Not to mention the scenario is entirely POV. I mean, what the heck is the point? Couldn't one construct a totally unsympathetic scenario too? Consider the alternative: local group realizes westerners have commericial interest in a plant compound used to successfully treat AIDS, and, to prevent their magic from being lost, decide to burn the plant before the compound could be isolated. Yay for biopiracy!
What is with people writing "encyclopedia" articles for their favorite political issue? Mmmbeer 04:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
There is a world outside of the United States. Get used to it. -- 65.199.203.228 05:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
For a view on the other side of the biopiracy debate I have been recommended Paul Heald, "The Rhetoric of Biopiracy", 11 Cardozo J. Int'l & Comp. LJ 519 (2003). It's a somewhat controversial article but quite famous and is known for being one of the most pursuasive arguments "for" biopriacy. This is all second hand information as I don't know all that much about the topic myself, so take it for what its worth. I hope to try to look it up one of these days when I can find the time. -- PullUpYourSocks 12:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. The primary failing of this article is the omission of the rationale for so-called "biopiracy" -- that there are plenty of useful organisms in the world, and that those who go to the effort of finding and preparing them for large-scale use ought to benefit from doing so. A fine example is Cyclosporine, an immunosuppressant used in organ transplantation. It was originally discovered as the product of a fungus living in Norwegian dirt. Was it "biopiracy" for the manufacturers of cyclosporine to patent their invention?
The very word "biopiracy" is a non-neutral term -- it's akin to naming our article on homosexuality "gross indecency," or our agriculture article "land rape," or our democracy article "tyranny of the majority." If you Google for it, the vast majority of the results are highly-charged sites _against_ "biopiracy." (Besides contrarians like the author above, who, exactly, is _for_ "biopiracy"? It's like renaming "motherhood" to "maternal slavery" and asking if anyone's in favor of _that_.) You'll find plenty of defenders of patent protection of chemicals discovered in exotic areas, but few of them will call themselves "pirates."
As the article, both in title and content, remains highly POV, I've restored the NPOV warning. jdb ❋ ( talk) 23:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Let me add something a student just wrote to me: " Wikipedia's article on biopiracy was the single article I found during my research that represented the views of multinational corporations as well as indigenous peoples," such as this: "Gaining power over (indigenous) knowledege allows more people all over the world to benefit from knowledge that would otherwise be unknown". I think there's still some work to do on this article, but the need for an article with this name, notwithstanding its bias, seems clear. Bryan 21:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
'Biopiracy refers to the patentingprivatization and unauthorized use of biological resources [Indigenous knowledge|indigenous biomedical knowledge] by foreign entities (including corporations, universities and governments) without compensatory payment. Since no consensus exists that the patenting of indigenous knowledge actually amounts to
piracy, some believe this term is too biased to be used. However, it is well established in the literature. outside of a country which has pre-existing knowledge. This privatization and use is sometimes claimed to be predatory. Particular activities usually covered by the term are...
Rationale:
'Biopiracy is a loaded term that refers to the appropriation, generally by means of patents, of [Indigenous knowledge|indigenous biomedical knowledge] by foreign entities (including corporations, universities and governments); such appropriations are said to be a form of piracy when indigenous peoples (or their advocates) believe that adequate compensation has not been paid.
For example, in 1995 the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a pharmaceutical research firm received a patent on a technique to extract an antifungal agent from the Neem tree (Azadirachta indica), which grows throughout India; Indian villagers have long understood the tree's medicinal value. Although the patent had been granted on an extraction technique, the Indian press described it as a patent on the Neem tree itself; the result was widespread public outcry, which was echoed throughout the developing world.
In part due to biopiracy's perceived resemblance to colonialism, in which Western governments were seen to extract natural resources from colonized countries without paying due compensation, it is often presented -- as the term biopiracy obviously suggests -- as a form of predation, which is practiced by richer nations upon the poorer. Although few would advocate biopiracy, defenders of the patent system point out that, in the absence of patents, pharmaceutical companies would have little incentive to develop modern medications from indigenous knowledge, which means that the medical benefits of this knowledge would be denied to millions of people worldwide. Bryan 00:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
You are all fighting, but when I added something to the articleand sourced it, that became the only numbered source on the page. Shouldn't someone be linking up all those statements withsome proof? Gabbahead 21:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The lack of balance in the item brings disrepute to Wikipedia. Other contentious issues in the globalization debate are well and fairly represented. The range of account of the meaning of Biopiracy is narrow, the inherently political nature of concept by those who coneived it is inadequately discussed, the range of sources and links is skewed. An immediate improvement would be source Graham Dutfield on www.Sci.Dev.Net "Bioprospecting: legitimate research or 'biopiracy' " where he presents a balanced picture on the evolution of the term "Biopiracy". ao
The link is http://www.scidev.net/en/agriculture-and-environment/bioprospecting/policy-briefs/bioprospecting-legitimate-research-or-biopiracy--1.html . Dutfield gives a balanced view. Twr57 ( talk) 21:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to quibble about the inclusion of the example in the introductory paragraph, but I have to wonder if it's appropriate to footnote that something was widely reported but have it link to a very peculiar site. One questionable source != widely reported. Also, I'm not doubting the veracity of the statement, it may have been. mmmbeer T / C / ? 01:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The reader needs to know what the 'country of origin' was and who 'the indigenous people' were. It would also be of interest to know what information was made use of. 'Common knowledge' has its place, but some things that many people know are wrong. Twr57 ( talk) 21:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no mention of the fact that if and when a patent is granted to a private organization, the specific thing being patented becomes just as much property of the applying party as land is property of a nation. This leads to POV in the following arguments section, where matters are only examined from the standpoint of a nation forbidding the use of a plant in Most Virtuous Medicine that Saves Little Children rather than ever mentioning the other, more infamous way where a patent granted to a corporation is used to strip indigenous peoples of the natural right to make use of, and further refine, their traditional knowledge.
Certainly this sounds alarmist. I'd de-POV the section myself if it weren't for the lack of concrete reference, rather than memories of news articles from yesteryear, with which I'm afflicted. One must consider however that patents in the US are typically laid out like an onion, with very very general claims at the top and the real meat at the bottom. Though an apologist might make the argument that only the specific claims are enforced, this viewpoint acquires a degree of failure and suck on contact with the real world. Indeed, the wider patent claims present in a patent for a specific method of data compression have been successfully used against (out of court, I'd imagine, patent litigation being ridiculously expensive for no gain for the defendant) parties that were putting out-of-patent or prior art covered techniques to use, even and particularly when these techniques had little (if anything outside the rough field of application) to do with the patent's specific claims, or even its title! It is not hard to imagine, and I would be surprised if evidence of this were difficult to find, a situation where an indigenous people are suddenly forbidden from growing, say, traditional varieties of rice due to their government's deference to the US patent regime, even though according to the apologists of "bioprospecting" the relevant patent only covered a few molecules in some obscure industrialized situation.
In closing, would someone with proper Wikipedia princess mojo mind sticking a NPOV tag at the top of that section? Again, I'd do it myself but being just an anonymous shithead I think I'll pass this time. The article was written by someone, and that someone may easily prevail over Andy N. Onymous in a dispute. 88.112.2.159 18:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
An apologist who argued that the broadest claims of a US patent were unlikely to be enforced would be displaying his or her ignorance. That one won't run. The indigenous peoples who are suddenly stopped from selling rice they've been selling for centuries is in principle impossible - though in practice only pretty unlikely, given that very silly patents get granted sometimes. The Enola Bean patent - discussed in the article, and (let us hope) on its way out, however slowly - is a case in point. Twr57 ( talk) 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC).
I've changed some of the text about vincristine since strictly speaking it wasn't accurate. Vincristine is used in chemotherapy for several types of cancer, none of which is specifically a "children's cancer". Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia often does affect children, but also adults over the age of 50. Hodgkin lymphoma mostly affects young adults and people over 60; non-Hodgkin lymphoma incidence increases with age. It's also not correct to speak of vincristine as a "cure". Firstly, it's used only as one component of a therapy regime, not on its own, and secondly, while the long-term survival rates can be good, "cure" is far too strong a term to be used unqualifiedly. Kay Dekker 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
U.S. courts have upheld patents on biological substances like adrenaline and even basic elements.
OK, I'm not a patent lawyer, but that surprises me. There's certainly no mention of this on the Chemical element page. I'd really like to see a citation for a US court upholding a patent on an element. Kay Dekker 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I have found a granted claim to a chemical element, and moreover one that's been tested in court. See In re Seaborg, 328 F.2d 996 (CCPA 1964). Claim 1 of US patent 3,156,523 reads "1. Element 95". Twr57 ( talk) 21:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see and incorporate Conrad Gorinsky into this article Yeago 17:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
84.92.162.77 ( talk) 22:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)== Opening ==
From the first paragraph:
I think that this should be corrected, or sourced if correct. I found a patent from Eli Lilly claiming N-desmethylvinblastine and a method for making it from vincristine (#3354163) as well as a patent for a process for purifying vincristine and other substances (#3932417), but no patent on vincristine itself. I'm not sure that it would be patentable under US or EU laws, since there is evidence of prior art in earlier patent claims (see #3352868) *Natural products cannot be granted patents*. AK47 [I was under impression vincristine is natural product]
Would
fix the problem?
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 19:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is currently in serious need of vigorous NPOV editing. The problems start with the title, and go on from there.
A better title than Biopiracy and bioprospecting might be a good start: "biopiracy" is clearly a self-evident Bad Thing and as such this term is solely used by its opponents, and "bioprospecting" clearly a self-evident Good Thing, and this term therefore solely used by its supporters.
Perhaps " Biopiracy controversy"? Or " Controversy over commercialization of traditional remedies"?
If no-one can come up with a more neutral title, the same article cannot deal with both, since two opposing biases are loaded right into the title. We should perhaps consider unmerging the two articles.
The Anome ( talk) 18:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem with this is that the article isn't confined to the commercialisation of traditional medicines. It includes traditional seeds - see the section on the 'Enola bean'. To leave out seeds - and agriculture generally (the neem patent was not on a medicinal use of neem) - is to cut the subject down arbitrarily. "Knowledge" rather than "medicines" might do it. Twr57 ( talk) 07:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is 'bioprospecting' self-evidently a Good Thing? The two terms have a common prefix 'bio' which is generally broadly neutral, so the flavour presumably comes from the suffix. 'Piracy' is clearly bad. Why is 'prospecting' clearly good? It seems pretty neutral to me. Twr57 ( talk) 22:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC) The current title of the article is admirably neutral, but unfortunately inaccurate. It is not solely about medicines. See for example basmati rice, the 'Enola' bean, etc. I am thinking about changing it - change it again if you have a better idea. Twr57 ( talk) 21:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The current title is terrible. All 3 words (commercialization/traditional/medicines) are misleading. As mentioned above, there are issues with food stuffs as well as medicines. The title doesn't cover "bioprospecting" where no traditional knowledge is involved (i.e., bulk screening of plants and discovering a new compound), regardless of whether the "owners" of the organism are compensated or not. And how about cases (rosy periwinkle) where the traditional medicinal use has nothing to do with the use for which a patent is granted? I believe there are also cases (ayahuasca?) where a patent was granted, but no comercialized product resulted. Bioprospecting/biopiracy are loaded terms, yes, but they cover non-foods, non-traditionally used organisms and patents that fail to be commercialized. It'd be interesting to know how people end up on this page; I was looking for biopiracy, and I'd guess most searches leading here are for that or bioprospecting. Nobody is searching for "commercialization of traditional medicines". 192.104.39.2 ( talk) 22:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I've now removed the entire essay-like "Ownership" section from the article. This was a difficult call, since it removed a substantial amount of well-written but essay-like material, including a couple of cited references for individual points. My justification for this action is that the section in total constituted original research and was synthetic overall, and in my opinion needed removing, both per policy, and to help the article evolve in a more structured way. I also believe that this does not affect the balance of the article, since the material removed was, although essay-like, also quite balanced, so no agenda is advanced by removing it.
For reference, the last version of the article containing it can be found here: [4]. If it is to be restored, it first needs a complete rewrite to meet the requirements for attributability and verifiability from reliable sources throughout.
Since the points it raised are significant, I'd appreciate it if they could be re-written in a new non-synthetic, non-OR, framework. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Ownership section still needs POV work in addition to citations. It's not that it's blatantly biased; it just doesn't present both sides of the issue. For instance, there are arguments against the premise in most of the subjsections but none for "All humankind as the owner of biodiversity." I didn't try to write more into that subsection but did take out its second paragraph, "Temporary patent rights imply that entrepreneurship is valued and investing in new research and experimentation can be profitable." As written before my edit, it wasn't logically tied into its subsection. Patent protection may fit into this view in that, though 'all humankind is the owner of biodiversity,' the benefits of this diversity will not reach people without patents. If that is the intended link it should be qualified and made clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.84.74 ( talk) 01:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The related Category:Biopiracy and bioprospecting has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
Renaming in this case, to match this article. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 17:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone less naive in Wikiways than I explain what's going on here? I go to 'Categories for Discussion' to contribute (possibly) and find an embargo on contributing. There was a link to another page, which asked for contributions 'below the line', but I couldn't find any way of making them (nothing below the line showed up for editing or adding to). In my view "Biopiracy and bioprospecting" is a reasonably balanced title (though of course what people mean by 'biopiracy' is quite unclear, except that it's something inherently evil) and has the advantage of indicating what the article is about. A title that limits the subject to 'Traditional medicines' is simply inadequate to cover the range of subject-matter involved. Twr57 ( talk) 16:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Just shift it to the bottom of the article and change the name to Criticism of commercialization of traditional medicines. Take out the bioprospecting part and shove it up in the intro.
216.249.60.116 (
talk) 14:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. "Mein Geduld ist zu Ende". I give notice that, if the next time I come back to this article, it is still entitled "Commercialisation of Traditional Medicines", I shall delete the sections headed 'Enola Bean' and 'Basmati Rice' on the ground that these can by no stretch of the imagination be considered Traditional Medicines. No reason not to include them under a broader title. Twr57 ( talk) 11:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
In the hope that a calm consideration of the content of the article will lead to universal agreement that the title should be amended as proposed, I've reinstated (in abbreviated form) the paragraph on Basmati. This is a classic case of [quote] 'biopiracy' [unquote], and should be included. I also have put in a link to the patent. This has the original claims in it. I tried to verify that the claims had been restricted (I remember that this was said at the time) but I couldn't do so from the USPTO website (Public Pair). Can anybody help? Twr57 ( talk) 15:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I've now restored the section on the Enola Bean as well. I have seen no objection to changing the title as proposed, so (having finally discovered how to do so) I've done this. Twr57 ( talk) 20:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Someone more experienced with wiki-editing than me should look at that section. The following contains what appears to be an attempt at a link to articles for India and Nepal but isn't formatted correctly: "...anti-fungal agent from the neem tree (Azadirachta indica), which grows throughout [[India][Nepal]]; Indian villagers have long understood the tree's medicinal value." Help? Thanks! 208.125.237.242 ( talk) 21:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Commercialization of indigenous knowledge →
Bioprospecting — This is the most common name in the literature. Biopiracy is also common, but includes a value judgment which bioprospecting doesn't since it is used both by proponents and critics, and in official legislation. Relisted. The article has been moved so many times in the past that I don't dare assume it's uncontroversial.
Favonian (
talk) 19:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC).
·ʍaunus·
snunɐw· 17:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 17:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The cases seem to be in no specific order. Neither alphabetical, nor by date. It would be nice to have them sorted by the date of each plant's first patents filing. 75.70.89.124 ( talk) 17:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Several of the bare URLs listed in the references section are either dead links or links to pages that have since changed. Please consider using more verifiable sources such as reports or newspaper or journal articles that can be more easily retrieved. Animalparty ( talk) 18:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Bioprospecting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ghanaweb.com/public_agenda/article.php?ID=5062{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ip.aaas.org/tekindex.nsf/TEKPAD?OpenFrameSetWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Bioprospecting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ghanaweb.com/public_agenda/article.php?ID=5062When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bioprospecting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
A couple of references for the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library Sen S, Chakraborty R. Traditional Knowledge Digital Library: a distinctive approach to protect and promote Indian indigenous medicinal treasure. Current Science (00113891). May 25, 2014;106(10):1340-1343. Kidd, Ian James. (2012). Biopiracy and the Ethics of Medical Heritage: The Case of India's Traditional Knowledge Digital Library. Journal of Medical Humanities, 33(3), 175-183. Kangarooth ( talk) 16:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)