Bioprospecting – why is it so unrewarding?

Abstract

Some economic analyses have placed high values on the chemicaldiversity residing in threatened habitats[, Conservation Biology 6:128–130; , InBiodiversity and its Importance to Human Health, Columbia University Press, NewYork; , Journal of PoliticalEconomy 108: 173–206]. Consequently, bioprospecting (searching for newbiologically active chemicals in organisms) is considered by some to be a way offunding the preservation of biodiversity, especially in the less developedcountries. However, the large multinational pharmaceutical andagrochemical companies spend very little of their research effort onbioprospecting [, Phytochemistry55: 463–480]. Why is this? The answer lies in the fact that any chemical(whether a synthetic or a natural product) has a very low probability ofpossessing useful biological activity. The common belief that every naturalproduct has been selected by its producer such that only biologically activenatural products are made is not correct. Given that random collections ofsynthetic or natural products have a similar chance of containing a chemicalwith specific activity against any one target, and given that syntheticchemicals are nearly always much easier to synthesise on an industrial scale, itis predictable that major agrochemical and pharmaceutical companies will devoteonly a limited amount of their R & D budget to bioprospecting. Although argued that scientificadvances will make bioprospecting more cost-effective in future, an alternativescenario is presented where current biotechnological developments will furthererode the value of bioprospecting. It is concluded that there should be noreliance on large-income streams being available from bioprospecting agreementsto help fund the preservation of biodiversity.