BANGKOK, Sep 4 (IPS)- A custody battle between Thailand and a British

university over local fungi strains with potential medicinal uses shows how the kingdom's rich biodiversity has become a much sought-after commodity.
At issue is a collection of more than 200 strains of marine fungi, taken years ago from mangrove and coastal areas in southern Thailand, that are stored in laboratories in Britain's Portsmouth University. But now, Bangkok now wants them back.

The marine fungi specimens were taken by a Portsmouth University professor in 1993, as part of a research project sponsored by a pharmaceutical company.

But because Thailand at the time did not have adequate laboratories for storing the specimens, they were kept at the British university's laboratory, says the National Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (Biotech), the government agency responsible for the country's biodiversity resources.

Early this year, the Thai government asked for the specimens back, citing a ''gentleman's agreement'' that they would be turned over when requested.

So far, though, Portsmouth University staff have been giving conflicting answers to that request, Biotech says.

Thai officials now fear that the country could lose the right to develop and benefit from the fungi strains if western pharmaceutical firms discover and patent the drug potential in them.

''If the strains are sold to industry, it is very likely they would seek patents for the chemicals with drug potential found in specimens,'' said Dr Jakkrit Kuanpoth, a patent law expert from Sukhothai Thammathirat University based in Bangkok.

''Thai scientists would lose their right to develop the same fungi strains even if we can still find them in the country,'' he explained.

Nigel Howel-Jones, a British scientist who works as Biotech's head of taxonomic and molecular mycology, says the fungi strains rank as one of the most endangered collections in the world given their size and genetic
importance.

He said marine fungi from tropical countries have been hunted by the pharmaceutical industry ever since one company in 1994 discovered a chemical in a specimen collected from Malaysia that was found to kill leukaemia
cells.

Experts say the disputed strains may be worth billions of baht if the pharmaceutical industry discovers potential in them for curing diseases like cancer, or AIDS.

Yet the marine fungi battle is not the first, and probably not the last, over Thailand's rich biodiversity. Nobody knows for sure how many plant and animal sample species have been taken out of the country by international companies or foreign researchers.

Several years ago, Thailand lost the rights to Japan over 'Plao Noi', a local plant that contains medical substances to cure ulcer.Thailand is also trying to protect its rights to jasmine rice, in the wake of the sale by a U.S. company of a rice product called 'jasmati' that officials say misleads consumers into thinking it was the same as Thai
fragrant rice.

But there are bright spots. Recently, Thailand successfully negotiated with Japan to return insect specimens taken taken from the kingdom.

''Foreign scientists have come to Thailand to exploit its biodiversity by collecting species for years, and we have never had official records of their names, who they were and what species they have taken out,'' admitted Dr Sakarin Bhumirattana, Biotech director.

If the 200 fungi strains indeed end up being sold, Jakkrit says Thailand can take legal action against the violation of its biodiversity rights -- even if it has not yet ratified the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD).

Jakkrit's fears are based on the confusing replies Biotech says it has gotten from Portsmouth University.
In January, Dr Richard Greenwood, head of the university's School of Biological Sciences, said he would ''endeavour to repatriate the Thai isolates'' and asked Thailand to contribute to the cost of dispatching the cultures.

But in February, he wrote back saying that he would not take any action which might have a ''financial or legal repercussion''.

Another letter from the university's business development director, dated Aug 10, implied the institution would not return the specimens because the fungi strains had been collected by its own staff and therefore, legal title to the collection resided with the university.

Prior to that, Greenwood indicated in an electronic mail message to Howel-Jones in February the university was willing to return the fungi specimens, but would ask Biotech to shoulder technical and shipping expenses.

Weeks later, he said a number of strains collected from Thailand had already been sold to commercial companies.
On another occasion, Howel-Jones was told that the university could not return the strains because they belong to the company which sponsored the fungi strains collection and research in 1993.

Yet last month, a Portsmouth University spokesman was quoted in 'The Independent' newspaper as saying the strains ''are being looked after properly and have not been sold to science''.

And on Aug 27, Biotech received a reply from John Craven, university vice chancellor, saying that his institution had no use or interest in the cultures and would have them returned as soon as possible.

The process of sending back the 200 strains hasn't started yet, although Thai scientists remain hopeful.

Witoon Lianchamroon, coordinator of the biodiversity conservation network

Biothai, says two groups -- the United Kingdom's GAIA Foundation and the Genetic Resources Action International -- have proposed to help Thailand bring home the cultures.

Some critics have faulted the government for allowing the fungi collection to take place without local participation in the first place. But Sakarin said Biotech should not be blamed for not protecting nationalproperty.

He said the Portsmouth University scientists had done the fungi collection before Biotech created a ''split-mode programme'', which requires foreign researchers who collect microorganisms in Thailand to work with Thai scientists and leave samples of their collection in Biotech's laboratories.
Thailand has learned its lessons. Sakarin says Biotech has introduced a ''material-transfer agreement'' rule that bars researchers using samples collected in Thailand for any commercial purpose.

On 11 Dec 2003

  
  Print version