***BIODIVERSITY BAD***

Internal Link Turn

Impact Defense - General

No impact to the biodiversity- functional redundancy, adaptationDoremus 2k (Holly, Professor of Law at UC Davis, "The Rhetoric and Reality of Nature Protection: Toward a New Discourse", Winter 2000 Washington & Lee Law Review 57 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 11 //nz)

Reluctant to concede such losses, tellers of the ecological horror story highlight how close a catastrophe might be, and how little we know about what actions might trigger one. But the apocalyptic vision is less credible today than it seemed in the 1970s. Although it is clear that the earth is experiencing a mass wave of extinctions, n213 the complete elimination of life on earth seems unlikely. n214 Life is remarkably robust.

Nor is human extinction probable any time soon. Homo sapiens is adaptable to nearly any environment. Even if the world of the future includes far fewer species, it likely will hold people. n215 One response to this credibility problem tones the story down a bit, arguing not that humans will go extinct but that ecological disruption will bring economies, and

consequently civilizations, to their knees. n216 But this too may be overstating the case. Most ecosystem functions are performed by multiple species. This functional redundancy means that a high proportion of species can be lost without precipitating a collapse. n217 Another response drops the horrific ending and returns to a more measured discourse of the many material benefits nature provides humanity. Even these more plausible

tales, though, suffer from an important limitation. They call for nature protection only at a high level of generality. For example, human-induced increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels may cause rapid changes in global temperatures in the near future, with drastic consequences for sea levels, weather patterns, and ecosystem services.

n218 Similarly, the loss of large numbers of species undoubtedly reduces the genetic library from which we might in the future draw useful resources. n219 But it is difficult to translate these insights into convincing arguments against any one of the small local decisions that contribute to the problems of global warming or biodiversity loss. n220 It is easy to argue that the material impact of any individual decision to increase carbon emissions slightly or to destroy a small amount of habitat will be small. It is difficult to identify the specific straw that will break the camel's back. Furthermore, no unilateral action at the local or even national level can solve these global problems. Local decisionmakers may feel paralyzed by the scope of the problems, or may conclude that any sacrifices they might make will go unrewarded if others do not restrain their actions. In sum, at the local level at

which most decisions affecting nature are made, the material discourse provides little reason to save nature. Short of the ultimate catastrophe, the material benefits of destructive decisions frequently will exceed their identifiable material costs. n221

No impact to biodiversity Sagoff 97 (Mark, Senior Research Scholar at the Institute for Philosophy and Public policy in School of Public Affairs at University of Maryland, , “INSTITUTE OF BILL OF RIGHTS LAW SYMPOSIUM DEFINING TAKINGS: PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE FUTURE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION: MUDDLE OR MUDDLE THROUGH? TAKINGS JURISPRUDENCE MEETS THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT”, William and Mary Law Review, pg. 905, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1679&context=wmlr //nz)

Although one may agree with ecologists such as Ehrlich and Raven that the earth stands on the brink of an episode

of massive extinction, it may not follow from this grim fact that human beings will suffer as a result. On the

contrary, skeptics such as science writer Colin Tudge have challenged biologists to explain why we need more than a tenth of the 10 to 100 million species that grace the earth . Noting that "cultivated systems often out-produce wild systems by 100-fold or more," Tudge declared that "the argument that humans

need the variety of other species is, when you think about it, a theological one." n343 Tudge observed that " the elimination of all but a tiny minority of our fellow creatures does not affect the material well-being of humans one iota." n344 This skeptic challenged ecologists to list more than 10,000 species (other than unthreatened microbes) that

are essential to ecosystem productivity or functioning. n345 "The human species could survive just as well if 99.9% of our fellow creatures went extinct, provided only that we retained the appropriate 0.1% that we need." n346 [*906] The monumental Global Biodiversity Assessment ("the Assessment") identified two positions with respect to redundancy of species. "At one extreme is the idea that each species is unique and important,

such that its removal or loss will have demonstrable consequences to the functioning of the community or ecosystem." n347 The authors of the Assessment, a panel of eminent ecologists, endorsed this position, saying it is "unlikely that there is much, if any, ecological redundancy in communities over time scales of decades to centuries, the time period over which environmental policy should operate." n348 These eminent ecologists rejected the opposing view, "the notion that species overlap in function to a sufficient degree that removal or loss of a species will be

compensated by others, with negligible overall consequences to the community or ecosystem." n349 Other biologists believe,

however, that species are so fabulously redundant in the ecological functions they perform that the life-support

systems and processes of the planet and ecological processes in general will function perfectly well with fewer of them, certainly fewer than the millions and millions we can expect to remain even if every threatened organism becomes extinct . n350 Even the kind of sparse and miserable world depicted in the movie Blade Runner could provide a "sustainable" context for the human economy as long as people forgot their aesthetic and moral commitment to the glory and beauty of the natural world. n351 The Assessment makes this point. "Although any ecosystem contains hundreds to thousands of species interacting among themselves and their physical environment, the emerging consensus is that the system is driven by a small number of . . . biotic variables on whose interactions the balance of species are, in a sense, carried along." n352 [*907] To make up your mind on the question of the functional redundancy of species, consider an endangered species of bird, plant, or insect and ask how the ecosystem would fare in its absence. The fact that the creature is endangered suggests an answer: it is already in limbo as far as

ecosystem processes are concerned. What crucial ecological services does the black-capped vireo, for example, serve? Are any of the species threatened with extinction necessary to the provision of any ecosystem service on which humans depend? If so, which ones are they? Ecosystems and the species that compose them have

changed, dramatically, continually, and totally in virtually every part of the United States. There is little ecological similarity, for example, between New England today and the land where the Pilgrims died. n353 In view of the constant reconfiguration of the biota, one may wonder why Americans have not suffered more as a result of ecological catastrophes . The cast of species in nearly every environment changes constantly-local extinction is commonplace in nature-but the crops still grow. Somehow, it seems, property

values keep going up on Martha's Vineyard in spite of the tragic disappearance of the heath hen. One might argue that the sheer number and variety of creatures available to any ecosystem buffers that system against stress. Accordingly, we should be concerned if the "library" of creatures ready, willing, and able to colonize ecosystems gets too small. (Advances

in genetic engineering may well permit us to write a large number of additions to that "library.") In the United States as in many other parts of the world, however, the number of species has been increasing dramatically , not decreasing, as a result of human activity. This is because the hordes of exotic species coming into ecosystems in the United States far exceed the number of species that are becoming extinct. Indeed, introductions may outnumber extinctions by more than ten to one, so that the United States is becoming more and more species-rich all the time largely as a result of human action. n354 [*908] Peter Vitousek and colleagues estimate that over 1000 non-native plants grow in California alone; in Hawaii there are 861; in Florida, 1210. n355 In Florida more than 1000 non-native insects, 23 species of mammals, and about 11 exotic birds have established themselves. n356 Anyone who waters a lawn or hoes a garden knows how many weeds desire to grow there, how many birds and bugs visit the yard, and how many fungi, creepy-crawlies, and other odd life forms show forth when it rains. All belong to nature, from wherever they might hail, but not many homeowners would claim that there are too few of them. Now, not all exotic species provide ecosystem services; indeed, some may be disruptive or have no instrumental value. n357 This also may be true, of course, of native species as well, especially because all exotics are native somewhere. Certain exotic species, however, such as Kentucky blue grass, establish an area's sense of identity and place; others, such as the green crabs showing up around Martha's Vineyard, are nuisances. n358 Consider an analogy [*909] with human migration. Everyone knows that after a generation or two, immigrants to this country are hard to distinguish from everyone else. The vast majority of Americans did not evolve here, as it were, from hominids; most of us "came over" at one time or another. This is true of many of our fellow species as well, and they may fit in here just as well as we do. It is

possible to distinguish exotic species from native ones for a period of time, just as we can distinguish immigrants from native-born Americans, but as the centuries roll by, species, like people, fit into the landscape or the society, changing and often enriching it. Shall we have a rule that a species had to come over on the Mayflower, as so many did, to count as "truly" American? Plainly not. When, then, is the cutoff date? Insofar as we are concerned with the absolute numbers of "rivets" holding ecosystems together, extinction seems not to pose a general problem because a far greater number of kinds of mammals, insects, fish, plants, and other creatures thrive on land and in water

in America today than in prelapsarian times. n359 The Ecological Society of America has urged managers to maintain biological diversity as a critical component in strengthening ecosystems against disturbance. n360 Yet as Simon Levin observed, "much of the detail about species composition will be irrelevant in terms of influences on ecosystem properties." n361 [*910] He added: "For net primary productivity, as is

likely to be the case for any system property, biodiversity matters only up to a point; above a certain level, increasing biodiversity is likely to make little difference." n362 What about the use of plants and animals in agriculture? There is no scarcity foreseeable. "Of an estimated 80,000 types of plants [we] know to be edible," a U.S. Department of the Interior document says, "only about 150 are extensively cultivated." n363 About twenty species, not one of which is endangered, provide ninety percent of the food the world takes from plants. n364 Any new food has to take "shelf space" or "market share" from one that is now produced. Corporations also find it difficult to create demand for a new product; for example, people are not inclined to eat paw-paws, even though they are delicious. It is hard enough to get people to eat their broccoli and lima beans. It is harder still to develop consumer demand for new foods. This may be the reason the Kraft Corporation does not prospect in remote places for rare and unusual plants and animals to add to the world's diet. Of the roughly 235,000 flowering plants and 325,000 nonflowering plants (including mosses, lichens, and seaweeds) available, farmers ignore virtually all of them in favor of a very few that are profitable. n365 To be sure, any of the more than 600,000 species of plants could have an application in agriculture, but

would they be preferable to the species that are now dominant? Has anyone found any consumer demand for any of these half-million or more plants to replace rice or wheat in the human diet? There are reasons that farmers cultivate rice, wheat, and corn rather than, say, Furbish's lousewort. There are many kinds of louseworts, so named because these weeds

were thought to cause lice in sheep. How many does agriculture really require? [*911] The species on which agriculture relies are domesticated, not naturally occurring; they are developed by artificial not natural selection; they might not be able to survive in the wild. n366 This argument is not intended to deny the religious, aesthetic, cultural, and moral reasons that command us to respect and protect the natural world. These spiritual and ethical values should evoke action, of course, but we should also recognize that they are spiritual and ethical values. We should recognize that ecosystems and all that dwell therein compel our moral respect, our aesthetic appreciation, and our spiritual veneration; we should clearly seek to achieve the goals of the ESA. There is no reason to assume, however, that these goals have anything to do with human well-being or welfare as economists understand that term. These are ethical goals, in other words, not economic ones. Protecting the marsh may be the right thing to do for moral, cultural, and spiritual reasons. We should do it-but someone will have to pay the costs. In the narrow sense of promoting human

welfare, protecting nature often represents a net "cost," not a net "benefit." It is largely for moral, not economic, reasons-ethical, not prudential, reasons- that we care about all our fellow creatures. They are valuable as objects of love not as objects of use. What is good for [*912] the marsh may be good in itself even if it is not, in the

economic sense, good for mankind. The most valuable things are quite useless.

Scientific consensus concludes that there is no causation between diversity and stabilityMertz et al, 03 biologist and veteran freelance science writer, editor, and consultant for Science in Dispute (Leslie Science in Dispute Vol. 2, “ Does greater species diversity lead to greater stability in ecosystems, Gale Virtual Library)

The hypothesis that greater species diversity begets heightened ecosystem stability may seem correct at first glance. Most people intuitively assume that the pond ecosystem has a better chance of thriving from year to year—even in adverse conditions—if it has a wider variety of species living there. That assumption, however, is supported by little scientific proof. On the other hand, many studies provide compelling evidence that diversity does not promote stability and may even be to its detriment. Several studies also suggest that if species diversity does exist, it is based on ecosystem stability rather than vice

versa. The Paramecium Studies of N. G. Hairston One of the early experiments to critically damage the greater-diversity-equals-greater-stability argument came from the N. G. Hairston research group at the University of Michigan in 1968. In this study, the group created artificial communities of bacteria, Paramecia, and/or predatory protozoa grown on nutrient agar cultures. Each community contained more than one trophic level. In other words, the communities contained both predators and prey, as do the macroscopic food webs readily visible in a pond: A fish eats a frog that ingests an insect that attacks a tadpole that scrapes a dinner of bacterial scum from a plant stem. In Hairston's case, the researchers watched the combinations of organisms in a laboratory instead of a natural setting. Several patterns emerged. In one series of experiments, the researchers combined prey bacteria, which represented the lowest link in the food chain—the first trophic level—with Paramecium. The bacteria included Aerobacter aerogenes, and "two unidentified bacilliform species isolated from a natural habitat." The Paramecium—two varieties of P. aurelia and one variety of P. caudatum—fed on the bacteria and so represented the second trophic level. As researchers increased the diversity of the bacteria, the Paramecia thrived and their numbers increased, at first suggesting that diversity caused stability. However, when the researchers looked more closely at the effects of increasing diversity on a specific trophic level, the story changed. They added a third Paramecium species to communities that already contained two species, and then watched what happened. The data showed that stability was based on which Paramecium species was introduced to which two pre-existing Paramecium species, and indicated that diversity in and of itself was not a requirement for stability. This set of experiments demonstrated that a higher number of species of one trophic level is unrelated to increased stability at that level. Page 152 | Top of Article Finally, Hairston reported the repercussions that followed the introduction of predatory protozoa—the third trophic level—to the experimental communities. The predatory species were Woodruffia metabolica and Didinium nasutum. Regardless of whether the community held two or three Paramecium species, or whether the predators numbered one species or two, all Paramecia quickly fell to the protozoa, whole systems failed, and stability plummeted. In this case, at least, diversity did not generate stability. Although the Hairston research is based on an artificial system rather than a natural one, it represents credible, empirical evidence against the assertion that greater diversity yields stability. Over the years, numerous research groups have conducted similar laboratory experiments with the same results. May and Pimm's Conclusions about Stability Not long after the Hairston paper was published, noted population biologist Robert M. May, formerly of Princeton and now at Oxford, devoted an entire book to the subject. First published in 1973, Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems provided detailed mathematical models illustrating the connection between diversity and instability in small systems, and argued that these models predict similar outcomes in larger systems. May wrote, "The central point remains that if we contrast simple few-species mathematical models with the analogously simple multi-species models, the latter are in general less stable than the former." He also noted that complexity in food webs does not confer stability within communities. A complex food web has many interacting individuals and species. The higher the number of connections in a food web, the greater the chance for individual links to become unstable and eventually affect the entire web. May readily admitted that stable natural systems often are very complex and contain many species. However, he contended that the increased diversity is reliant on the system's stability, not the opposite. Complexity is not a prerequisite for stability; instead, stability is essential for complexity. In a separate paper, May used the example of a rain forest, a complex ecosystem with vast species diversity but also a high susceptibility to human disturbance. The ecologist and evolutionary biologist Stuart Pimm, of the University of Tennessee, continued the debate in his book

The Balance of Nature (1991). Pimm provided a historical view of the stability argument, along with discussions of many of the experiments conducted over the years, and arrived at several conclusions, one of which has direct bearing on the diversity-stability debate. If stability is defined as resilience, or the ability of a species to recover following some type of disturbance such as drought, flood, or species introduction, Pimm stated that shorter food chains are more stable than longer food chains. Simplicity, not complexity, imparts stability. He argued that resilience depends on how quickly all members of the food chain recover from the disturbance. Longer food chains involve more species, which present more opportunities for the delay of the restoration of the complete food chain. Pimm supported his argument with results from studies of aphids. Pimm also noted that scientists have and will face problems when taking the stability-diversity question to the field. One problem is the absence of long-term data, which would help scientists to draw conclusions about grand-scale ecological questions such as the diversity-stability connection. Pimm explained that long-term scientific research projects typically require numerous consecutive grants to fund them, and such continuous chains of grants are few and far between. Other Approaches Another difficulty with field studies is finding existing systems that can be adequately compared. If ecosystem stability is defined as the capacity of its populations to persist through, or to show resilience following, some type of disturbance, scientists must identify ecosystems that have similar physical characteristics, and which are experiencing or have experienced a disturbance. To compare the effects of diversity, one ecosystem must have high species-richness and one must have low species-richness. In the early 1980s, Thomas Zaret of the Institute for Environmental Studies and University of Washington had that opportunity. Zaret investigated the relationship between diversity and stability in freshwater fish communities in Africa and South America. First, he compared lakes and rivers. Lakes, Zaret reasoned, provide a more constant habitat than rivers. Rivers experience substantially more acute annual variation in water level, turbidity, current, and chemical content as a result of seasonal rains. Zaret then surveyed the two systems and found that the lakes contained more species than the rivers. Next, he followed the effects of a disturbance on both systems. The disturbance was a newly introduced predatory fish that had invaded a river and a lake in South America. The lake and river were similar in geographic location, and thus topography and climate, which provided an ideal opportunity for a comparison of each system's ability to rebound from a disturbance. Five years after the introduction of the predator, an examination of 17 common species that occurred in both water systems showed that 13 had disappeared from the lake, while all were still present in the river. Challenging the diversity-breeds-stability argument, Zaret's results indicated that the less-diverse river was more Page 153 | Top of Article stable. He concluded, "The data presented from freshwater fish communities support the hypothesis that diverse communities have lower stability (resilience)." Although these and other experiments indicate that diversity is not necessary for ecosystem stability, the discussion does not end there. A team of researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison determined that although diversity itself did not promote stability, the species-specific resilience of the community's residents might. Led by zoologist Anthony Ives, the team mathematically analyzed the consequences of environmental stress on various communities. After compiling the data, the team found that the characteristics of each species were more important than the number of species in conferring stability. The results showed that the most stable ecosystems—those that were both persistent and resilient—contained individual organisms that responded well to environmental stress. They did not show a correlation between stability and the sheer number of species in the ecosystem. The research team came to the conclusion that species richness alone does not generate ecosystem stability, and suggested that scientists should begin investigating the stress response of individual

species rather than simply counting species. The Intermediate-Disturbance Hypothesis Several scientists took a different perspective in the discussion of diversity and stability, and developed what is known as the intermediate-disturbance hypothesis. This hypothesis states that the greatest species diversity appears not in the most stable systems, but in systems under periodic, nonextreme stress. In the most stable systems—defined here as those where disturbances are mild or absent—dominant species eventually outcompete their rivals, and the communities become less diverse. Diversity also declines in highly disturbed systems, because only those species that can reproduce and populate an area quickly thrive. The only areas that have high species diversity are those that experience infrequent, moderate disturbances. Joseph Connell of the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California at Santa Barbara reinforced the hypothesis with his review of coral reefs and tropical forests. Connell plotted the level of disturbance against species richness and confirmed that ecosystems under infrequent, moderate stress have the greatest diversity. Specifically, he found the highest levels of diversity among reefs in the path of occasional hurricanes and tropical forests that take the brunt of infrequent storms. Seth R. Reice of the biology department at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, similarly noted that habitats that experience natural disturbances, including storms and fire, are almost always more diverse than more stable areas. In both cases, Connell and Reice indicate that diversity depends on stability, rather than vice versa. Another researcher, Wayne P. Sousa of the integrative biology department at the University of California, Berkeley provided validation to this principle with a study of the marine intertidal zone (at the ocean's edge). Sousa counted the number of sessile (attached) plant and animal species on rocks of various sizes. His reasoning was that waves can easily move small rocks, but not the largest rocks. The small rocks, then, are an unstable system for the sessile residents, the largest rocks are a stable system, and the medium-sized rocks fit the requirements of a system with intermediate disturbance. His results showed an average of 1.7 species on the smallest rocks, 2.5 on the largest, and 3.7 on the medium-sized rocks. To ensure that the species distribution was based on rock movement rather than rock size, he also artificially adhered some small rocks to the substrate (the ocean floor) and determined that species distribution was indeed based on wave-induced movement. This work upheld the intermediate-disturbance hypothesis, and illustrated that the greatest diversity was not associated with the most stable system. Diversity Is No Prerequisite As Daniel Goodman, of Montana State University, wrote in a 1975 examination of the stability-diversity controversy, there have been no experiments, field studies, or model systems that have proved a connection between greater diversity and stability. He added, "We conclude that there is no simple relationship between diversity and stability in ecological systems." Those words still hold today. In 1998 another group of scientists (Chapin, Sala, and Burke) reviewed much of the literature surrounding the connection between diversity and stability in their paper "Ecosystem Consequences of Changing Biodiversity," which appeared in the journal BioScience. They concluded that research that had inferred relationships between diversity and stability had relied on simple systems and may not translate well to the more complex systems common in nature. Although they noted that several studies imply a relationship between diversity and ecosystem stability, they added, "At present, too few experiments have been conducted to draw convincing generalizations."

No collapse – taxa substitution solvesDornelas et al 4/18 (Maria, “Assemblage Time Series Reveal Biodiversity Change but Not Systematic Loss,” Science AAS, 4/18/14, http://www.planta.cn/forum/files_planta/science_2014_dornelas_296_9_169.pdf)

Our results suggest that local and regional assemblages are experiencing a substitution of their taxa, rather than systematic loss. This outcome may in part reflect the fact that most of the available data are from the past 40 years, which highlights concerns over the problem of a “shifting baseline” in diversity monitoring (18). Nonetheless, we show that at these temporal and spatial scales there is no evidence of consistent or accelerating loss of a diversity. Most important, changes in species composition usually do not result in a substitution of like with like, and can lead to the development of novel ecosystems (19). For example, disturbed coral reefs can be replaced by assemblages dominated by macroalgae (20) or different coral species (21); these novel marine assemblages may not necessarily deliver the same ecosystem services (such as fisheries, tourism, and coastal production) that were provided by the original coral reef (22).

No net loss, species balance each other outBielle 4/20 - editor @ Scientific American (David, “Biodiversity Survives Extinctions for Now,” Scientific American, 4/20/14, http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/biodiversity-survives-extinctions-for-now1/)

A new look at ecosystems from the poles to the tropics shows that losses in the number of species in any given place do not yet translate to large changes in the overall number of different species there. The study is in the journal Science. [Maria Dornelas et al, Assemblage Time Series Reveal Biodiversity Change but Not Systematic Loss] The researchers analyzed 100 surveys that followed more than 35,000 different species over various lengths of time. These long-term studies found that the number of different species in, say, a coral reef remains relatively constant. Because the loss of a species, either locally or entirely, is often balanced by the arrival of a new species. The meta-analysis showed that 40 percent of places had more species present, 40 percent had less and 20 percent were unchanged. In other words, the ecosystems of the current Anthropocene era are transformed, but just as diverse—so far anyway. We are living in a world of novel ecosystems .

Biodiversity collapse doesn’t kill ecosystems - rivet metaphor is wrong - redundancy checksDavidson 00 (Carlos, conservation biologist, “Economic Growth and the Environment: Alternatives to the Limits Paradigm”, BioScience, http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/5/433.full //nz)

Biodiversity limits. The original rivet metaphor (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981) referred to species extinction and biodiversity loss as a limit to human population and the economy. A wave of species extinctions is occurring that is unprecedented in human history (Wilson 1988, 1992,

Reid and Miller 1989). The decline of biodiversity represents irreplaceable and incalculable losses to future generations of humans. Is biodiversity loss a case of limits, as suggested by the rivet metaphor, or is it a continuum of degradation with local tears, as suggested by the tapestry metaphor? In the rivet metaphor, it is not the loss of species by itself that is the proposed limit but rather some sort of ecosystem collapse that would be triggered by the species loss. But it is unclear that biodiversity loss will lead to ecosystem collapse.

Research in this area is still in its infancy, and results from the limited experimental studies are mixed. Some studies show a positive relationship between diversity and some aspect of ecosystem function, such as the rate of nitrogen cycling

(Kareiva 1996, Tilman et al. 1996). Others support the redundant species concept (Lawton and Brown 1993, Andren et al.

1995), which holds that above some low number, additional species are redundant in terms of ecosystem function. Still other studies support the idiosyncratic species model (Lawton 1994), in which loss of some species reduces

some aspect of ecosystem function, whereas loss of others may increase that aspect of ecosystem function. The relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem function is undoubtedly more complex than any simple metaphor. Nonetheless, I believe that the tapestry metaphor provides a more useful view of biodiversity loss than the rivet metaphor. A species extinction is like a thread pulled from the tapestry. With each

thread lost, the tapestry gradually becomes threadbare. The loss of some species may lead to local tears. Although everything is linked to everything else, ecosystems are not delicately balanced, clocklike mechanisms in which the loss of a part leads to collapse. For example, I study California frogs, some of which are disappearing. Although it is possible that the disappearances signal some as yet unknown threat to humans (the miner's canary argument), the loss of the frogs themselves is unlikely to have major ecosystem effects. The situation is the same for most rare organisms, which make up the bulk of threatened and endangered species. For example, if the black toad (Bufo exsul) were to disappear from the few desert springs in which it lives, even careful study would be unlikely to reveal ecosystem changes. To argue that there are not limits is not to claim that biodiversity losses do not matter. Rather, in calling for a stop to the destruction, it is the losses themselves that count, not a putative cliff that humans will fall off of somewhere down the road.

Their argument may seem right intuitively but has ZERO scientific proof – a review of the scholarly literature provesLeslie Mertz et al (Biologist and veteran science writer) 2003 “Does greater species diversity lead to greater stability in ecosystems” http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5204/is_2003/ai_n19124307/pg_7?tag=artBody;col1

As Daniel Goodman, of Montana State University, wrote in a 1975 examination of the stability-diversity controversy, there have been no experiments, field studies, or model systems that have proved a connection between greater diversity and stability. He added, "We conclude that there is no simple relationship between diversity and stability in ecological systems." Those words still hold today. In 1998 another group of scientists (Chapin, Sala, and Burke) reviewed much of the literature surrounding the connection between diversity and stability in their paper "Ecosystem Consequences of Changing Biodiversity," which appeared in the journal BioScience. They concluded that research that had inferred relationships between diversity and stability had relied on simple systems and may not translate well to the more complex systems common in nature. Although they noted that several studies imply a relationship between diversity and ecosystem stability, they added, "At present, too few experiments have been conducted to draw convincing generalizations."

Impact Defence – Ev Indict

Empirics disprove biodiversity loss impacts - their authors are hystericsCampbell 11 (Hank, creator of Science 2.0, a community of research professors, post-docs, science book authors and Nobel laureates collaborating over scientific projects. "I Wouldn't Worry About The Latest Mass Extinction Scare," Science 2.0, http://www.science20.com/science_20/i_wouldnt_worry_about_latest_mass_extinction_scare-76989 //nz)

You've seen it everywhere by now - Earth's sixth mass extinction: Is it almost here? and other articles discussing an article in Nature (471, 51–57 doi:10.1038/nature09678) claiming the end of the world is nigh. Hey, I like to live in important times. So do most

people. And something so important it has only happened 5 times in 540 million years, well that is really special. But is it real? Anthony Barnosky, integrative biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and first author of the paper, claims that if currently threatened species, those officially classed as critically endangered, endangered, and vulnerable, actually went extinct, and that rate of extinction continued, the sixth mass extinction could arrive in 3-22 centuries. Wait, what?? That's a lot of helping verbs confusing what should be a

fairly clear issue, if it were clear. If you know anything about species and extinction, you have already read one

paragraph of my overview and seen the flaws in their model. Taking a few extinct mammal species that we know

about and then extrapolating that out to be extinction hysteria right now if we don't do something about global warming is not good science. Worse, an integrative biologist is saying evolution does not happen. Polar bears did not exist forever, they came

into existence 150,000 years ago - because of the Ice Age. Greenpeace co-founder and ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore told a

global warming skepticism site, “I quit my life-long subscription to National Geographic when they published a similar 'sixth mass extinction' article in February 1999. This [latest journal] Nature article just re-hashes this theme” and "The fact that the study did make it through peer-review indicates that the peer review process has become corrupted.” Well, how did it make it through peer review? Read this bizarre justification of their methodology; "If you look only at the critically endangered mammals--those where the risk of extinction is at least 50 percent within three of their generations--and assume that their time will run out and they will be extinct in 1,000 years, that puts us clearly outside any range of normal and tells us that

we are moving into the mass extinction realm." Well, greater extinctions occurred when Europeans visited the Americas and in a much shorter time. And since we don't know how many species there are now, or have ever been, if someone makes a model and claims tens of thousands of species are going extinct today, that sets off cultural alarms. It's not science,

though. If only 1% of species have gone extinct in the groups we really know much about, that is hardly a time for panic, especially if some 99 percent of all species that have ever existed we don't know anything about because they...went extinct. And we did not. It won't keep some researchers, and the mass media, from pushing the panic button. Co-author Charles Marshall, also an integrative biologist at UC-Berkeley wants to keep the panic button fully engaged by emphasizing that the small number of recorded extinctions to date does not mean we are not in a crisis. "Just because the magnitude is low compared to the biggest mass extinctions we've seen in half a billion years doesn't mean they aren't

significant." It's a double negative, bad logic and questionable science, though.

Lit IndictsNature and biodiversity are all social constructs that have turned into buzz words Oksanen 04 (Department of Behavioural Sciences and Philosophy, University of Turku 4

Markku “Philosophy and biodiversity” P 4)

Nature was the predominant concept in classical Greek philosophy from the very beginning. The pre-Socratic philosophers, for instance, assumed that they could identify some primitive element, or elements, of which the world was built. The speculative metaphysical investigation of nature evolved into natural history and into the science of biology and ecology by the nineteenth century. It is telling that in 2001, just fifteen years after the invention of the term biodiversity, a five-volume Encyclopedia of Biodiversity was published. Moreover, thousands of scientific articles, as counted by Julia Koricheva and

Helena Siipi in their contribution “The Phenomenon of Biodiversity,” have been published. Some of these have been published in newly established journals that include “biodiversity” in their titles. Other large-scale projects are on their way to being accomplished, such as the enlargement of the abovementioned Encyclopedia of Biodiversity to an electronic version and the enterprise to make an inventory of all species on Earth.4 As I see it, without the long preceding history and the established tradition of natural history, broadly understood, nothing like this may have happened, at least not so quickly. Biodiversity has become a buzzword, that is, a currently fashionable expression or a catchword. As is the case with buzzwords generally, biodiversity has also been given innumerable definitions, some of which have grown out of the original context, decreasing its usability. In the opening chapter Koricheva and Siipi provide a survey of this use of the focal concept and analyze how the meaning given to it implies variation in conservation policies.

Biodiversity has different meanings to everyone Oksanen 04 (Department of Behavioural Sciences and Philosophy, University of Turku 4

(Markku “Philosophy and biodiversity” P 5-6)

Given the history outlined above, Sarkar’s (2002, 132) remark that “Biodiversity must be analyzed in the context of conservation biology” becomes incontestable. What, then, is philosophically fascinating about biodiversity 5 that goes beyond the burning practical concerns of conservation biology? I think that simply the existence of this volume offers a better answer than I could ever provide here, but let me think about it for a moment. This motivating question is in the background of other questions that I will introduce in the remainder of this chapter. To begin with, if “the task of conservation is to conserve biodiversity” (Sarkar 2002, 133), it raises the question of what exactly is to be conserved. Ideally we would have a precise operative, hierarchical formulation of what “biodiversity” comprises. The vastness of the extension of the concept biodiversity undermines this prospect and brings in convention: we have to make choices. Although we have the global convention on biodiversity, it is less likely that we will have universally shared biodiversity preservation policies that even include conservation priorities in trade-off situations. Therefore, any answer to the question “What is biodiversity?” has an evaluative dimension (see chapters by Koricheva and Siipi, Haila, Hobson and Bultitude, Rawles, Gamborg and

Sandøe, in this volume). Focusing merely on species, any such attempt to provide an operative definition first leads to systematics, the objective of which is to study and classify the earth’s living beings. How, then, does one distinguish between different kinds of organisms? Do natural kinds have essences that are typical of them and only of them? Presuming the traditional realist position according to which species are natural kinds that exist independent of our perception and beliefs, on the one hand, how then does one identify categories that correspond with reality? If we presume, on the other hand, that species are human constructions, it gives rise to many other questions: Is there any truthvalue in taxonomic statements? If not, are we then allowed to classify entities however we like? Or should we be paying attention to either individuals or populations in the first place? These questions have been continuously tackled by both taxonomists and philosophers of biology (see, e.g., R. A. Wilson 1999), and answers to them form different background assumptions in conservation biology.

No way to know what will happen in the future more models are needed Boulter 02 (Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man, p 173)

The Atlantic Conveyor experts are from meteorology and oceanography and have spent their careers working to try and find patterns in the changes going on in the Atlantic Ocean. In comparison to the complexity of what goes on under the sea between Europe and America, what they have to work with and go on has been trivial. The ocean is influenced by ice, atmosphere, river run-off, wind and unknown seafloor currents. It is impossible to make predictions without a lot more data to show how these things change through tens and hundreds of years. Only then will the experts be able to make better models to

predict future changes. New research projects lasting five years will be planned from meetings like these to give the necessary data. Specialist observers of the ocean changes will collect new data enabling the computer modellers to try new estimates of what is likely to happen next.

A2 Keystone Species“Keystone species” are an artificial construct Mills et al 93- researchers @ American Institue of Biological Sciences (Scott, Michael E. Soule and Daniel F. Doak, “The keystone-species concept in ecology and conservation,” Bioscience, 4/1993, http://bio.research.ucsc.edu/people/doaklab/publica tions/1993mills_soule_doak.pdf)

We see both technical and philosophical liabilities associated with reliance on keystone species in a conservation context. (See Landres et al. 1988 for a parallel critique regarding labeling certain species "indicator species.") The

overriding technical difficulty is one of definition. Before keystone species become the centerpiece for biodiversity protection or habitat restoration, we must be able to say what is and is not a keystone species. Lacking any a priori definition, the best way to identify keystone species would be perturbation experiments whereby the . candidate keystone species are removed and the responses of a predefined assemblage of species are monitored. Such tests would require adequate experimental replication and careful attention to defining the relevant assemblage (MacMahon et al. 1978 give a useful organism-centered definition of community), as well as consideration of time scales over which responses should be measured. Bender et al. (1984) evaluated mathematical approaches for evaluating the consequences of the inevitable omission of certain species in perturbation experiments and the impact of lumping together the interactions of related groups of organisms (e.g., combining data for related ant species to measure the effect of removing a granivorous

rodent). Extraordinary difficulties await researchers attempting such experiments (see Bender et al. 1984, Carpenter et al. 1985). The problem of objectively defining which species are keystone makes it likely that subjectively chosen subsets of species will be so labeled, whereas other species of similar importance will be ignored. Even if keystone species could readily and reliably be identified for a given location at a given time, several philosophical dangers arise. First, the term

is burdened with historical connotations that, as shown earlier, mean different things to different people. The lack of a clear operational definition hinders any political or legal implementation. Second, the term keystone species is misleading because it indicates the existence of a species-specific property of an organism, when in actuality the keystone role is particular to a defined environmental setting, the current species associations, and the responses of other species (Gautier-Hion and Michaloud 1989, Jackson and Kaufmann 1987, Levey 1988, Palumbi and Freed 1988). Thus, it is exceptionally difficult to confidently define a priori which local populations (not to mention species) are keystone (Elner and Vadas 1990, Foster

and Schiel 1988). Another problem is that removal of combinations of nonkeystone species could have effects as large as removal of a keystone. Finally, a conservation criterion that favors the maintenance of keystone species--and with them the majority of species in a community--may fail to protect other species of interest to conservationists or the public at large. For example, spotted owls, wolverines, grizzly bears, and California condors may have little role in the maintenance of species richness in their respective habitats, yet the protection of these charismatic species has been advanced because their fates are thought to indicate the integrity or health of their habitats, or because the viability of many such species requires large areas; these areas may ensure, in turn, sufficient habitat heterogeneity and space for large numbers of other species, some of which may have specialized requirements. In sum, both the complexity of ecological interactions and ignorance of them militates against the

application of the keystone-species concept for practical management recommendations. Despite its heuristic value, we see more harm then good in the formalization of the term in laws and policy guidelines that have rigid practical implications.

Impossible to test – the definition of keystone species is too ambiguous

Garibaldi and Turner 4- ethnobotanist @ University of Victoria (Ann and Nancy, “Cultural Keystone Species: Implications for Ecological Conservation and Restoration,” Ecology and Society, 2004, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1/main.html#concept)

Like any metaphorical concept of this magnitude, this one is not without its shortcomings. One major criticism of the keystone species concept stemmed from the ambiguous nature of its definition (Mills et al. 1993). This made it hard to identify exactly which species should be designated as having a keystone role in a community

(Mills et al. 1993). According to Power et al. (1996), among the obstacles to such a determination are: cost. It is an expensive and detailed task to gather sufficient data to determine if a species plays a keystone role; controls. It is difficult to measure data from in situ experiments because of the many variables, known and unknown, in the field; time. Long-term studies are required to determine patterns in species behavior; ethical constraints. Certain tests to determine the extent of its influence on an ecosystem, e.g., removing a species from its environment, may eliminate the very species or habitat that conservation biologists are trying to save; and context dependency. A

species may play a keystone role in some parts of its range, at specific times of the year, or under certain conditions. Therefore, the determination of a species as keystone varies both temporally and spatially, and a strong understanding of the context specific interactions is required.

A2 Invisible Threshold/Precautionary PrincipleInvisible threshold makes quantifying their impact impossible – ecosystem collapses are rare and don’t spilloverNew York Times 2000 “Lost Rivets and Threads, and Ecosystems Pulled Apart” http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E4D61239F937A35754C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all.

In this way of looking at the situation, there is no clear threshold of catastrophe, but rather a ''continuum of degradation,'' from ''a world rich in biodiversity to a threadbare remnant with fewer species, fewer natural places, less beauty, and reduced ecosystem services.'' And while there may be multiple rips and tears in the tapestry, any catastrophic collapses that might take place (like the crash of fishery) are relatively rare and local.

BioD Collapse InevitableBiodiversity loss is inevitable - solutions don’t workJowit 4/29 - political correspondant for The Guardian (Juliette, “International failure to meet target to reduce biodiversity decline”, The Guardian, 4/29/14, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/29/international-failure-biodiversity-decline)

The world has failed to meet the target set by international leaders to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by this year, experts will announce next month. Instead, a coalition of 40 conservation organisations claims there have been "alarming biodiversity declines", and that pressures on the natural world from development, over-use and pollution have risen since the ambition was set in the 2002 Convention on Biological Diversity. The first formal assessment of the target, published today in the journal Science, will be the basis of a formal

declaration by the CBD in Nairobi on 10 May, at which governments will be pressed to take the issues as seriously as climate change and the

economic crisis. A growing number of studies have shown that it is almost impossible to calculate the value of the "ecosystem services" from the natural world, from food, rich soil and fuel for local people, to clean air and water, and plants used for the international pharmaceutical industry. "Since 1970 we have reduced

animal populations by 30%, the area of mangroves and sea grasses by 20% and the coverage of living corals by 40%," said Professor Joseph

Alcamo, chief scientist of the United Nations Environment Programme, one of the contributing organisations. "These losses are clearly

unsustainable, since biodiversity makes a key contribution to human well-being and sustainable development."

Impossible to solve bio-d - human consumption is inevitableUN University 11(Ongoing global biodiversity loss and the need to move beyond protected areas: a review of the technical and practical shortcomings of protected areas on land and sea, Science Daily, 7/29/11, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110728123059.htm)

Humanity's footprint on Earth is ever expanding in efforts to meet basic needs like housing and food. If it did prove possible to place the recommended 30% of world habitats under protection, intense conflicts with competing human interests are inevitable -- many people would be displaced and livelihoods impaired. Forcing a trade-off between human development and sustaining biodiversity is unlikely to lead to a solution with biodiversity preserved. Concludes Dr. Mora: "Given the considerable effort and widespread support for the creation of protected areas over the past 30 years, we were surprised to find so much evidence for their failure to effectively address the global problem of biodiversity loss. Clearly, the biodiversity loss problem has been underestimated and the ability of protected areas to solve this problem overestimated."

Biodiversity loss inevitable – 5 warrants proveBacher 12 (Dan Bacher, Founder & Executive Director at SpeakYourMind Foundation Senior Research and Development Engineer, Laboratory for Restorative Neurotechnology (BrainGate) at Brown University, “UN study says biodiversity loss unstoppable with protected areas alone”, North Coast, http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/07/28/18686337.php //nz)

The study says continuing heavy reliance on the protected areas strategy has five key technical and practical limitations. The first of these limitations is that "protected areas only ameliorate certain human threats." "Biodiversity loss is triggered by a host of human stressors including habitat loss, overexploitation, climate change, pollution and invasive species," according to the study. "Yet protected areas are useful primarily against overexploitation and habitat loss. Since the remaining stressors are just as deleterious, biodiversity can be expected to continue declining as it has done until now. The study shows that approximately 83% of protected areas on the sea and 95% of protected areas on land are located in areas with continuing high impact from multiple human stressors." This conclusion by the scientists echoes one of the

key criticisms of California's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative - the "marine protected areas" created by this widely-contested process don't comprehensively protect the ocean from the main threats to the ocean and marine life in California. These threats include massive water diversions out of the Bay-Delta Estuary, water pollution, oil spills and drilling, wave and wind energy projects, military testing, habitat destruction and all other human impacts other than sustainable fishing and gathering. Ironically, even before the imposition of these largely redundant ocean closures that are now being contested by coalition of fishing organizations in court, California marine and anadromous fisheries had the strictest recreational and commercial fishing regulations on the entire planet. MLPA advocates refuse to acknowledge the existence of one of the largest marine protected areas in the world, the Rockfish Conservation Area, that encompass the entire continental

shelf of California from the Oregon border to the Mexican border! A second limitation cited in the study is "underfunding." "Global expenditures on protected areas today are estimated at US $6 billion per year and many areas are insufficiently funded for effective management," the assessment notes. "Effectively managing existing protected areas requires an estimated $24 billion per year - four times current expenditure. Despite strong advocacy for protected areas, budget growth has been slow and it seems unlikely that it will be possible to raise funding appropriate for effective management as well as for creation of the additional protected areas as is advocated," according to the report. Again, the assessment echoes the criticism by fishermen and grassroots environmentalists that there is not sufficient funding for enforcement of new marine protected areas (MPAs) under the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. The game wardens refer to these new MPAs as "marine poaching areas," since they will only spread a force of wardens already unable to effectively monitor existing reserves even thinner. In fact, Jerry Karnow, the president of the California Fish and Game Wardens Association, has repeatedly asked the California Fish and Game

Commission to not create new marine protected areas unless sufficient funding is provided to hire new wardens. The three other limitations pinpointed by the scientists are: • the expected growth in protected area coverage is too slow • the size and connectivity of protected areas are inadequate • conflicts with human development.

Lots of alt-causes and any risk of an internal link is useless – species extinction inevitable- consensusKrauss et al 10 (Jochen Krauss, Riccardo Bommarco, Moisès Guardiola, Risto K Heikkinen, Aveliina Helm, Mikko Kuussaari, Regina Lindborg, Erik Öckinger, Meelis Pärtel, Joan Pino, Juha Pöyry, Katja M Raatikainen, Anu Sang, Constantí Stefanescu, Tiit Teder, Martin Zobel, Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter, all write for the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, “Habitat fragmentation causes immediate and time-delayed biodiversity loss at different trophic levels,” PubMed Central, May 2010, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871172 //nz)

Loss of biodiversity is a worldwide concern. One primary cause of species loss is habitat destruction and fragmentation (Tilman et al. 2001), but the rate of extinctions might be accelerated due to other causes such as invasion by alien species, overexploitation, climate change, habitat deterioration and extinction cascades (Diamond 1989; Thomas et al. 2004a; Brook et al. 2008; Dunn et al. 2009). Extinction processes often occur with a time delay and populations living close to their extinction threshold might survive for long time periods before they go extinct (Brooks et al. 1999; Hanski & Ovaskainen 2002; Lindborg & Eriksson 2004; Helm et al. 2006; Vellend et al. 2006).

This time delay in extinction is called the ‘relaxation time’ (Diamond 1972) and the phenomenon that declining populations will eventually go extinct in fragmented or degraded habitats has been described as an ‘extinction debt’ (Tilman et al. 1994;

Kuussaari et al. 2009). In present-day fragmented and perturbed landscapes, populations of many species might be on a deterministic path to extinction even without any further habitat loss occurring. However,

our understanding of the occurrence and ubiquity of extinction debts across ecosystems and taxonomic groups is highly incomplete and neither temporal nor spatial scales at which extinction debts occur are well known (Cousins 2009; Kuussaari et al. 2009). Regional studies have focused on a single taxonomic group

(vascular plants or vertebrates) and their results have been contradictory, with some studies reporting evidence for the

existence of an extinction debt (Brooks et al. 1999; Lindborg & Eriksson 2004; Helm et al. 2006), but others not (Adriaens et al. 2006). Further, little is known about the relevance of species traits such as longevity, resource specialistation or trophic rank in the context of delayed colonizations and extinctions as a result of environmental change (Menendez et al. 2006; Kuussaari et al. 2009; Jackson & Sax 2010).

Biodiveristy is declining and has been ever since the 30’s , deforestation which is the main cause of decline isn’t even causing problemsBailey, 00, award-winning science correspondent for Reason magazine, testified before Congress, author of numerous books, member of the Society of Environmental Journalists and the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (Ronald, “Earth Day, Then and Now The planet's future has never looked better. Here's why.”, http://reason.com/archives/2000/05/01/earth-day-then-and-now/4)

Worries about declining biodiversity have become popular lately. On the first Earth Day, participants were concerned about saving a few particularly charismatic species such as the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon. But even then some foresaw a coming holocaust. As Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look, "Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Writing just five years after the first Earth Day, Paul Ehrlich and his biologist wife, Anne Ehrlich, predicted that "since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in

most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it." There's only one problem: Most species that were alive in 1970 are still around today. "Documented animal extinctions peaked in the 1930s, and the number of extinctions has been declining since then," according to Stephen Edwards, an ecologist with the World Conservation Union, a leading international conservation organization whose members are non-

governmental organizations, international agencies, and national conservation agencies. Edwards notes that a 1994 World Conservation Union report found known extinctions since 1600 encompassed 258 animal species, 368 insect species, and 384 vascular plants. Most of these species, he explains, were "island endemics" like the Dodo. As a result, they are

particularly vulnerable to habitat disruption, hunting, and competition from invading species. Since 1973, only seven species have gone extinct in the United States. What mostly accounts for relatively low rates of extinction? As with many

other green indicators, wealth leads the way by both creating a market for environmental values and delivering resource-efficient technology. Consider, for example, that one of the main causes of extinction is deforestation and the ensuing loss of habitat. According to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, what drives most tropical deforestation is not commercial logging, but "poor farmers who have no other option for feeding their families than slashing and burning a patch of forest." By contrast, countries that practice high yield, chemically assisted agriculture have expanding forests. In 1920, U.S. forests covered 732 million acres. Today they cover 737 million acres, even though the number of Americans grew from 106 million in 1920 to 272 million now. Forests in Europe expanded even more dramatically, from 361 million acres to 482 million acres between 1950 and 1990.

Despite continuing deforestation in tropical countries, Roger Sedjo, a senior fellow at the think tank Resources for the Future, notes

that "76 percent of the tropical rain forest zone is still covered with forest." Which is quite a far cry from being nine-

tenths gone. More good news: In its State of the World's Forests 1999, the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization documents that while forests in developing countries were reduced by 9.1 percent between 1980 and 1995, the global rate of deforestation is now slowing.

Environmental destruction an exploitation is inevitable Boulter 02 (Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man, p 180)

As long as evolutionary biology is dominated by highly objective perfectionists, most attention will be directed to the new methods of storing and communicating the huge amount of data for molecular biology. This is the new industry analysing the information in DNA sequence databases. Big money will continue to be spent on making more and more of this computerised information, in the hope that

mankind will be saved with more accurate medical provision and by cheaper food. Meanwhile, the darker sides of human behaviour that led to so many extinctions of other mammals just a few thousand

years ago go unheeded. The evolutionary psychologists are well set along the objective approach and reject any suggestion that the whole Earth and life system may be in control, not just one part of it. But that most threatening of all human characteristics, selfishness, rises time and again as the fundamental explanation of what we have been doing to the environment since the Industrial Revolution. The

sociobiologists however talk a lot about an opposite, altruism, which some believe to be a feature that can be monitored to show evolutionary changes. They think that humans succeed because we help our fellow men. I do not share their optimism, for these wise forecasts about group behaviour ignore my sense of what the evidence is saying, that we are only really interested in ourselves and our close family. We will continue to burn natural gas to keep us warm, kerosene to fly us away for a holiday, and once there we will pump water to a swimming pool in the desert.

Collapse of the environment is inevitable Boulter 02 (Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man, p 182)

But if human behaviour cannot evolve, the response to fast changes in the environment will be very different. There will be no reprieve, no stopping the progress of mass extinction, and man surely will be a victim within that. Our most damaging behaviour is selfishness and aggression, and unless they can change rapidly there is no hope for the ecological destruction to be halted. Our power to do damage has grown to make our aggression terminal, not just dangerous. If the Earth-life system really is in control of itself, perhaps there is nothing that we or anyone else can do to slow our abuse of the environment. On the other hand, could it be that the system itself will see to it that the abuse stops? The damage we do to the environment causes many species to have difficulty fulfilling their own peculiar requirements for living. This means the resulting extinctions have happened much faster than is predicted by our spindle-shaped model. Just as happened with the decline in dinosaur Families 65 million years ago, so now, Families of large mammals are becoming extinct at a very fast rate. This is instead of the slowly protracted fall in their diversity which was shown by our curve of changing mammal Families in figure 5.5.

Extinction Good

Mass extinctions are good – the system survives while simplifying the ecosystemScully 2002

(Malcolm, Editor at Large of the Chronicle, The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 5, http://chronicle.com/article/In-the-Long-Run-or-Maybe/10663/

His analyses of earlier extinctions lead him to conclude that nature is a self-organized system that, when disrupted, will correct itself. One way it does so, he writes, is through extinction. Species vanish, but the system survives. Citing Per Bak, a physicist now at the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine in London, who first described self-organized systems in 1987, Boulter says that the best way to understand such systems is to envision a sand pile to which a steady stream of grains is added. The stream creates a cone that grows larger and steeper, and at some point collapses in an avalanche. Then the process starts

again. In such systems, there are long periods of relative calm and infrequent large disruptions. "If biological evolution really is a self-organized Earth-life system, there are some very important consequences," he says. "One is that life on this planet continues despite internal and external setbacks, because it is the system that recovers at the expense of some of its former parts. For example, the end of the dinosaurs enabled mammals to diversify. Otherwise if the exponential rise were to reach infinity, there would not be space or food to sustain life. It would come to a stop. Extinctions are necessary to retain life on this planet." His research provides "more evidence to support the idea that evolution thrives on culling," he says. "The planet did really well from the Big Five mass-extinction events. The victims' demise enabled new environments to develop and more diversification took place in other groups of animals and plants. Nature was the richer for it. In just this same way the planet can take advantage from the abuse we are giving it. The harder the abuse, the greater the change to the environment. But it also follows that it brings forward the extinctions of a whole selection of vulnerable organisms."

Species loss is key to long-term evolutionary changeBoulter 2002

(Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man, p. 170)

The same trend of long-drawn-out survival of the final relicts has been further considered by Bob May’s group at Oxford, particularly Sean Nee. The Oxford group are vociferous wailers of gloom and doom: ‘Extinction episodes, such as the anthropogenic one currently under way, result in a pruned tree of life.’ But they go on to argue that the vast majority of groups survive this pruning, so that evolution goes on, albeit along a different path if the environment is changed. Indeed, the fossil record has taught us to expect a vigorous evolutionary response when the ecosystem changes significantly. This kind of research is more evidence to support the idea that evolution thrives on culling. The planet did really well from the Big Five mass-extinction events. The victims’ demise enabled new environments to develop and more diversification took place in other groups of animals and plants. Nature was the richer for it. In just the same way the planet can take advantage from the abuse we are giving it. The harder the abuse, the greater the change to the environment. But it also follows that it brings forward the extinctions of a whole selection of vulnerable organisms.

This prevents total extinction of life on earthBoulter 2002

(Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man, p. 67)

If biological evolution really is a self-organised Earth-life system there are some very important consequences. One is that life on this planet continues despite internal and external setbacks, because it is the system that recovers at the expense of some of its former parts. For example, the end of the dinosaurs enabled mammals to diversify. Otherwise if the exponential rise were to reach infinity, there would not be space or food to sustain life. It would come to a stop. Extinctions are necessary to retain life on this planet.

Environmental collapse and mass extinction is good – ecosystems inevitably stabilize over the long-termBoulter 02 (Michael, professor of paleobiology at the University of East London, Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man, p 170)

This kind of research is more evidence to support the idea that evolution thrives on culling. The planet did really well from the Big Five mass-extinction events. The victims’ demise enabled new environments to develop and more diversification took place in other groups of animals and plants. Nature was the richer for it. In just this same way the planet can take advantage from the abuse we are giving it. The harder the abuse, the greater the change to the environment. But it also follows that it brings forward the extinctions of a whole selection of vulnerable organisms. If humans were to fall into this vulnerable category, we too would become extinct. The effect of this would be that the abuse would stop being inflicted and peace and quiet would return. It would take several thousands of years for this to happen, and even longer for many different new ecosystems to reach a steady state of climax. Meanwhile, of course, evolution would set to work and increase the diversity of the newly selected forms, without the threat of humans and all the other species that our extinction event killed off.

BioD => Ecosystem CollapseBio-d cause ecological collapse - simple systems are better

Heath 99 - (Jim, “WHY SAVE ORCHIDS UNDER THREAT?” Australian Orchid Council, Inc., 1999, http://www.orchidsaustralia.com/whysave.htm)Some people say we can’t afford to lose any species, no matter what species they are. Everything needs everything else, they say, to make nature balance. If that were right, it might explain why the six orchid species should be saved. Alas, no. We could pour weedkiller on all the orchids in Australia and do no ecological damage to

the rest of the continent’s biology. But wouldn’t the natural ecological systems then become less stable, if we start plucking out species - even those orchids? Not necessarily. Natural biological systems are hardly ever stable and balanced anyway. Everything goes along steadily for a time, then boom - the system falls apart and simplifies for no visible reason. Diverse systems are usually more unstable than the less diverse ones. Biologists agree that in some places less diversity is more stable (in the

Arctic, for example). Also, monocultures - farms - can be very stable. Not to mention the timeless grass of a salt marsh. In other words, there’s no biological law that says we have to save the orchids because they add diversity, and that added diversity makes the biological world more stable.

Best data concludes less diverse ecosystems are most resilient, your authors mistake productivity for resilience Naeem, 02, Director of Science at Center for Environmental Research and Conservation (CERC) and Professor and Chair of Columbia University Department of Ecology (Shahid, “Biodiversity: Biodiversity equals instability?,”Evolution and Environmental Biology, 07 March 2002, Nature Magazine)

Chief among the 'begets-stability' theories is the insurance hypothesis — the impeccably logical notion that having a variety of species insures an ecosystem against a range of environmental upsets. For example, suppose an ecosystem faces a drought, then a flood, which in turn is

followed by a fire. According to the insurance hypothesis, if that ecosystem is diverse — if it has some species that can

tolerate drought, some that are flood-resistant and some that are fire-tolerant — then two scenarios are likely. The ecosystem may show resistance, remaining broadly unchanged, because its many species buffer it against damage. Or it may show resilience: if it does get hammered, it may bounce back to its original state quickly because the tolerant species ultimately drive the

recovery process and compensate for the temporary loss of their less hardy compatriots. But Pfisterer and Schmid3 found that, when challenged with an experimentally induced drought, species-poor communities were both more resistant and more resilient (as reflected by their ability to sustain and recover pre-drought biomass production) than plots of higher

diversity. The higher-diversity plots were originally more productive, but their resistance and resilience — that is, their stability — was low (Fig. 1). This is the opposite of what the insurance hypothesis predicts. It also contrasts with what combinatorial 'microcosm' experiments have found5, 6 and what theoretical models of biodiversity have claimed4. Pfisterer and Schmid's findings3 appear to support those who claim that diversity does not lead to stability. But there's a twist, and those on each side of the debate run the risk of having their own pet theories turned against them. Pfisterer and Schmid suggest that the observed inverse association between diversity and stability is due to a theoretical mechanism known as niche complementarity. This mechanism, however, is the very same as that touted as the chief cause of the positive biodiversity–productivity relationships found in other combinatorial biodiversity experiments, such as those at Cedar Creek7 and those run by the BIODEPTH consortium8. The central idea of niche complementarity is that a community of species whose niches complement one another is more efficient in its use of resources than an equivalent set of monocultures. For example, a uniform mixture of early- and late-season plants and shallow- and deep-rooting plants that are spread over 4 m2 will yield more biomass than combined 1-m2 monocultures of each species7, 9. So niche complementarity can explain why higher diversity tends to lead to higher productivity, and has also been adopted by those in the 'diversity leads to stability' camp because one would expect that more efficient communities would fare

better in the face of stress. Those on the other side, however, feel that existing data better support a mechanism known as sampling, where diverse communities produce more biomass simply because they are more likely to contain productive species10, 11. In other words, we can't read too much into experiments in which higher diversity leads to greater

productivity. What Pfisterer and Schmid suggest is that complementarity among species in a diverse plot could be its downfall when faced with perturbation. Niche complementarity is disrupted and so the whole

community suffers. But this is not a problem for less diverse plots. So those in the 'diversity begets stability' camp risk being hoist on the petard of their own theory of niche complementarity. Meanwhile, although Pfisterer and Schmid's findings support the idea that diversity does not lead to stability, the authors reject a large role for sampling — the theory generally favoured by the camp that disagrees with the idea that biodiversity leads to stability.

Ocean Acidification Turn

Reject their flawed models – their impact is empirically deniedCaruba 10 (Alan, “The Next Big Hoax: Ocean Acidification,” Warning Signs, 1/12/10, http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/01/next-big-hoax-ocean-acidification.html)

An article in Science Daily reported that “The scientists note that ocean acidification is already detectable and is accelerating.” What these scientists are more interested in detecting is where the next wasted billions in government and foundation grants can be found. The oceans of the world comprise some 70% of the Earth’s surface. They are like the lungs of the

Earth, absorbing and releasing carbon dioxide. They have been doing this for billions of years and a rise in the amount of CO2 is essentially meaningless. “It is well established among researchers that the uptake of increased amounts of carbon dioxide will make ocean water more acidic as the gas dissolves to create carbonic acid,” said the Science Daily article and, to scare you just a bit more, “Ocean chemistry is changing 100 times more rapidly than in the 650,000 years that preceded the modern industrial era…” The global warming fraud was based on the assertion that, as the Earth encountered greater industrialization, the increased use of oil, natural gas,

and coal as sources of energy, the CO2 released was “causing” the Earth to warm exponentially. The only problem with that “theory” is that it was (1) based on phony computer models and other false interpretations of data, and (2) the latest, perfectly natural climate cycle, is causing havoc around the world by dumping mountains of snow everywhere along with breaking cold temperature records faster than new readings can be taken.

Ocean acid good - increases productivity Gooding et al 9 ( Rebecca, Christopher Harley, and Emily Tang, “Elevated water temperature and carbon dioxide concentration increase the growth of a keystone echinoderm,” 2009, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/05 /25/0811143106.full.pdf+html)

Despite the reduction in relative calcified mass with increased [CO2], the overall effect of [CO2] on growth was positive. The reasons

for the observed increase in growth with elevated [CO2] are somewhat unclear. The ratio of dry soft tissue mass to water mass remained unchanged by temperature or [CO2], suggesting that the change in relative calcified mass must have been caused at least in part by an increase in the rate of wet soft tissue growth. Because we could not measure change in calcified mass over the course of the experiment, it is unclear whether the rate of calcified tissue growth simply remained the same as that of sea stars reared at control [CO2] (thereby failing to keep pace with the increased soft tissue growth) or declined compared to that of control [CO2] sea stars. Experiments specifically testing sea star calcification rates under control and high [CO2] conditions will be necessary to answer this question. Although the unchanged ratio of dry soft tissue mass to water mass demonstrates that the greater growth of sea stars reared at high [CO2] was primarily because of increased wet soft tissue growth, it does not explain the mechanism behind this increase. The nonsignificant trend of increased feeding with increased [CO2] suggests that although feeding rate may be partially responsible for the increase in growth rate, there

are likely additional factors contributing to this change. It is possible that elevated [CO2] increases resource use efficiency; for example, the slightly lower pH of high-CO2 seawater could aid in the digestion of prey tissue, making feeding less energetically costly. Alternatively, low level stressors such as low doses of toxins can elicit positive responses such as increased growth in plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates, a phenomenon referred to as hormesis (26); the stress of reduced pH or carbonate availability may elicit a similar response in sea stars. Identification of the precise mechanism driving the increase in wet soft tissue growth with elevated [CO2] will require further, more physiologically based experiments

Bioprospecting DA

1NC

Unique marine expansion of bioprospecting coming now – Biodiversity collapse eliminates necessary profit motiveSabal 7

Megan Sabal (M.A. Miami Ohio in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, “The Future of Marine Resources as Pharmaceutical Products” May 20, 2007 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CMOhsrVoJxIJ:jrscience.wcp.miamioh.edu/fieldcourses07/PapersMarineEcologyArticles/TheFutureofMarineResource.html+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Coral Reefs have long been considered the rainforests of the oceans. This is a reference to the extensive biodiversity which is found in both of these unique ecosystems. The high level of primary productivity, due largely in part to the intense solar radiation in the tropics, accounts for the variety of organisms found in these areas. Although the high biodiversity in rainforests is generally known, the general public is unaware of the extensive plethora of organisms on coral reefs. Part of this is because humans are land-dwelling organisms and tend to invest more time and energy into terrestrial research and conservation methods. This is unfortunate as marine organisms have greater pylogenetic diversity than terrestrial organisms whose unique characteristics are lost through this selective research. Some classes of organisms found only in marine environments are corals, tunicates, mollusks, bryozoans, sponges and echinoderms (Bruckner). A recent value of biodiversity has been the resources for chemicals which could be utilized in pharmaceutical products. With the great biodiversity and unique adaptations of marine organisms, “The prospect of finding a new drug in the sea, especially among coral reef species, may be 300 to 400 times more likely than isolating one from a terrestrial ecosystem” (Bruckner). Despite the great potential, marine bioprospecting has lagged behind terrestrial efforts because harvesting these compounds is more difficult, more dangerous and more expensive (Tangley). In order to take advantage of the potential medicinal benefits to be found in marine organisms, cooperation among researchers, companies and indigenous people must be obtained. Further technological advancements in harvesting methods which are more cost-effective and ecologically sustainable must also be developed (Allison). Although the potential is immense, there are various obstacles which researchers need to overcome in order to utilize these pharmaceutical benefits. Accounting for the immense potential for medicinal benefits in marine bioprospecting is due to the unique adaptations of these organisms themselves. Many of marine organisms are sessile and live firmly attached to coral reefs and therefore cannot escape environmental stressors or predation by simply moving to a safer area. Instead they have evolved defense mechanisms which rely on bioactive compounds to deter predation, fight disease and prevent overgrowth by competing organisms (Bruckner). Chemicals with these unique properties have a high potential to yield medicines which could end up saving lives. One problem with utilizing these chemicals economically is that they are usually produced in minute amounts and only under specific stressors. In terrestrial environments many of these chemical-producing mechanisms are unnecessary for organisms and this is why bioprospecting in marine environments holds such untapped potential. The search for pharmaceutical products from coral reef ecosystems has been in existence for many years, although it has not been widespread. Part of this is due to the obstacles presented through various harvesting methods as they are typically very expensive and yield a small amount of the desired

chemical. Compounds will enter the drug market only if a cost-effective source of large-scale supply is available (Mendola). With this pressure there are a variety of harvesting methods in order to reach the highest efficiency and output. One method is chemical synthesis which includes chemically forging the desired chemical compound. In order for this to be economically feasible this process generally must take less than 30 chemical reactions (Mendola). Many companies rely on wild harvest, where the costs include the SCUBA equipment and boat, but an example shows that this process averages only 2 grams of substance per kilogram of sponge which means that 75 tons of sponge would need to be harvested yearly! This method is highly unsustainable and would wreak havoc with coral reef ecosystems over the long term (Mendola). Mariculture which is also known as aquaculture is controlled marine agriculture. These have potential for being an ecologically sustainable harvesting method, although start up costs are high and there is trouble finding suitable areas to start these sponge farms (Mendola). Ex Situ Culture consists of the cultivation of sponges outside of the sea in a laboratory setting. This allows for scientists to control the specific parameters such as water temperature, light, food and nutrients. There have been some small successes of ex situ culture, but no large-scale production has yet been achieved (Mendola). Another possibility is developing a sponge cell culture, but this has not been achieved yet due to complexities with many associated organisms such as bacteria, algae and fungi which live in close proximity with sponges and make up more than 40% of all sponge biomass (Mendola). Genetic modification holds potential, as the genetic code which codes for the specific chemical could be transferred into a laboratory-friendly microorganism which could then turn out the desired compound. Limitations with this method are that many of the bioactive compounds are not single proteins, but products of extensive metabolic pathways which are hard to transfer into a different organism (Mendola). Semi-synthesis is a final method which is comprised of the biotechnological production of an earlier chemical step and then followed by a limited number of synthetic chemical reactions in order to obtain the final product. Of these various harvesting methods mariculture is currently the most feasible, while ex situ culture holds the greatest potential for future bio-production (Mendola). Despite the imposing obstacles in harvesting chemicals for medicinal benefits, there have most certainly been success stories. Algae have been used for cancer therapy, venom from cone snails for painkillers and chemicals from extracts of sponges for antiviral drugs (Bruckner). There are various potential pharmaceuticals, nutritional supplements, enzymes, pesticides, cosmetics and other commercial products all from marine resources. Over the last decade, Japan has been the leader in marine biotechnology investing between $900 million and $1 billion each year. The United States has invested much less into these efforts and even so, “…U.S. marine biotechnology efforts since 1983 have resulted in more than 170 U.S. patents, with close to 100 new compounds patented between 1996 and 1999” (Bruckner). These extensive results encourage marine biotechnology to grow 15-20% during the next 5 years. Most of the funding for this research and development comes from universities, for-profit companies, government agencies and conservation groups. Once a drug is identified, it is patented and licensed to pharmaceutical companies to develop, test and market (Bruckner). Obtaining the economic benefits from marine resources is a lengthy process, but one with significant potential which leaders such as Japan and the U.S. are seeking to utilize. The potential economic profit which could be derived from these pharmaceutical products is immense and many believe will play a key role in the emerging business of ecotourism. Locals will then have a motive to protect the fragile ecosystems of coral reefs. Bruckner states that, “If properly regulated, bioprospecting activities within coral reef environments may fuel viable market-driven incentives to promote increased stewardship for coral reefs and tools to conserve and sustainably use coral reef resources”. Unfortunately, a large, initial financial investment is

needed to start finding drug possibilities and this is followed by a long lapse of time before the drug is finally developed and available to consumers (Bruckner). Many local, indigenous populations do not have this money or time to invest in marine resources yielding economic products. Outside, affluent nations such as the United States, arriving in the waters surrounding these local nations and profiting from the biodiversity present without providing compensation or control of the resources to the locals (Tangley). This imperialist situation is rampant, but healthy relationships between outside companies and local communities do exist such as with the example of SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals. This company is one of the largest players in bioprospecting world wide and they gather their products in South Africa and Fiji. In exchange for the permission to gather chemicals from these countries surrounding areas, SmithKline provides equipment, training and certification in advanced technical diving to local scientists who can then use them on their own products. They also provide the means for scholarships for local students who are developing marine natural products (Tangley). These wealthier nations have the potential to provide a new economic means and bring new technology and knowledge to poorer areas. The reason this does not occur everywhere is that the situation concerning sovereignty over marine resources is vastly complicated. Marine resources are generally considered common property resources which indicate that no one stakeholder hold exclusive rights to the area (Carter). This leads to a vast amount of competition and confusion over marine resources such as, oil wells, fisheries and the great diversity on coral reefs. There are vague boundaries which a centralized management has devised. Internal waters such as bays, estuaries and rivers are under the jurisdiction of the costal nation as well as the territorial sea which is the open ocean adjacent to the coast. Then extends an exclusive economic zone where special uses such as mining, fishing and dumping is allowed only for the coastal nation, but other nations may engage in non-destructive uses. Finally, waters outside theses designated areas are in the high seas and open to anyone (Cutter). Definitive boundaries are lacking in marine environments and there are many discrepancies and violations of these policies. These also allow for wealthier nations to come and utilize the marine resources found on coral reefs without consent of the locals (Honey). In 1993 the Convention on Biological Diversity created an agreement between industrialized and developing countries to start implementing guidelines over the access to coastal marine resources (Tangley). The aspects considered include conservation of biodiversity, sustainability and fair sharing of benefits with the source country (Bruckner). These are important steps in setting up a system which allows for marine bioprospecting to be beneficial to all countries involved. Coral reefs are amazing ecosystems that harbor drastic amounts of unique organisms. Many of these life forms have qualities which make them excrete bioactive compounds which can be harvested and utilized in various pharmaceutical products. Coral reefs are currently under many stressors and are dying across the earth. One possible method for the conservation of these magnificent ecosystems it through the knowledge of how many life-saving products could be derived from these areas. More technological advancements with harvesting methods need to be developed in order to make this economically profitable while avoiding destruction to the reef itself. Then more international policies need to be created and enforced between industrialized nations and local communities so that marine bioprospecting can serve as a positive example of ecotourism. Coral reefs are brimming with potential medicinal benefits if only a system can be created soon to preserve these wonderful marine ecosystems.

Bio-prospecting collapses the Antarctic Treaty SystemStephen Leahy (freelance environmental journalist) 2004 “Bio-Pirates of the Antarctic” http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/9128

Antarctic bio-prospectors are acting like bio-pirates, plundering the continent's biological treasures before global measures to control its biodiversity can be put in place, experts warn in a United Nations University report released Monday. "Bio-piracy is happening. But the piracy isn't illegal because they're not stealing it from anyone, since no one owns it," says Sam Johnston of the U.N. University's Institute of Advanced Studies. Gaps in the existing Antarctic Treaty System now allow organisms to be taken, patented and commercialised, report co-author Johnston told IPS. The Antarctic Treaty was established in 1961 to protect the continent from uncontrolled commercial exploitation from activities such as mining, militarisation or direct ownership by countries. Thirty-nine nations, representing over 80 per cent of the world's population, are signatories, including the United Kingdom, United States and Russia. A number of other treaties now comprise the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). While commercial activities like mining and tourism are banned or carefully regulated, there is nothing to stop "bio-prospecting" for potentially lucrative organisms. Scientific expeditions to collect organisms are strictly regulated under the ATS, which includes strong measures to protect the delicate Antarctic ecosystem. And there is a long tradition of cooperation between scientists, which includes making all research public. The Antarctic is unique in the world in that it is not owned by any country, Johnston observes. "It's like the moon and Mars." ''Patents and commercialisation could change all that," he warns. "Profit-making is completely alien to the ATS," says Josh Stevens, of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC), a group made up of nearly 230 NGOs from 49 countries that have flagged a trend towards increased commercialisation of science and other activities in the region. "Bio-prospecting could bring down the whole house of cards," Stevens told IPS. The region contains many unique species of "extremophiles", creatures adapted to the extreme conditions there, says the U.N. University's report, 'The International Regime For Bio-prospecting: Existing Policies And Emerging Issues For Antarctica'. Biotechnology companies in particular are scouring the area in hopes of finding organisms that will be the basis for new drugs, industrial compounds and other commercial applications, it says. Already, some 92 patents referring to Antarctic organisms or to molecules extracted from them have been filed in the United States, and a further 62 in Europe. Enzymes extracted from extremophiles in other regions have become multi-million-dollar products in laundry detergents. Another enzyme is the basis of the 300-million-dollar medical diagnosis and forensics industry. The market for biotechnology enzymes derived from extremophiles is forecast to grow 15¡20 percent a year, growth that is part of a larger trend, says the report. Annual sales derived from traditional knowledge using genetic resources are three billion dollars for the cosmetic and personal care industry, 20 billion dollars for the botanical medicine sector and 75 billion dollars for the pharmaceutical industry. Sixty¡two per cent of cancer drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are of natural origin or modelled on natural products, adds the report. For those reasons, companies are buying or purchasing licences to complete collections of biological materials from various past Antarctic expeditions.. And because research in the coldest, harshest region on the planet is extremely expensive, pharmaceutical companies find many scientists and institutions willing to sign over commercial licensing rights in exchange for funding. A contract signed in 1995 between the University of Tasmania and Amrad Natural Products, an Australian company, gives Amrad the right to analyse Antarctic microbes to see if they could be used to develop new antibiotics or other pharmaceutical products. European food giant Unilever has patented a protein

taken from bacteria found in Antarctic lake sediments that could stop ice crystals building up in ice cream. Should that protein become a billion-dollar product, it would create a nightmare scenario for the treaty system, says Stevens. "There's no way the ATS could withstand a commercial onslaught."

Collapse of ATS leads global nuclear warPrakash Shah (secretary at the Indian ministry of external affairs) 1991 “The Antarctic Treaty System in World Politics” p. 429

While the context in which Antarctica is now considered by the international community has changed drastically since 1959, and despite metamorphosis in world polity, the Antarctic Treaty System remains both valid and relevant and there are no viable alternatives to it. Any upheaval in the Treaty System will open up the continent to military and nuclear rivalries, scramble for territorial occupation based on overlapping claims, ruthless exploitation and possible colonization . As Dr. Falk so ably argues in his paper, there are no viable alternatives to ATS. And yet, the ATS could come under strain as the major challenge with respect to Antarctica today is that, while incorporating the distant prospect of resource utilization and immediate need for preservation on its environment, it should be able to ensure the continuance of the system of cooperation envisaged in the Treaty without disturbing its pristine environment

Uniqueness/BrinkCompanies want to go into the ocean for bioprospecting but there are limitations that make its economics keyNelson 12 RJ Dunlap Marine conservation program intern

Emily rose “Drugs from the deep: Ocean bioprospecting” University of Miami Journal http://rjd.miami.edu/conservation/drugs-from-the-deep-ocean-bioprospecting

It is clear that the ocean has enormous medicinal potential. Unfortunately there are a number of obstacles preventing this potential to be reached in full. One of the biggest problems is simply the lack of supply. Underwater compounds are more difficult to reach than those on land. SCUBA and submersibles make it easier to access these resources, however, oceanographic expeditions are quite expensive. Also, in order to use these compounds effectively collections need to be done in very large quantities. Large scale harvests are often deemed ecologically unsound. Because collection is almost always not an option alternatives such as aquaculture and chemical synthesis can be used. Aquaculture has been completed successfully, however it is difficult because little is known about the invertebrates. Chemical synthesis is thought to be the ideal solution, giving pharmaceutical companies ultimate control. However, this process is extremely costly, complex, and has a very low yield. Another complication deals with political boundaries. The most diverse regions are located in areas of developing countries. These are precisely the areas that the more developed nations wish to explore. Developing nations are often nervous about being used, and thus hesitant to allow exploration. National and international regulations regarding access and extraction of natural resources are then discussed. This presents difficulty when placing value on a natural resource, including any value added to the resource through its use as a pharmaceutical and the value it has initially in the ecosystem.

Bioprospecting in the ocean will increase – biodiversity is keyLeal et al 12 Department of Biology and CESAM, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal, Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, Savannah, Georgia, United States of America peer-reviewed, open-access resource from the PUBLIC LIBRARY OF SCIENCE. Reports of well-performed scientific studies “Trends in the Discovery of New Marine Natural Products from Invertebrates over the Last Two Decades – Where and What Are We Bioprospecting?”

Miguel Costa Leal João Puga, João Serôdio, Newton C. M. Gomes, Ricardo Calado January 20, 2012 RESEARCH ARTICLE http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0030580

Oceans, due to the area they represent and the ecosystem services they provide, are fundamental to our planet. They also harbour a huge biodiversity of life. Of all animal phyla described so far, only phylum Onychophora is not recorded in marine waters, while 15 phyla occur exclusively in the world's oceans [1]. Invertebrates comprise approximately 60% of all marine animal diversity [2]. Most of them belong to phyla Annelida, Arthropoda, Bryozoa, Cnidaria, Echinodermata, Mollusca, Platyhelminthes, Porifera and sub-phylum Tunicata. Although tunicates belong to phylum Chordata, several studies addressing marine invertebrates also include this group of organisms [3], [4]. Many marine invertebrates are sessile and soft bodied, and therefore must rely on chemical defences (also known as natural products), which arose through their evolutionary history to deter predators, to keep competitors away or to paralyze prey [5] , [6] . The abundance and diversity of natural products (NP) having biological

activity leads to an opportunity for the discovery of drugs [6]. Despite its relatively recent advent [7], [8], the bioprospecting of new marine natural products (NMNP) has already yielded several thousand novel molecules. Moreover, given that the ocean's biodiversity is higher than that recorded on land, it is expected that the discovery of NMNP will increase in the years to come, providing new and improved therapeutics for human illnesses, along with other innovative products for other industrial activities (e.g. nutraceutics and biotechnology) [9]–[11]. In order to survey chemical diversity in an efficient and effective way, one is required to employ optimized sampling strategies. Three different sampling strategies are commonly used [12]: (i) exploring untapped geographical sources; (ii) exploring new groups of marine organisms; or (iii) combining both of these sampling strategies. Geographical selection of collection sites is a highly relevant aspect in bioprospecting efforts, as it is the first step for discovering NMNP [6] . In addition, collection sites must be carefully chosen, in order to offer a combination of high biological diversity and density, such that it maximizes the number of different species being sampled and avoid adverse impacts to the collection site. Impact assessment of the sampling site is also a major concern that is essential when monitoring chemical diversity, as the loss of biodiversity through over-exploitation and habitat degradation are currently primary issues in marine conservation [13]. To our knowledge, the geographical sources of NMNP have not been thoroughly analysed and no trends for collections based upon geographical data have been published. Worldwide marine regions can be organized by political borders (Economic Exclusive Zones - EEZ), ecological criteria (e.g. Large Marine Ecosystems - LME) and/or biodiversity (Biodiversity Hotspots - BH). EEZ are areas over which a state has jurisdiction concerning the exploration and use of its marine resources [14]. LME are near shore regions characterized by similar depth, hydrography, productivity, and trophically dependent populations [15]. LME attempts to map distinct ecological communities similar to those carried out for terrestrial ecosystems [16] . LME were conceived as units for the practical application of transboundary management issues [17] . BH are areas featuring incomparable concentrations of endemic species, which are currently experiencing exceptional loss of habitat [18]. BH boundaries are determined by “biological commonalities”, i.e., each BH features separate biota or communities of species that fit together as a biogeographic unit. Most available reviews addressing the discovery of NMNP have ignored detailed geographic information and have only briefly focused on the taxonomic position of source organisms [19]–[23]. The majority of these reviews do not consider taxonomical levels lower than phylum and mainly analyse the number of NMNP and their chemical properties.

Timeframe issue- patent expiration coming, pressure to discover moreKPMG 11 (KPMG is a global network of professional firms providing high quality services in the fields of audit, tax and advisory. We work for a wide range of clients, both national and international organizations. In the complexity of today's global landscape our clients are demanding more help in solving complex issues, better integration and collaboration across disciplines and faster returns on their investments through value-added partnerships, “Biodiversity and ecosystem services: Risk and Opportunity analysis within the pharmaceutical industry”, May 2011, Natural Value Initiative, pg. 15 //nz)

Market: Many drugs are reaching the end of their patents, leading to increasing pressure to discover new drugs. Companies that fail to adequately manage stakeholder relations, observe the rights of local

communities or abide by national regulations and best practice guidance on access and benefit sharing may risk losing access to patents. This has implications for future revenues and for brand value.

Bioprospecting Links

Companies are deterred by a lack of certainty about access – the process is prohibitively expensive without assurances of profitability and biodiversityRedOrbit 2005

(RedOrbit, International news organization, June 8, 2005 “U.N.: Ocean ‘Bioprospecting’ Needs Rules” http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/154680/un_ocean_bioprospecting_needs_rules/ )

But the report said unfettered access could threaten the fragile habitats. And companies — which might find a cure for AIDS or cancer in the depths — were deterred from investing by a lack of clarity about access or ownership. The report says 32 of the 34 broadest categories of animals — from vertebrates like humans to molluscs or arthropods — live in the seas. Up to 1,000 different species had been found per square meter in some Pacific or Indian Ocean waters. “It’s very difficult to quantify how many deep seabed organisms are now used in commercial products,” said Charlotte Salpin, a lead author of the UNU report. But she said, for instance, French company Sederma or U.S. group California Tan used enzymes from a heat-loving deep sea bacteria called ‘thermus thermophilus’ in suntan creams. “So far very, very few private companies have the funds to carry out research themselves in the deep sea bed,” she said. Every trip to the ocean bed costs about $1 million, according to a Japanese government agency.\

Marine bio-prospecting gold rush inevitable – uncertainty over biodiversity access chills investment and deters researchMorelle 2014

(Rebecca Morelle, Science correspondent, BBC News May 8, 2014 “Ocean medicine hunt: A Wild West beneath the waves?” http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27295159 )

The oceans cover more than two thirds of Earth's surface, yet we've only dipped our toes in the water when it comes to our understanding of this vast expanse - just 5% has so far been explored.

And it's this untapped potential that is sparking a medical gold rush. Investment in this area is growing steadily. In the next phase of the European Union's research budget, 145m euros is heading for the seas. Dr John Day, a marine scientist from Sams, says much of what is "findable" on land has already been found. But he adds: "Historically (the ocean) isn't a place that people have looked, so they haven't exploited it. "In addition there's a whole raft of new technologies allowing one to screen more methodically and more scientifically and produce more useful data that can point you towards a final product. "And of course a political will - we're looking to how can we exploit other parts of the planet to produce new industries and technologies." But a lack of clarity over legislation could prove a setback for this burgeoning area of research. Within 200 nautical miles of a country's coastline is the Economic Exclusion Zone (EEZ). In these territorial waters, there are clearly defined laws about how the sea can be exploited. And if a country has signed up to the Nagoya Protocol, an update to the UN's Convention on Biological Diversity, they have an additional responsibility to ensure that any exploitation in their waters is fair and sustainable. But beyond that boundary are the high seas: the stretch of international ocean that nobody owns. And this area is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

This regulates activities such as mineral exploitation, but it doesn't cover so-called ocean bioprospecting. The hoff The deep sea is especially rich in life - this crab, nicknamed 'The Hoff', was found more than 2,000m down Dr Day explains: "In open waters, this is a very grey and murky area as far as I'm concerned. "At present, as far as I'm aware, there are very few laws that would cover exploitation of that material. "The Law of the Sea focuses on what is on the ocean floor or beneath it, and it also specifies non-mobile organisms - and there doesn't seem to be definitive legislation with regards to what is in the water column." This is a concern, because this Wild West of the seas is home to an extraordinary range of creatures and plants. Simply to survive, they have to adapt to extremes of temperature, pressure and darkness - and it's this hardiness that makes them so attractive to scientists. Coral reef Without clear legislation fragile ecosystems could be damaged The worry is that, without regulation, fragile habitats could be damaged beyond repair. Environmental damage would be limited, says the co-director of the Seabiotech consortium Prof Linda Harvey from the University of Strathclyde, because most research involves collecting relatively small samples to analyse back at the lab. But she believes the dearth of clear rules could cause other problems. "It's particularly important for companies to have legal clarity when they're working in open waters because they're making a huge investment," she explains. "It will cost money to develop the drug and put it through clinical trials and if they don't have legal certainty they will potentially lose the right to produce that drug and it's not acceptable to them. "And in my opinion that would put companies off investing in taking samples from the deep-sea environment." In Belgium, scientists, UN representatives and conservationists have been meeting to discuss the problem. Prof Marcel Jaspars, from the University of Aberdeen, runs Pharmasea - another EU-funded consortium carrying out research in this area. He says that a new mechanism is needed to make sure any profits from the deep sea are shared. "If you were to discover anything, any royalties would lie in the future," he explains. "The question is how to police that 20 years hence?

Biodiversity collapse makes gene exploitation impossible – it’s the biggest threatWhelan et al 14 Medical College of Wisconsin Bleser Family Endowed Chair in Neurology

Harry, Heather Annis, and Phillip Guajardo “From Land to Sea; Embracing a Renewable Future” http://omicsonline.org/open-access/from-land-to-sea-embracing-a-renewable-future-2155-952X.S6-003.pdf

One of the greatest threats to taking advantage of the sea’s gene potential is loss of biodiversity through our alteration and destruction of ecosystems. 48.6% of the FDA approved drugs over the past 25 years have a natural product in their history, [29] but there is concern because 30 to 50% of the world’s species face extinction by mid-century (Ibid 2004) with extinctions occurring at dozens per day [30]. A similar bounty lies within the ocean. We must not allow destruction to befall the marine world. Threats such as overfishing, dumping of nuclear and other wastes, and destruction of coastal ecosystems imperil the biodiversity of the oceans and the utilization of potential resources. Marine fisheries collapse reached 65% by 2003, and global collapse of all commercially exploited fish populations is expected by 2048 if we do not act to curb the plunder [31]. Tropical reefs shelter as many as one third of all marine species [32] but between a third and two thirds of the coral reefs are damaged or dying, causing extinction of as many as a third of reef species [33]. The coral reefs are unlikely to

survive the 21st century if nothing is done to prevent increasing ocean temperatures, acidification, pollution, sedimentation and direct impact from over fishing (12th International Coral Reef Symposium 2012) [34]. It is vital that we act at the level of governmental and international policy to prevent

irreparable damage to the last frontier even before we have the technology to benefit from the secrets of the deep.

BioD loss coming- creates financial risks for pharmaceutical industryKPMG 11 (KPMG is a global network of professional firms providing high quality services in the fields of audit, tax and advisory. We work for a wide range of clients, both national and international organizations. In the complexity of today's global landscape our clients are demanding more help in solving complex issues, better integration and collaboration across disciplines and faster returns on their investments through value-added partnerships, “Biodiversity and ecosystem services: Risk and Opportunity analysis within the pharmaceutical industry”, May 2011, Natural Value Initiative, pg. 4 //nz)

We are experiencing unprecedented rates of biodiversity loss. Sixty percent of the ecosystem services (such as freshwater, fisheries, pollination and climate regulation) which biodiversity underpins are either degraded or in decline'. Predictions are that this trend will worsen. It is clear that this has severe economic implications, not only for society

but also for business as most industries depend on ecosystem services to function. The pharmaceutical sector is both dependent on and impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services, or BES. Approximately twenty five to fifty percent of the pharmaceutical market is derived from active ingredients from nature2. The sector's dependence on BES stems from the use of active ingredients from nature in drug discovery and manufacture, the use of water and a reliance on inert raw materials such as fish oils, soya and palm oil in drug manufacture. Impacts include water pollution from drug manufacturing and use,

overexploitation of active ingredients from nature that cannot be readily synthesized and the use of inert ingredients linked with environmental degradation. For the pharmaceutical sector, this may pose reputational, operational, regulatory and market risks as well as new opportunities linked to new drug discovery. Pharmaceutical industry investors may also face reputational and financial risks if the companies in which they invest do not adequately manage their own BES risks. Robeco, the Dutch asset manager, undertakes a broad programme of engagement on environmental and social issues that are deemed to pose a risk to their investments. In

2010. Robeco identified S3LS management within the pharmaceutical industry as a potential area of risk and commissioned KPMG Sustainability and the Natural Value Initiative to examine how the pharmaceutical industry is addressing its BES risks. We evaluated ten companies using the Ecosystem Services Benchmark, which was developed by the Natural Value Initiative in conjunction with a range of BES experts and stakeholders and adapted for application to this sector. All companies reviewed have started to consider the business

implications of declining BES. However, none are managing BES in a comprehensive manner. The focus of corporate activity has been on understanding site-level impacts on biodiversity such as risks associated with potential impacts on protected

areas or water consumption and on ensuring adequate controls over the sourcing of active ingredients from nature. Significant sourcing of active ingredients from nature is no longer commonplace in the industry; only two of the companies reviewed were undertaking bioprospecting in any substantial way. Less attention has been paid by the industry to

impacts and dependence on BES throughout the supply chain related io inert materials. The level of risk that this issue poses to the sector is not currently clear, particularly in relation to dependence on BES within the supply chain. A first step in better understanding this risk is for pharmaceutical companies to assess their dependencies and impacts on BES throughout their supply chains, and to disclose their impacts. The companies that are already doing this have identified a number of risks that they are now taking steps to manage.

BioD loss disincentives bioprospectingKPMG 11 (KPMG is a global network of professional firms providing high quality services in the fields of audit, tax and advisory. We work for a wide range of clients, both national and international organizations. In the complexity of today's global landscape our clients are demanding more help in solving complex issues, better integration and collaboration across disciplines and faster returns on their

investments through value-added partnerships, “Biodiversity and ecosystem services: Risk and Opportunity analysis within the pharmaceutical industry”, May 2011, Natural Value Initiative, pg. 15 //nz)

Security of supply and maintenance of operating margins: Despite a trend in outsourcing and downscaling of bioprospecting, sourcing of pharmaceutical ingredients from natural products remains important to some companies. Biodiversity loss places access to new active ingredients under threat. Increasing scarcity of raw materials - both wild and cultivated - as a result of ecosystem services failure or overexploitation may lead to a narrowing of profit margins or disruption to operations through security of supply issues. Failure to ensure ethical labour practices for cultivated goods may also impact on security of supply. This may lead to higher input costs.

Bioprospecting expanding slowly now- small fraction of species exploitedKPMG 11 (KPMG is a global network of professional firms providing high quality services in the fields of audit, tax and advisory. We work for a wide range of clients, both national and international organizations. In the complexity of today's global landscape our clients are demanding more help in solving complex issues, better integration and collaboration across disciplines and faster returns on their investments through value-added partnerships, “Biodiversity and ecosystem services: Risk and Opportunity analysis within the pharmaceutical industry”, May 2011, Natural Value Initiative, pg. 10 //nz)

The most obvious link between the pharmaceutical industry and BES is with the sourcing of active ingredients from nature". It is estimated that only a fraction of the 53,000 species used medicinally worldwide have been used by the pharmaceutical industry in drug discovery'2. Given current species extinction rates, the pharmaceutical industry may well be missing out on new drugs. One estimate suggests the Earth is potentially losing one major drug every two years13. However, trends in sourcing of active ingredients from nature have changed over time, suggesting that the reliance of the industry may be less than it was historically. Though initially pharmaceutical companies ran extensive natural product discovery, or "bioprospecting" programmes, many have shut them down in recent years. This move away from natural product-based research and development is due to concerns about long discovery times compared to synthetic molecules, as well as challenging sourcing logistics. Nonetheless, Pharmaceutical Insight recently identified the search for medically active compounds either by using indigenous knowledge of species or by screening compounds as a key industry trend14, indications are that bioprospecting is expected to grow to a US$ 500 million industry by 2050,5. Active ingredients from natural products cannot always be replicated by modern chemistry. They can also act as pathfinders to new modes of clinical action. For example, the compound paclitaxel (found in Taxus spp. and source of the anti-cancer drug, Taxol) was described as the kind of molecule that no chemist would ever sit down and think of making.

Biodiversity is key to biopiracy – corporations exploit diverse ecosystemsGlobal Exchange (a membership-based international human rights organization dedicated to

promoting social, economic and environmental justice around the world) 2007 “Biopiracy: A New Threat to Indigenous Rights and Culture in Mexico” http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/mexico/biopiracyReport.html

Bioprospecting is the search for biological resources and accompanying indigenous knowledge -- primarily for the purpose of commercial exploitation. As such, while bioprospecting is not inherently contrary to the interests of indigenous peoples or a threat to biodiversity, it facilitates biopiracy. In other words, bioprospecting identifies biological resources and traditional knowledge with commercial potential, while biopiracy appropriates these resources and knowledge (or privatizes them for commercial gain) without obtaining Prior Informed Consent (PIC) or awarding just compensation. 3. Why is biodiversity a strategic resource and how is it being threatened? Biological diversity, or biodiversity, refers to the broad range of life forms found within a given ecosystem and is the backbone of food security and basic health needs. As the source of primary material and active ingredients for many commercial products -- foods, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, biotechnology, veterinary science, seeds and agrochemicals -- it is now recognized as a highly strategic resource with commercial potential comparable to that of petroleum or uranium. This strategic importance of biodiversity is compounded by the largely untapped potential of the emerging genetic engineering sector. In conjunction with advances in modern technology and the exploitation of traditional knowledge, biodiversity has the market potential to be extraordinarily lucrative. In fact, commerce involving biological products and processes now accounts for almost half of the world economy, with profits concentrated in the emerging "life science" industry (food, pharmaceutical and agricultural production.) The following market figures (annual net sales) illustrate the importance of biodiversity as a strategic resource of the 21st century (RAFI, Wall Street Journal, Agriculture News-2000): Approximately 90% of the world's remaining biodiversity is concentrated in tropical and sub-tropical regions within developing countries, mostly located in the southern hemisphere. The Worldwatch Institute has identified the following countries as regions of "mega-diversity" due to their exceptionally high levels of cultural and biological diversity and high concentration of endemic plant species: Mexico, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Australia and The Democratic Republic of Congo. Not surprisingly, these mega-diverse countries are the focal points for biopiracy ventures.

New models for bioprospecting forecast economic viability when there is higher biodiversityPolasky et al, 05, Professor of Ecological/Environmental Economics

University of Minnesota Regent's Professor (STEPHEN, CHRISTOPHER COSTELLO, ANDREW SOLOW, “THE ECONOMICS OF BIODIVERSITY”, Handbook of Environmental Economics, Volume 3, Chapter 29, ScienceDirect)

Simpson, Sedjo and Reid (1996) then use this maximum estimate for value of mar- ginal species along with species–area curves and estimates of endemism (species unique to an area) to estimate the maximum marginal value of a hectare of land in each of 18 global biodiversity

hotspots. These estimates range from a maximum of $20.63 per hectare in Western Ecuador to only $0.20 per hectare in the California Floristic Province. On the basis of their theoretical and empirical results, Simpson,

Sedjo and Reid (1996) conclude that the incentive to conserve biodiversity for bioprospecting purposes is almost certainly too small to offset the opportunity cost of development. Polasky and Solow (1995) used a similar model to value a collection of species. If the probability of success on any given trial is p and the revenue upon success is R, then the expected value of a collection of N species is V (N ) = R[1 − (1 − p)N ], which is the same as by Simpson, Sedjo and Reid (1996) when c = 0. Polasky and Solow (1995) considered two variants of the simple model to allow for imperfect substitutes among species that generate success for the same product, and dependence in probabilities of success across species that relate to genetic similarity. Both extensions are motivated by the experience of bioprospecting. When taxol was found in the bark of the Pacific yew tree, there was an intensified search of related species. It was found that the needles of the European yew tree could be used to get taxotare, an imperfect substitute for taxol. With imperfect substitutes, the marginal value of species need not fall as fast as indicated by Simpson, Sedjo and Reid (1996). On the other hand, accounting for species interrelationships tends to reduce the marginal value of species. 1528 S. Polasky et al. Rausser and Small (2000) challenge the

empirical conclusions of low value from bioprospecting found in Simpson, Sedjo and Reid (1996). The existence of prior in- formation makes it

unlikely that all species will have the same probability of success in yielding a valuable product. Under the assumption that the probability of success is independent and differs across species, it is optimal to organize the search in order of descending success probability of success. When this is done, the value of conserving a species with a high probability of success may be large. Rausser and Small (2000) apply their model to the empirical case examined by

Simpson, Sedjo and Reid (1996), with the assumption that probabilities are proportional to the density of endemic species in each region, which range from one in ten thousand (Western Ecuador) to one in a mil- lion (California Floristic

Province). Rausser and Small find optimal search yields an incremental value of $9177 for the most promising hectare of land in Western Ecuador compared with a marginal value of only $20.63 for the same hectare in Simpson, Sedjo and Reid (1996). This result suggests that the benefits of protecting biodiversity hotspots for future biological prospecting may indeed outweigh the costs.

Bioprospecting Destroy EcosystemsCompanies are only recently turning towards bioprospecting – they’ll over exploitWarner 08 PHD Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong

Robin m “Protecting the diversity of the depths: environmental regulation of bioprospecting and marine scientific research beyond national jurisdiction” law papers http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=lawpapers

A fourth option to consider is leaving the open access situation which currently applies to the genetic and biochemical resources of the deep seabed and to bioprospecting activities in these areas undisturbed. This option would parallel the free market conditions which applied to all high seas fisheries before the advent of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and regional fisheries management organization involvement in the management and conservation of straddling stocks and highly migratory stocks in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction. As one commentator has observed, this may lead to some long term advantages for human kind in general as the competition engendered competitive exploitation of genetic and biochemical resources found on the deep seabed will stimulate new inventions and research techniques.87 On the other hand commercial investors will have little incentive to introduce costly measures for the conservation and sustainable use of genetic and biochemical resources and the protection of deep seabed biodiversity. Marine scientists and other commentators have predicted that the failure to implement environmental protection measures for deep seabed environments such as hydrothermal vents, cold seeps and seamounts risks rapid loss of

species and general degradation of fragile habitats.88 In addition, the primary motive for commercial investment will be the maximisation of profits rather than any commitment to the fair and equitable benefit sharing of global commons resources for current and future generations. While bioprospecting activities continue to be predominantly conducted by state sponsored research institutions with the dual purpose of marine scientific research, voluntary codes of conduct introduced by deep sea scientists will afford some level of protection for the surrounding marine environment. The next section will examine the content of one of these codes. These measures are voluntary, however, and will not bind commercial operators who conduct bioprospecting activities in a private enterprise framework. Ultimately failure to address the regulation of bioprospecting activities could lead to rapid over exploitation of these valuable resources of the deep seabed and the loss of important genetic and biochemical material not yet discovered by marine scientists.

Bioprospecting will increase the impact on ocean organisms Warner 08 PhD Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong

Robin m “Protecting the diversity of the depths: environmental regulation of bioprospecting and marine scientific research beyond national jurisdiction” law papers http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=lawpapers

The extreme environment of the deep seabed is host to a wide array of biological communities which exhibit high biodiversity and contain genetic and biochemical resources with multiple commercial

applications in fields such as medical science, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, food processing, waste treatment, mining and the cosmetics industry.12 As bioprospecting activities in the deep seabed intensify so will their impact on the fauna associated with particular deep seabed features such as hydrothermal vents and cold seeps. Since their discovery in 1977, hydrothermal vents have attracted the most extensive scientific research and bioprospecting activity on the deep seabed.13 More than 500 new species, mostly invertebrates have been discovered in hydrothermal vent communities both within and beyond national jurisdiction.14 These invertebrate species are dependent on chemosynthetic activity rather than photosynthesis for their existence and are surrounded by micro-organisms which oxidise sulphides and other chemicals from the hydrothermal vents such as hydrogen, iron or manganese converting them into organic matter which nourishes both the micro- organisms themselves and other vent species.15 The capacity of these species to adapt to extreme physical and chemical conditions has excited the interest of scientists who consider that the extraordinary diversity of species present in hydrothermal vent communities will contribute to a better understanding of basic life processes.16 Commercial enterprises have also been attracted to the vent communities as they can envisage a variety of uses for the bacteria, known as extremophiles, particularly hyperthermophiles or thermophiles, derived from such environments.17 The discovery of hydrothermal vent communities has also prompted scientists to re-examine theories of the origin of life on earth18 and to consider

geothermal energy as a potential source for biosynthesis.19

Bioprospecting hurts the species on the seabed things like noise disrupt their natural processes Warner 08 PhD Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong

Robin m “Protecting the diversity of the depths: environmental regulation of bioprospecting and marine scientific research beyond national jurisdiction” law papers http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=lawpapers

Bioprospecting, while not as invasive as deep seabed mineral exploration, does entail physical disturbance, alteration and introduction of alien elements to deep sea habitats.31 Current deep sea research projects, principally on hydrothermal vent sites, have progressed beyond simple observation of the benthic fauna from manned or remotely controlled submersible vessels to actual sampling of the fauna and faunal infrastructure and installation of scientific instruments in the deep seabed environment to record experimental observations on a regular basis.32 As well as disturbing the physical habitat, research vessels and scientific equipment also introduce light and different noise patterns into the fragile deep sea environment and may discharge marine pollutants and alien biological material into the previously pristine environment of the deep seabed.33 The negative impact of frequent research expeditions on particular deep seabed sites and the potential for conflicting or incompatible research activities which duplicate adverse effects on fragile deep sea sites has also been noted by scientists and other commentators.34 The absence of compulsory environmental protection measures such as environmental baseline data collection, ongoing environmental impact assessment of sampling sites and impact reference zones could result in

A2 No Bioprospecting - RegulationsBioprospecting has little regulatory barriers to contracts nowMuradian and Rival 13 (Roldan and Laura, Center for International Development Issues, Radboud University Nijmegen, Department of International Development, University of Oxford, “Governing the Provision of Ecosystem Services”, Springer, pg. 92 //nz)

Note- Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

Well-defined property rights are generally held as a precondition for reducing uncertainty in investment decisions (Pindyck 1988; Caballero 1991; Dixit and Pindyck 1994; Bell and Campa 1997). This argument has been put forward also for bioprospecting, leading to the idea of the need for clear regulatory frameworks (Bhatti 2003; Larson-Guerra et al. 2004) to facilitate negotiation of new projects (Tobin 2002). Prior to the CBD, access to GR was often gained without consent of GR holders, leading to situations known as biopiracy. Demanders used to identify and locate GR that appeared valuable for their aims. Bioprospecting projects were conducted largely without formal contracts, but instead demanders of GR would sometimes pay a small amount of money up-front to the provider of GR, as a compensation only for the labour time local people who helped to locate the GR being sought. However, under the CBD, countries have the right to vest the property rights over GR located in their territory and grant these rights to the state or alternatively on individual or collective owners of the land where the GR can be found (CBD, Article 15). As a result, the CBD has strengthened GR providers' claims on benefit sharing (e.g. ten Kate and Laird 1999; Tobin 2002).*

Bioprospecting has no clear regulations UNEP No Date The United Nations Environment Programme is an agency of the United Nations that coordinates its environmental activities, assisting developing countries in implementing environmentally sound policies and practices

http://www.unep.org/delc/Portals/119/Biosprecting-Issuepaper.pdf Article

Bioprospecting has the added potential to cause negative impacts on delicate ecosystems of the deep seabed and Antarctica. In situ experiments in and around the Deep Seabed can introduce light and noise or change water temperature, which, in-turn, can affect pro creation and the survival of organisms in these areas. Bioprospecting activities can also produce pollution in the form of debris or discharge from vessels and equipment. Additionally, inadvertant movement of organisms through disrupting currents or discarding of scientific samples can lead to biological contamination. Finally, there is the usual possibility of over-exploitation in harvesting or ganisms in these regions and the flow on environmental impacts . Yet, this aspect is unclear due to the lack of information about ecosystems in these marine habitats. In this respect, the precaution ary principle7 would seemingly apply to any future environmental regulations developed to govern bioprospecting activities in the High Seas and Antarctica. The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (‘the Assessment’) estmates that the current and projected future impact of bioprospecting on ecosystems is low, because the amount of material that needs to be harvested is normally small.8 The Assessment also states that there is a strong synergy between biodiversity preser -

vation and bioprospecting, since the latter benefits from preserv ing the former . However, it warns that great uncertainty remains about the potential impact of bioprospecting activities.9 As the projected impact is minimal, although uncertain, bioprospecting does not presently implicate provisions of international agree ments which regulate actions likely to have serious adverse en vironmental impacts in the commons. The legal implications of any potential environmental impacts from bioprospecting are not explored in detail through this issue brief, but must be a consideration for decision-makers in drafting future laws and policies to regulate this activtity. materials between States, particularly for developing nations. Additionally, there are no clear guidelines on the environmental standards bioprospecting expeditions must meet. The content and interplay between the existing laws governing bioprospecting in the High Seas and Antarctica are examined below, along with the legal gaps and uncertanties this exposes in the current framework.

Link - Ocean DevelopmentAs ocean development and exploration increases so will biorprospectingGlobal ocean commission 13 an international organization working towards reversing degradation

“Bioprospecting and marine genetic resources in the high seas” Policy Options Paper # 4: http://www.globaloceancommission.org/wp-content/uploads/GOC-paper04-bioprospecting.pdf

Marine bioprospecting – the search for novel compounds from natural sources in the marine environment – has increased rapidly in recent years. Much of the increase in activity may be attributed to technological advances in exploring the ocean and the genetic diversity it contains. Much of the marine biome remains under-investigated and the prospect for new and unique findings is high, particularly in the microbial realm1 . It can therefore be expected that the rate of discovery will continue to increase as technology develops. The problem of how to conserve and sustainably use marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) is one of the most controversial topics now under discussion in international fora. There are no clear international rules in place specifically addressing bioprospecting in these areas. Furthermore, since very few States have the necessary technological and intellectual know-how to carry out bioprospecting, the discussion has also focused on the need for an access and benefit-sharing regime to improve equitable use of high seas resources. From the perspective of the biotechnology industry, there are concerns that the current uncertain and unpredictable legal and regulatory framework may hamper the flow of ideas and products from the marine biome and inhibit future research, development and commercialisation of novel compounds to treat disease.

Link - AUVsNew technological developments like AUVs increase the likely hood of bioprospecting Global ocean commission 13 an international organization working towards reversing degradation

“Bioprospecting and marine genetic resources in the high seas” Policy Options Paper # 4: http://www.globaloceancommission.org/wp-content/uploads/GOC-paper04-bioprospecting.pdf

The marine realm contains a very rich variety of organisms, many of which remain undescribed. Because of their high biological diversity, marine ecosystems are particularly suited for bioprospecting, a process that aims to identify and isolate natural compounds from genetic material. Today, about 18,000 natural products have been reported from marine organisms belonging to about 4,800 named species. The number of natural products from marine species is growing at a rate of 4% per year2 . The increase in the rate of discoveries is largely the result of technological advances in exploring the ocean and the genetic diversity it contains. Advances in technologies for observing and sampling the deep ocean, such as submersibles and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), have opened up previously unexplored areas to scientific research. Coordinated scientific efforts such as the Census of Marine Life3 have also given added impetus to scientific research, resulting in many new and exciting discoveries. At the same time, developments in molecular biology, including high throughput genome sequencing, metagenomics and bioinformatics, have increased our capacity to investigate and make use of marine genetic material.

Link - Plankton An increase in plankton increases the use of bioprospecting Abida et al 13 author and scientist on phytoplankton

Heni, Sandrine Ruchaud, Laurent Rios, Anne Humeau, Ian Probert, Colomban De Vargas, Stéphane Bach, and Chris Bowler, “Bioprospecting Marine Plankton” Published online Nov 14,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3853748/

About 3.5 billion years ago the ocean was probably the birthplace of life, and today marine microbes number in the millions in every liter of seawater. They represent more than 95% of marine biomass and are present in many different environments, e.g., in the water column, in ocean sediments, or associated with other organisms. Many of them drift with the currents together with other microscopic organisms such as zooplankton and are collectively referred to as plankton, from the Greek word “planktos” meaning “drifter”. Planktonic organisms are found in all marine environments, including extreme conditions, and are extremely diverse in taxonomic groups (with representatives from all kingdoms of life), trophic groups and sizes (Table 1). Representatives include viruses, bacteria, the photosynthetic phytoplankton, and a wide range of larger zooplankton that graze on the smaller organisms. The abundance of different plankton varies according to size, with viruses present typically at up to 10 billion particles/L, bacteria at up to one billion cells/L, phytoplankton at up to 10 million cells/L, and zooplankton at up to 1000 organisms/L. Marine planktonic ecosystems are highly dynamic environments subject to a wide range of external forces. Some organisms, referred to as holoplankton, are constitutively planktonic whereas others (known as meroplankton) are part of this community only during a specific phase of their life cycle, usually the larval stage. It is important not to overlook these latter organisms in bioprospecting because they may represent novel sources of molecules (e.g., used in defense mechanisms) that are not found in their mature counterparts. Such metabolites have been reported in larvae from Luffariella variabilis [13], asteroid eggs [14], ascidian larvae [15], polychaetes [16], and bryozoan larvae [17], none of which were detected in their mature—non-planktoni

Impacts

Impact – ATS

ATS strong now – key to preventing armed conflictMichael Richardson (former Asia Editor of The International Herald Tribune, is a visiting senior

research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore) January 2009 “Nations here put discord on ice” http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/nations-here-put-discord-on-ice/1399665.aspx?storypage=0

!The Dome A research is part of wider cooperation that links the 46 member nations of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty and associated accords. The signatories include developed and developing economies, accounting for about 80 per cent of the world's population. They are parties to a treaty system designed to ensure that the wars which have disfigured other continents do not occur in Antarctica, that the environment is protected, and that scientific research and collaboration have priority. Signatories undertake to use Antarctica for peaceful purposes only. Military operations, nuclear explosive tests and the disposal of radioactive waste are not permitted. All commercial mining is banned. !Of course, many of the things that fuel human greed and armed conflict elsewhere are not present or readily exploitable in Antarctica. There are no indigenous inhabitants, arable land or forests. Only 2 per cent of Antarctica's 14 million square kilometres is ice-free and even that is ill-suited for human settlement. The onshore population of international scientists swells to over 4000 in summer, but dwindles to about 1000 in winter. !The Antarctic Treaty is not exclusive. It allows any member of the United Nations to join. Of the 46 countries that have done so, 28 are consultative parties with the right to make collective decisions about management of the continent. Consultative status is open to any country that can show its commitment to Antarctica by conducting significant research there. In their regular meetings, consultative parties make decisions by consensus, not by voting. !This is not, by any means, a perfect system of administration. Unregulated fishing and environmental damage still occur. But generally, human impacts are far more effectively controlled in and around Antarctica than on other continents. Perhaps the local circumstances that make this kind of multi-national governance possible are unique. However, it certainly shows what enlightened leadership can do when nation-states put their differences aside and work together for the common good. !What could upset the Antarctic treaty system? Intrusion of the same kinds of territorial and resource rivalries that bedevil relations among people and countries on other continents. Seven of the consultative parties Australia, Argentina, Britain, Norway, France, New Zealand and Chile have made territorial claims to around 75 per cent of the continent. Some of the claims overlap. Australia alone asserts sovereignty over 42 per cent of Antarctica. !The treaty does not recognise or dispute territorial claims and no new ones can be asserted while it is in force. Oil, gas and minerals are known to exist in Antarctica and beneath its continental shelf. If global demand for them were to become acute and technology was available to exploit them, the treaty system might be challenged. But that seems unlikely for many years.

ATS collapse causes warRichard Faulk (professor of international law at Princeton) 1991 “The Antarctic Treaty System in World Politics” p. 402

The third sense of viability that seems relevant represents certain regressions from ATS that could occur in the event that either the existing procedures rupture as a result of internal tensions, or collapse as a

consequence of either the reemergence of geopolitical rivalry among claimant states that refuse to suspend their inchoate sovereign claims any longer or through a repudiation of ATS by powerful political actors. One could imagine such negative viability as producing a situation of chaos (ie collapse of a previously operative overall regulative framework) laden with tensions and conflict. It is likewise possible to envisage a variety of territorial grabs via claims of sovereign appropriation, singly or in combination. This prospect is far from fanciful as several states continue actively to harbor geopolitical ambitions to extend their soveriegty into Antarctica. Overlapping claims to the same sector of territory exist making intense conflict plausible under some circumstances, and even warfare, among claimant states becomes conceivable. The point here is not to sound alarmist, but to ensure that appraisal fo ATS takes itno account both directions of a post-ATS setting, and not merely suppose that it is a matter of upholding the ATS status quo or finding a better regime. Regressions are also possible, especially when we appreciate that ATS was brought into being initially to avoid the propect of drifting toward an Antarctica future in which the continent would be carved up by greedy states with territorial ambitions, engaged in traditional forms of rivalry, reminiscent of the approach taken by Europe in the 19th century to sub-Saharan Africa. When assessing the dangers of dismantling the ATS, as we as the drive to overcome its weaknesses as a regime, it as assumed that our objectives center on the preservation of Antarctica as a peaceful, demilitarized, and denuclearized domain in which environmental quality is effective protected and scientific inquiry is allowed to flourish. It is also assumed to be desirable to facilitate easy access by all states to the main benfits of Antarctica, including, if it is their wish, the possibility of joinging ATS and participating in the administration of the ATS regime

ATS solves your aff – it serves as a model for international cooperation the empirically prevents wars from escalatingAdnaan Wasey (writer for Online NewsHour at PBS.org) February 2007 “International Agreements Hallmark of Antarctica” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/science/poles/antarctica.html.

It's the least hospitable place on Earth with its extreme cold and wind, and sovereign claims have been disputed for decades, yet Antarctica has become a model for international cooperation. At the center of the collaboration is the Antarctic Treaty System, an international framework developed as the United States and Russia, in the midst of a Cold War, were preparing to lay strategic territorial claims on the continent. Eschewing a territorial war in 1959, the two countries, joined by other Antarctic claimants -- Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom -- and nations with interests in the area -- Belgium, Japan and South Africa -- agreed on a diplomatic solution: The nations would shift focus exclusively to the scientific research that had come to the forefront in the International Geophysical Year of 1957-1958. The countries, freezing their claims, declared that all Antarctic activity would be for peaceful purposes, preventing nuclear testing and militarization; any new establishments would have to be built for scientific research, not enforcement of previous claims. The U.S. government, as a point of policy, has been clear that military presence only take the form of support for scientific ventures, providing resources such as icebreakers and vehicles to transport the more than 1,000 U.S. researchers that make up the bulk of the Antarctic population. In total, about 4,000 researchers worked on the continent in the 2005-6 summer peak, with groups of more than 200 from Russia, Argentina, Chile, Australia and the United Kingdom, which operate primarily along the coasts. "Because of the remoteness of the area, any country that's really capable of a major effort in Antarctica is probably a signatory or at least accedes to it," said Mahlon Kennicutt, a professor of oceanography at Texas A&M University and the U.S. representative to the body that coordinates research in Antarctica, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. Any government that wanted to participate could as long as they can adhere to the treaty's basic precepts. To date, 48 have become signatories with major research-conducting nations comprising the 28 Consultative Parties. With funding of about $300 million, the National Science Foundation carries out U.S. policy that extends from the Antarctic Treaty. The NSF maintains the year-round U.S. facilities at the coastal McMurdo and Palmer stations and the Amundsen-Scott South Pole station, as first mandated by President Nixon in the 1970s and President Reagan in 1982. In the absence of a military presence, the NSF and Department of Justice enforce the U.S. law in the continent, 1978's Antarctic Conservation Act, which imposes fines or jail time for anyone disrupting the Antarctic ecosystem. With no mechanism for enforcement built into the treaty, order is maintained by peer pressure and laws passed by individual member nations, representing two-thirds of the worlds population, to protect Antarctic interests. Working by unanimous consent, the Antarctic Treaty System has spawned a series of resolutions, regarding plants and animals in 1964, seals in 1972, and marine life in 1980. While discussing a crisis over mining issues in Madrid in 1991, the group drafted its most comprehensive framework, the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, which comprehensively limited human interaction with the continent, including a ban on any activities related to mining not for scientific research. The United States updated its Antarctic policy in 1996 for the first time in two decades, incorporating the recommendations from the Madrid

Protocol. Donald Rothwell, a professor of international law at Australian National University, said Antarctic policy develops slowly in the absence of crises, such as the mining concerns that led to the creation of the Madrid Protocol. "The legal issues have been fairly well identified. What we need is political will on the part of the Antarctic Treaty Parties," Rothwell said. Evan Bloom, a deputy director for polar affairs at the U.S. Department of State and head of the U.S. delegation to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, said the uncertain environmental impact of growing tourism could be a major point of discussion at the April 2007 Consultative Parties meeting. Colin Summerhayes, the executive director of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, said illegal fishing poses the largest risk to the treaty, but noted that bioprospecting, the search for species whose biology could be exploited for medicinal or other commercial applications, could become an issue. "It's like an Amazon rainforest under the sea: It's very diverse. So the potential exists for unique chemical compounds," Summerhayes said. Rothwell said bioprospecting falls in a legal grey area, because it is a combination of scientific research promoted by the treaty and the mining that it prohibits. Should Antarctic species become valuable, Rothwell added, the issue could unravel the treaty, whether by infringement or the reestablishment of claims. Though the United States continues to disregard claims on Antarctica and reserves the right to lay claims of its own, the State Department doubts any would be made while the treaty was intact. "I don't think there's any thinking at all, and there hasn't been for decades, about doing that, because there's no need," said Bloom. Bloom said the treaty remains one of the most successful in promoting international cooperation.

Impact turns and outweighs the aff – ATS is modeled globally as a conflict management mechanism – empirically prevented hostile conflicts from escalating globally – only collapse makes your impacts possibleSir Guy Green AC KBE CVO (The Governor of Tasmania) Spring 2002 “Antarctic treaty, science under scrutiny in inaugral Phillip Law lecture” http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=4379

I think that those who are engaged in difficult international negotiations should take heart from the example of the negotiation of the Antarctic Treaty which showed that sometimes it is possible to overcome apparently intractable differences through honest open discussion informed by principle and good sense. [Treaty's success inspiring and instructive; provides new perspective on and better understanding of nature of international relations and United Nations role. In UN in 1983 Treaty System said to be exclusive, not accountable, 'neo-colonial; push for its replacement by universal UN-controlled regime. Australia and other Treaty nations saw strong arguments for status quo. Richard Woolcott, former Australian UN Ambassador, said (2) that Treaty is open to any UN member, is consistent with UN Charter, encourages open scientific research and has reduced international tension by dealing effectively with sovereignty claims. Richard Rowe, leader of Australian delegation to Treaty Consultative Meeting, observed (3) that Treaty system is 'robust framework for action in Antarctica'. Inclusive spirit of Treaty continues today with Australia's help to Indonesia and Malaysia to participate in Antarctic science. Treaty system is model for effective, principled international arrangement in accord with UN philosophy. Treaty has extraordinary record as vehicle for civilised discussion in difficult times, such as meeting recalled by Woolcott (4) between Russian and US ambassadors in which agreement was reached on vital tactics and procedures despite personal insults. Woolcott observed that at Cold War's height, Antarctica was main area of effective Soviet–US cooperation.] And I have my own memory of receiving at Government House on 2 June 1982 delegations from Argentina and the United Kingdom who had been working together at a meeting of an Antarctic Treaty organisation just two months after … [the start of] a war between the two countries. The … Antarctic Treaty System has also been … [adopted] as a model in other fields… The principles upon which the 1967 Outer Space Treaty was based were in essence identical with the philosophy of the Antarctic Treaty System. …The other major area of human endeavour in Antarctica … is the doing of science. Originally this was seen as being primarily concerned with discovering, describing and understanding the properties of the continent and the region below, above and around it. And that still remains a major function of Antarctic science. But what has changed is that much of the science which is being done is now understood to have far wider ramifications so that Antarctic science has now become truly global science.

Bioprospecting = ATS collapse

Bioprospecting causes ‘gold rush’ for AntarcticaAlex Kirby (writer for BBC News) February 2004 “UN wants rules on bioprospecting in Antarctica” http://www.grain.org/bio-ipr/?id=328

Antarctic organisms face an onslaught by prospectors anxious to exploit their unique nature, the United Nations says. The UN University says "extremophiles", creatures adapted to life in the polar wastes, are being relentlessly hunted in what is virtually a new gold rush. A regulated search could uncover new drugs, industrial compounds and some commercial applications, the UN says. It says the existing Antarctic Treaty System cannot adequately regulate the possible consequences to Antarctica. The UN University's report, "The International Regime For Bioprospecting: Existing Policies And Emerging Issues For Antarctica", is published by its Institute of Advanced Studies, based in Tokyo, Japan. SURVIVAL MYSTERIES The publication comes a week before the start of a meeting on 9 February of the UN's Convention on Biological Diversity in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The report says prospectors are now looking at hydrothermal vents, the bed of the deep sea, and the polar ice caps in their quest for promising organisms. The "extremophiles" that live on these remote frontiers have evolved to survive in very cold, dry or salty conditions -- and they could hold immensely valuable secrets. The report says the search to unlock those secrets could be a repeat of the 19th century's gold rush, a free-for-all to find and patent new cancer treatments, antibiotics and industrial products. Dr A H Zakri, the institute's director, said: "Biological prospecting for extremophiles is already occurring and is certain to accelerate in Antarctica and the southern ocean. "This report suggests that efforts to exploit this new frontier are now threatening to outpace the capacity of national and international law to regulate... ownership of genetic materials, the issuing of patents... and the potential environmental consequences of harvesting these resources."

Bioprospecting collapses the ATSAdnaan Wasey (writer for Online NewsHour at PBS.org) February 2007 “International Agreements Hallmark of Antarctica” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/science/poles/antarctica.html.

Colin Summerhayes, the executive director of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, said illegal fishing poses the largest risk to the treaty, but noted that bioprospecting, the search for species whose biology could be exploited for medicinal or other commercial applications, could become an issue. "It's like an Amazon rainforest under the sea: It's very diverse. So the potential exists for unique chemical compounds," Summerhayes said. Rothwell said bioprospecting falls in a legal grey area, because it is a combination of scientific research promoted by the treaty and the mining that it prohibits. Should Antarctic species become valuable, Rothwell added, the issue could unravel the treaty, whether by infringement or the reestablishment of claims.

And bioprospecting is unique – now is key – any small discovery causes a new gold rush that magnifies our impactsThe Guardian February 2004 “Cold rush threatens pristine Antarctic” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/feb/02/science.research

The problem, according to a report by Hamid Zakri and Sam Johnston at the university's Institute of Advanced Studies, is that although commercial activities such as mining and tourism are banned or regulated, there is nothing to stop biotech companies going into Antarctica and hunting or "bioprospecting" for potentially lucrative organisms. "If bioprospecting is done properly, it can be useful and beneficial for all and can have a minimum impact on the environment, but you want it to be controlled to prevent companies from causing significant environmental damage or disrupting the scientific operations down there," Dr Johnston said. "It's a pristine, global park and it needs to be preserved." Agreeing rules for companies keen to work in Antarctica is fraught with difficulties. Antarctica has long been used by scientists and international agreements such as the Antarctic treaty ensure that scientific knowledge is made freely available to all. Commercial exploitation, and the inevitable close guarding of secrets, is against the spirit, if not the letter, of the treaty. While few scientists believe the threat to Antarctica is imminent, things could change drastically in the next 10 years. "It's similar to the old American gold rush in California. If someone finds a hint of something down there, everyone else will rush in," said Kevin Bowers, an expert in Antarctic microbes at the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute. "If there are no controls in place, there's nothing to stop them." Blurred lines But the line between scientific research and commercial activity is already blurred. A contract signed in 1995 between the University of Tasmania and Amrad Natural Products, an Australian pharmaceutical company, gives Amrad the right to analyse Antarctic microbes to see if they could be used to develop new antibiotics or other pharmaceutical products.The food giant Unilever, meanwhile, has patented a protein taken from bacteria found in Antarctic lake sediments that could stop ice crystals building up in ice cream. The Antarctic treaty group's advisory body, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, raised concerns about bioprospecting in a recent report. It stated: "While no current instance of harvesting for biotechnology is known, there are obvious environmental ramifications of the taking of animals and plants as a commercial venture." The report concludes that bioprospecting should be watched closely as it "may develop into important pressures on Antarctic resources". Another concern is that companies with patents on Antarctic organisms, or extracts from them, may prevent scientists from working on them freely. Dr Johnston says now is the time to deal with the issue. Regulations to control bioprospecting will have to be agreed upon by the many countries that control different parts of Antarctica. But if biotech companies start making agreements with individual governments, it will be much more difficult to reach a global agreement. "It's going to be much easier to put regulations in place that are effective and meaningful before there are vested interests," Dr Johnston said. "It is imminent that biotechnology companies will take up bioprospecting and will be significant in the next 10 years. After that, the horse may have bolted."

Impact - BioweaponsBioweapon terror in the future because of bio-break throughsThe Hindu October 23, 2001 http://www.hindu.com/2001/10/23/stories/13230291.htm

The biotechnology holds the promise of a great future but like any other technological breakthrough, it is a double-edged sword. Biotechnology could be panacea for eliminating hunger and disease from the globe but the same biotechnology tools can be used in a deadly manner against the [hu]mankind. Modern technologies that add efficiency, power and wonder to our lives inevitably deliver the same benefits to evildoers. According to Bill Joy, the chief scientist of Sun Microsystems, "the tragedy of September 11 was nothing like what might be possible with biological weaponry." In his forthcoming book titled Why the Future Doesn't Need Us, Joy has predicted that the coming age of biotech will undoubtedly make programmable bacteria and viruses more accessible — to doctors, business and bio-terrorists. "The things which we are worrisome about haven't happened yet." And having in mind all these, Harvard biologists, Matthew Meselson and Leading, have suggested a convention making any individual involved in the production of biological weapons liable as an international criminal, prosecutable anywhere, as is already the case for pirates and airplane hijackers. This proposal would permit countries to research and plan defensive work against biological warfare agents.

ExtinctionJohn Steinbrunner, Senior Fellow at Brookings, 1998, Foreign Policy Winter 1998, Pg. 85

That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. Most of the damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably predictable manner. Even before a nuclear warhead is detonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. The use of a pathogen, by contrast, is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For most potential biological agents, the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon But for a few pathogens--ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use-the risk runs in the other direction. A lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be capable of initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population. The 1918 influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit.

Bio-prospecting = Bioweapons

This causes creation of lethal bioweaponsEdward Hammond (Director of the US Office of the Sunshine Project) April 2002 “Making Biosafety and Bioweapons Security Work Together” http://www.ukabc.org/cop6_eco9.pdf

The last decade has witnessed dramatic and rapid changes in bioscience that are easing the development of biological weapons. Genetic engineering can be used to make organisms more lethal, resistant to antibiotics or vaccines, easier to handle, harder to detect, or more stable in the environment. A recent Australian experiment with mousepox created an extremely lethal genetic engineered virus when researchers added a gene believed to be “harmless”. As early as 1986, US researchers inserted a deadly anthrax gene into a harmless stomach bacteria. US Navy scientists are taking natural microorganisms that degrade plastics, rubber, metals and other materials and using genetic engineering to make powerful superbugs. One can destroy plastic aircraft coatings in 72 hours. Last year, British researchers pleaded guilty to charges that they improperly handled a genetically engineered hybrid of the viruses causing hepatitis C and dengue fever. The German Army works with tularemia bacteria genetically engineered to be resistant to antibiotics. The US, following Russian research, recently announced plans to genetically engineer anthrax to attempt to create GE varieties that can evade existing vaccines. Science fiction? Unfortunately not. The examples are real. Biosafety and biological security both relate to genetic engineering and the release of living organisms into the environment. Both biosafety regulators and bioweapons control specialists are concerned about examples like those above, and share a concern to prevent harm from these GMOs. The future threat of biological warfare agents is directly linked to regulation of genetic engineering.

Biological science leads to destructive bioweaponsEpstein, BioScience May 1, 2002 (Defense Threat Reduction Agency US Department of Defense)

A tougher conceptual problem for the scientific and policy communities is what might be called "contentious" research-- research that, because it has immediate weapons applications, raises questions as to how, or even whether, it should be conducted. Biological science, of course, is not unique in having the potential to harm as well as to advance human welfare. However, the stakes in biology may be higher. Unleashing a highly contagious, highly lethal biological agent would be an unparalleled disaster. Moreover, the journey from a laboratory to such a calamitous outcome could be shorter, and less outwardly visible, in biology than in almost any other field. In addition, future biological weapons could be more subtle and insidious than existing infectious diseases. The more that science learns about the processes that underlie human health, human behavior, and even human consciousness, the greater the possibility that those processes could be tampered with or subverted.

Even honest research can be pilfered by bioweaponeersSternberg, USA TODAY, November 14, 2001

Much of the work so far has focused on disease-causing germs and germs that can be used for environmental cleanup. But other researchers are focusing on germs that may shed light on the history

of life on Earth, germs relevant to agriculture and germs that live in extreme environments. Legitimate scientists have tinkered with microbial genes for decades. As early as 1973, scientists spliced a drug-resistance gene from an unrelated microbe into the DNA of the benign intestinal microbe E. coli. Although this pioneering gene-splicing experiment was done by civilians seeking insights into biology, it's exactly the kind of enhancement that might be made by a bioweaponeer. Bioweapon designers have achieved their own breakthroughs. Although much of their work has been cloaked in secrecy, hints of their accomplishments have surfaced.

Bioprospecting is one of the most immediate causes for expanded biological warfareMoodie et al, 08, a consultant to CTNSP who has worked for more than 15 years on chemical and biological weapons issues in government and the policy research community. He headed the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute and served as assistant director for multilateral, the report was done by a group of experts writing for the Center for Technology and National Security Policy National Defense

University (Michael, Cheryl Loeb, Robert Armstrong, and Helen Purkitt, “Good Bugs, Bad Bugs:A Modern Approach for Detecting Offensive Biological Weapons Research”, Center for Technology and National Security Policy National Defense University,

September 2008, http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA487268)

A second NAS committee took a different approach. It identified four major categories of advances in the life sciences that will have high-impact, near-term consequences for the life sciences and could enhance or alter the nature of future biological threats. These categories of activities include: • Acquisition of novel biological or molecular diversity (e.g., DNA synthesis, DNA shuffling, bioprospecting, and high-throughput screening), • Direct design (e.g., rational drug design, synthetic biology, or genetic engineering of viruses), 42 National Research Council, Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004), also known as the “Fink Report,” after Dr. Gerald Fink, who chaired the committee that produced it. 24 • Understanding and manipulation of biological systems (e.g., RNA interference, computational biology and bioinformatics, systems biology, and genomic medicine), and • Production, delivery, and packaging (biopharming, mirofluidics and

mircrofabrication, bionanotechnology, mircroencapsulation technology, aerosol technology, and gene therapy technology).43 Sponsorship of work in these areas—especially related to the first set of seven experiments—would certainly raise a warning flag about a country’s possible BW plans, especially if it is less than transparent about such work.

Exteremophiles will be used for highly advanced attacks by bioterroristsDaly, 01, Co-Director of Department of Genetics at Harvard University (MJ, “THE EMERGING IMPACT OF GENOMICS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS Threats and Benefits Posed by Engineered Extremophiles”, CLINICS, IN Labrotory MEDICINE

VOLUME 21, NUMBER 3, SEPTEMBER 2001, PubMed)

In discussing this subject, the question arises as to why bioterrorists would develop a sophisticated extremophile BW agent given the relative ease of using conventional pathogenic microorganisms. The

answer may be as simple as " if something can be done, it will be done," particularly in light of the dramatic reduction in costs and technical difficulties associated with genetic engineering in the last years. There is also a psychological component that should not be ignored; a genetically engineered extremophile would dramatically enhance the terror factor of a BW weapon. For spores, such as those of B. anthracis, nature has made them hardy for the specific purpose of resisting environmental stresses . It is, however, unlikely that this hardiness

could ever be enhanced to a level approaching that found in D. radiodurans. For example, based on its radiation resistance profile, background radiation, and environmental oxygen free-radical levels, it is conservatively estimated that desiccated D. radiodurans could survive without loss in viability in excess of 10,000 years. It is noteworthy that members of the Deinococcus family have been isolated from an area of the Antarctic Dry Valleys where there is no evidence for liquid water over the last 2 million years. Further, with its survival extending beyond 2,000,000 radsP a D. radiodurans BW warhead would also likely survive in-flight sterilization attempts by atomic blast, or by conventional decontamination efforts following environmental dissemination. The characteris tics of D. radiodurans that have justified its development for biotechnology1 are the same as those that make it a su.itable candidate for the development as a potentially devastating BW agent: 1. Extreme resistance to acute and chronic radiation (y-rays and UV)'.I+1U8 2. Extreme resistance to des icca tion3~ 3. Very high resistance to decontamination (e .g., hydrogen peroxide)SO 4. Very tolerant to the effects of solvents2? 5. Highly transfonnable and amenable to genetic engineering'" 27 and has been subjected to genomic sequencing and analysis (Makarova K5 et aI, unpublished data)29. 31..52- The potential threat by such extremophiles is not limited to the Deinococcaceae. It is possible that other very desicca tion-resistant microorganisms40 that are not yet described as radiation- or DNA damage-resistant also could be engineered for BW. For example, experiments conducted aboard. a variety of spacecraft including the European Retrievable Carrier and the Long Duration Exposure Facility indicate that a variety of common terrestrial bacteria are able to withstand the harsh environment of space for periods as long as 6 years. Because the radiation-resistance characteristics of many common organisms (and most extremophiles) are unknown, it is conceivable that as such characteristics are morc broadly examined,

many bacterial pathogens may become classified as desiccation- or radiation-resistant and could pose threats as engineered BW agents.

Even the threat of bioterrorism creates global instabilityLarry Bell, Contributor of Forbes, 7/21/13 [“Bioterrorism: A Dirty Little Threat With Huge Potential Consequences”, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/07/21/bioterrorism-a-dirty-little-threat-with-huge-potential-consequences/] JH

Following the anthrax letter incidents in 2001 in the United States, a flurry of books, internet articles, and mostly clueless "talking heads" on international television, openly described the necessary characteristics of a successful biological aerosol, and one former FBI agent even went so far as to actually name one of the classified additives used for dry biological agent preparation. If the terrorists of the world did not previously know the potential of biological weapons for their cause before, the U.S. media made sure that now they would. Although federal efforts involving numerous agencies to combat the threat of bioterrorism expanded rapidly following the 2011 anthrax letter attacks, which killed five people and infected 17 others, various congressional commissions, nongovernmental organizations, industry representatives and other experts have highlighted flaws in these activities. It went on to say "The Commission further believes that terrorists are more likely to be able to obtain and use a biological weapon than a nuclear weapon." Making matters worse, unlike most other terrorist attacks, a biological attack could infect victims without their knowledge, and days could pass before victims develop deadly symptoms. To address this problem, the U.S. has been forced to implement air quality monitors throughout the country and stockpile antibiotics for emergency use. A 2011 study conducted by the Congressional Research Service observes that: "Unfortunately, the nature of the bioterrorism threat, with its high consequences and low frequency, makes determining the bioterrorism risk difficult. To believe otherwise could potentially be a deadly mistake

Impact - Diseases

Bioprospecting causes spread of infectious diseasesBBC News February 2002 “The Dangers of Bio-prospecting” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2002/boston_2002/1823770.stm

As scientists scour our planet for previously undescribed and exotic lifeforms, they are acutely aware of the health dangers they could also be digging up. Probably less than one percent of all the microbes on Earth have been categorised by science, and some of the as yet unidentified species could show us how to tap new energy sources and make novel drugs. But it is also likely that many of these simple organisms - were they ever to come into contact with large numbers of people - could trigger the emergence of new infectious diseases. "It's not so much that we are worried that a devil is going to emerge from the bowels of the Earth, but there is no need to take the chance," said Professor Abigail Salyers, the current president of the American Society of Microbiology. She was making her comments at a symposium sponsored by the society at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston. Out of this world "We must accept the fact that we don't know how many microbes in nature really are capable of causing disease in humans. We thought we knew - but we don't. We don't even know what 99.8% of the organisms are." The issue is a pertinent one because of the growing interest in extremophiles, the microbes that can live in extraordinary environments that many thought, just a few years ago, would be utterly lifeless. Scientists are now finding bugs in hydrothermal vents on the deep-ocean floor, in the dry deserts of Antarctica and in rocks and springs hundreds of metres below the surface of the Earth. These amazing organisms have fundamentally different metabolisms, "breathing" not oxygen but hydrogen, methane, and compounds of sulphur. They can withstand extremes of temperature, radiation, salinity, and metal toxicity. Scientists think the microbes will tell us about how life first formed on the Earth and how it might now thrive on other planets, perhaps even in our own Solar System. They could also yield novel technologies and drugs. Martian bugs "There are all sorts of chemical processes that we're discovering, things that the chemists told us were impossible but that we now know micro-organisms are doing," Professor Salyers said. But the question arises and needs seriously to be addressed about what impact these new organisms could have on our health. "We are still not sure when and under what conditions micro-organisms evolve the capacity to cause disease," said Professor Salyers.

ExtinctionJohn Steinbruner (Senior Fellow at Brookings Institution) 1998 “Biological weapons: A plague upon all houses,” Foreign Policy, Dec 22, LN

It is a considerable comfort and undoubtedly a key to our survival that, so far, the main lines of defense against this threat have not depended on explicit policies or organized efforts. In the long course of evolution, the human body has developed physical barriers and a biochemical immune system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could design or as yet even fully understand. But evolution is a sword that cuts both ways: New diseases emerge, while old diseases mutate and adapt. Throughout history, there have been epidemics during which human immunity has broken down on an epic scale. An infectious agent believed to have been the plague bacterium killed an estimated 20 million people over a four-year period in the fourteenth century, including nearly one-quarter of Western Europe's population at the time. Since its recognized appearance in 1981, some 20 variations of the HIVvirus have infected an estimated 29.4 million worldwide, with 1.5 million people currently dying

of aids each year. Malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera-once thought to be under control-are now making a comeback. As we enter the twenty-first century, changing conditions have enhanced the potential for widespread contagion. The rapid growth rate of the total world population, the unprecedented freedom of movement across international borders, and scientific advances that expand the capability for the deliberate manipulation of pathogens are all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the future than it has ever been in the past. The threat of infectious pathogens is not just an issue of public health, but a fundamental security problem for the species as a whole.

War - GeneralBioprospecting would eventually be regulated which would create massive sovereignty disputesLeary,08, a member of the biodiplomacy initiative team at University-Institute of Advanced Studies ( David,” Bi-polar Disorder? Is Bioprospecting an Emerging Issue for the Arctic as well as for Antarctica?”, Review of European Community & International Environmental Law

Volume 17, Issue 1, pages 41–55, April 2008, Wiley Online Library)

Although there have been periodic challenges to its legitimacy, the main international governance regime applying to Antarctica is the ATS.9 The ATS is composed of five main treaties: the Antarctic Treaty (1959),10 the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals (1971),11 the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (1980),12 the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral

Resource Activities (1988)13 and the Madrid Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty (1991).14¶ One of the other major achievements of the Antarctic Treaty is the way it has dealt with actual and potential disputes with respect to territorial claims in Antarctica. Seven countries – Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the UK – each claim parts of Antarctica as their sovereign territory. The US, Russia, Japan, Germany, the Netherlands and India,¶ although parties to the Antarctic Treaty, do not recognize the validity of any of these claims, while both Russia and the US have reserved the

right to make their own claims to any or all of Antarctica.15 Article IV(2) of the Antarctic Treaty effectively freezes all claims and potential claims to Antarctic territory. Despite these provisions, sovereignty remains a source of underlying tension within the ATS and it is not clear what limits the treaty places on acceptable behaviour by States that made

claims prior to signing the treaty.16 One vexing aspect of the bioprospecting question in Antarctica is the potential it has to re-open debates on the legitimacy of territorial claims in Antarctica, especially in marine areas.17 Any unilateral attempt by individual States to regulate access and benefit sharing has the potential to re-open disputes as to the legitimacy of territorial claims in Antarctica which the Antarctic Treaty has so successfully frozen for nearly 50 years.

Bioprospecting opens up a slew of problems that create security concernsHemmings, 12, Canberra-based specialist on Antarctic governance and Adjunct Associate Professor at Gateway Antarctica at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. The author of a hundred plus articles on Antarctic affairs, he is also co-editor of Looking South: Australia’s Antarctic Agenda (Alan, “Antarctic Security in the Twenty-First Century: Legal and Policy Perspectives”, p.201)

4 Bioprospecring as an ATS issue¶ Bioprospecring first surfaced as an issue of interest in an ATCM when it was¶ raised b}, The Scientific

Commerce on Antarctic Research ( CAR) in 1999."¶ Then, ar ATCM XXV in 2002, the United Kingdom tabled a short working ¶ paper that suggested three serious concerns about the onset of bioprospecting ¶ activities in the Antarctic. l¶ First, the potential for conflict existed between ¶ free access co scientific information as guaranteed in the Antarctic Treaty and ¶ the confidentiality that inevitably surrounds the commercial Exploitation of ¶ bioactive material (i.e. parenring)". Second was the issue of wherher and how¶ regularion of bioprospeC

ting hould proceed, and if so, who would oversee it.¶ Third, rhere was the issue of how to regulate revenues derived from commercial ¶ exploitation of Anrarctic species . The United Kingdom's paper was ¶ imporrant, for it became the catalyst for the ATCPs realizing the need to give ¶ serious consideration co bioprospecring in the polar south and alerted them to ¶ potential legal , political and scientific complications that those activities ¶ might present to the ATS . In this contexr, rhe rerm 'securiry" is construed ro¶ mean rho e environmenral issue, includi ng bioprospecring, rhat threaten rhe¶ inregrir)/, efficiency and institurional effectiveness of the AT b}' tormenti ng¶ conAicr or dissent ion among

the member governments, especially the ATCPs.¶ That is to say, the principal consideration in the security of the ATS include ¶ the legal assecs and polirical inreresrs , as well as the integrity of the ATC to ¶ function as an

efficacious regime amongst its member parties in its respective ¶ cooperative institutions . 14 lr is rhe urgen r necessiry to preserve such assers and¶ interes ts rhar legirimize and makes essen rial rhe ro le of a secure, fu ncriona l,¶ cooperarive reg ime for governing rhe otl[h Polar region.¶

War - Arctic Conflict

Bio prospecting commercializes the arctic which breaks down the basis of all arctic cooperationLeary,08, a member of the biodiplomacy initiative team at University-Institute of Advanced Studies ( David, “Bioprospecting and Governance Regimes in Polar Regions:

A Comparative Analysis of Existing Law and Policy Regimes and Options for the Future”, http://polaris.nipr.ac.jp/~ipy/usr/sympo/proc-files/61-Leary.pdf)

Over the past half century or more the whole governance mechanism for the Antarctic has been built on the “implicit assumption...that somehow Antarctic science was a thing apart, a means of benignly meeting national interests in

real-estate, sovereignty, resource potential. It was international, generally sharable and collaborative” (Hemmings and Rogan-

Finnemore 2005). But changing patterns of scientific research in Antarctica fundamentally challenge this assumption. The new era of “genome enabled” biology in Antarctica offers new possibilities across a wide range of disciplines including systematics, microbiology, ecology, evolutionary biology, physiology, biochemistry and molecular biology (U.S.

National Research Council 2003). But with these new opportunities come new challenges for the management of scientific research in Antarctica. The increasing commercialization of Antarctic research and in particular the emerging interest of the biotechnology industry in Antarctica’s possibilities potentially challenges a major assumption upon which international governance in Antarctica is built.

Arctic conflicts go nuclear

Wallace and Staples 10 Michael Wallace is Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia; Steven Staples is President of the Rideau Institute in Ottawa, March 2010, “Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear Weapons A Task Long Overdue”, http://www.arcticsecurity.org/docs/arctic-nuclear-report-web.pdf

The fact is, the Arctic is becoming a zone of increased military competition. Russian President Medvedev has announced the creation of a special military force to defend Arctic claims. Last year Russian General Vladimir Shamanov declared that Russian troops would step up training for Arctic combat, and that Russia’s submarine fleet would increase its “operational radius.” Recently, two Russian attack submarines were spotted off the U.S. east coast for the first time in 15 years. In January 2009, on the eve of Obama’s inauguration, President Bush issued a National Security Presidential Directive on Arctic Regional Policy. It affirmed as a priority the preservation of U.S. military vessel and

aircraft mobility and transit throughout the Arctic, including the Northwest Passage, and foresaw greater capabilities to protect U.S. borders in the Arctic. The Bush administration’s disastrous eight years in office, particularly its decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty and deploy missile defence interceptors and a radar station in Eastern Europe, have greatly contributed to the instability we are seeing today, even though the Obama administration has scaled back the planned deployments. The Arctic has figured in this

renewed interest in Cold War weapons systems, particularly the upgrading of the Thule Ballistic Missile Early Warning System radar in Northern Greenland for ballistic missile defence. The Canadian government, as well, has put forward new military capabilities to protect Canadian sovereignty claims in the Arctic, including proposed ice-capable ships, a northern military training base and a deep-water port. Earlier this year Denmark released an all-party defence position paper that suggests the country should create a dedicated Arctic military contingent that draws on army, navy and air force assets with shipbased helicopters able to drop troops anywhere. Danish fighter planes would be tasked to patrol Greenlandic airspace. Last year Norway chose to buy 48 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets, partly because of their suitability for Arctic patrols. In March, that country held a major Arctic military practice involving 7,000 soldiers from 13 countries in which a fictional country called Northland seized offshore oil rigs. The manoeuvres prompted a protest from Russia – which objected again in June after Sweden held its largest northern military exercise since the end of the Second World War. About 12,000 troops, 50 aircraft and several warships were involved. Jayantha Dhanapala, President of Pugwash and former UN

under-secretary for disarmament affairs, summarized the situation bluntly: “From those in the international peace and security sector, deep concerns are being expressed over the fact that two nuclear weapon states – the United States and the

Russian Federation, which together own 95 per cent of the nuclear weapons in the world – converge on the Arctic and have competing claims. These claims, together with those of other allied NATO countries –

Canada, Denmark, Iceland, and Norway – could, if unresolved, lead to conflict escalating into the threat or use of nuclear weapons.” Many will no doubt argue that this is excessively alarmist, but no circumstance in which nuclear powers find themselves in

military confrontation can be taken lightly. The current geo-political threat level is nebulous and low – for now, according to Rob Huebert of the University

of Calgary, “[the] issue is the uncertainty as Arctic states and non-Arctic states begin to recognize the geo-political/economic significance of the Arctic because of climate change.”

War - South China SeaBio prospecting creates an economic motive for conflicts in the South China SeaSchofield et al, 11, writing for The National Bureau of Asian Research, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research institution dedicated to informing and strengthening policy. NBR conducts advanced independent research on strategic, political, economic, globalization, health, and energy issues affecting U.S. relations with Asia (Clive Schofield, Ian Townsend-Gault, Hasjim Djalal, Ian Storey, Meredith Miller, and Tim Cook, “from disputed waters to seas of opportunity

Overcoming Barriers to Maritime Cooperation in East and Southeast Asia”, nbr special report #30 | july 2011, http://maritimesecurity.asia/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/SR30_MERA.pdf)

Also of note is growing interest in and use of marine genetic resources, which offer an additional dimension to traditional marine living resources. Marine biota (plants and animals) represent a relatively untapped resource offering developmental potential for a range of applications in the fields of medicine, agriculture (providing specialist health foods and dietary supplements, as well as agricultural chemicals such as herbicides and pesticides), cosmetics, and in industries where marine products can provide valuable enzymes and catalysts in industrial processes. This has led to the emergence of marine “bioprospecting” and this type of activity represents a potentially rich resource and opportunity for coastal states. Indeed, products related to marine biotechnology were estimated to be worth $100 billion in 2000 alone. The potential for further growth in marine bioprospecting, especially from relatively unknown areas subject to competing jurisdictional claims or located in deepwaters is underscored by the fact that, of over 30,000 marine natural products reported since the 1960s, less than 2% derive from deep-sea organisms. The extremely biodiversity-rich yet underexplored waters of the East China Sea, South China Sea, and Gulf of Thailand seem to offer great potential in this regard.

South china sea is rife with tensions – leads to escalationPerlez ‘12

Chief diplomatic correspondent in the Beijing bureau of The New York Times. She covers China and its foreign policy, particularly relations between the United States and China, and their impact on the Asian region.(Jane, “Dispute Flares Over Energy in South China Sea,” December 4th, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/world/asia/china-vietnam-and-india-fight-over-energy-exploration-in-south-china-sea.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0&pagewanted=print

China and two of its neighbors, Vietnam and India, were locked in a new dispute on Tuesday over energy exploration in the South China Sea, a signal that Beijing plans to continue its hard line in the increasingly contentious waterway. Vietnam accused a Chinese fishing boat of cutting a seismic cable attached to one of its vessels exploring for oil and gas near the Gulf of Tonkin, an act apparently intended to inhibit Vietnam from pursuing energy deposits. Vietnam said Tuesday that in retaliation, it would send out new patrols, which would include the marine police, to guard against increasing encroachment by Chinese fishing boats in the South China Sea. India, which operates several joint ventures with Vietnam’s national energy company, Petro Vietnam, said it would consider sending navy vessels to protect its interests in the South China Sea. The latest episode followed an announcement by Hainan Province in southern China last week that Chinese vessels would board and search ships in contested areas of the

waterway, which includes vital shipping lanes through which more than a third of global trade moves. The new tensions among China, Vietnam and India illustrate in stark terms the competition in the South China Sea for what are believed to be sizable deposits of oil and gas. Some energy experts in China see the sea as an important new energy frontier close to home that could make China less dependent on its huge oil imports from the Middle East. On Monday, China’s National Energy Administration named the South China Sea as the main offshore site for natural gas production. Within two years, China aims to produce 150 billion cubic meters of natural gas from fields in the sea, a significant increase from the 20 billion cubic meters produced so far, the agency said. Earlier this year, China’s third-largest energy company, the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corporation, began drilling with a rig in deep water in nondisputed waters off the southern coast of China. The escalation in the South China Sea comes less than a month after Xi Jinping took office as China’s leader. Mr. Xi appears to have taken a particular interest in the South China Sea and the serious dispute between China and Japan over the islands known as Diaoyu in China and as Senkaku in Japan. Whether any of China’s most recent actions in the South China Sea were associated with Mr. Xi was not clear. But Mr. Xi does lead a small group of policy makers clustered in the Maritime Rights Office, which serves to coordinate agencies within China, according to Zhu Feng, a professor of international relations at Peking University, and other Chinese experts. The unit is part of the office of the Foreign Affairs Leading Small Group, Mr. Zhu said. The leading small group, now headed by Mr. Xi, is widely believed to be China’s central policy-making group. China’s Foreign Ministry reiterated on Tuesday that China opposed oil and gas development by other countries in disputed waters of the sea. China maintains that it has “undisputed” sovereignty over the South China Sea, and that only China is allowed to develop the energy resources. “We hope that concerned countries respect China’s position and rights,” said the Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hong Lei. Vietnam, which has long been wary of China but enjoys a relationship through its governing Communist Party, summoned the Chinese ambassador on Monday to protest the cutting of the seismic cable, the Vietnamese news media reported. A Web site run by Petro Vietnam, the oil company, reported that the company’s exploration vessel Binh Minh 02 had its seismic cable severed by a Chinese fishing vessel on Friday. In May 2011, the Vietnamese authorities said a similar cable of the Binh Minh 02 was cut by three Chinese surveillance ships, resulting in weeks of anti-China protests in Hanoi. In its decree on the new patrols, Vietnam said that civilian ships, supported by the marine police and a border force, would be deployed starting next month to stop foreign vessels that violate fishing laws in waters claimed by Vietnam. A senior official of Petro Vietnam, Pham Viet Dung, was quoted in the Vietnamese news media as saying that large numbers of Chinese fishing boats, many of them substantial vessels, had recently entered waters claimed by Vietnam. The fishing vessels interfered with the operations of the oil company, he said. India, whose state-run oil company, the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, has a 45 percent interest in exploration with Petro Vietnam, also reacted strongly. The head of the Indian Navy, Adm. D. K. Joshi, said that India was prepared to send navy vessels to protect its interests in the sea. “Now, are we preparing for it? Are we having exercises of that nature? The short answer is ‘yes,’ ” Admiral Joshi told reporters in India.

AFF

Bio-prospecting InevitableThe impact is inevitable – limiting access to diverse marine ecosystems causes even more destructive corner-cutting by bioprospectors Kushal Qanungo (writer for Science Development Net, a London-based science news/analysis

organization, January 2002 “Time for a new deal on marine bioprospecting” http://www.scidev.net/global/biodiversity/opinion/time-for-a-new-deal-on-marine-bioprospecting.html

Such countries, however, are already sensitive to concerns over ‘biopiracy’, and generally believe that they do not get a fair share of benefits from any bioprospecting activity. As the long-term economic potential of marine genetic resources becomes clear4, coastal states are therefore putting in place complex laws restricting access to their marine biodiversity. These laws, together with the high expectations that coastal states have of their marine biodiversity, are making access for both scientific and commercial marine bio-prospecting increasingly difficult3. There are a number of reasons why restricting access to marine biodiversity will do little to stop marine bioprospecting in tropical coastal seas. Firstly, a bioprospector can always negotiate ocean access with a neighbouring coastal state, which is likely to share common marine flora and fauna. Secondly, restricting access to biological resources is likely to make pharmaceutical companies seek alternative sources of novel molecules — such as modern combinatorial chemistry — that can provide large libraries of new molecules very quickly for drug discovery. In other words, not only will restricting access fail to hold back the pursuit of intellectual property, but the coastal state denying access would also lose the chance to profit from its marine biodiversity. If marine diversity is to be translated into monetary value, therefore, the best option for all tropical coastal nations to pursue is a principle of open access.

A2 Bioprospecting UnethicalNo runaway development - companies have ethics Rose et al 12 - Department of Management, Technology, and Innovation @ Grenoble School of Management (Janna, Cassandra Quave, and Gazi Islam, “The Four-Sided Triangle of Ethics in Bioprospecting: Pharmaceutical Business, International Politics, Socio-Environmental Responsibility and the Importance of Local Stakeholders,” Ethnobiology and Conservation, 10/4/12, http://ethnobioconservation.com/index.php/ebc/article/view/14/13)

While public health and intellectual property debates around genetic information dominate the ethical spectrum (Blaustein 2006; Eaton 2004;

Finegold 2005; Holloway 2006), ethical issues pertaining to the intercultural contact surrounding early-stage bioprospecting are difficult to come across in ethical scholarship (Rosendal 2006). In terms of corporate social

responsibility (CSR) actions, several pharmaceutical companies have integrated CSR into production and research practices (Lindgreen et al. 2009a) and at the end of the bioprospecting process by selling or donating products to poor or marginalized groups in need of healthcare. To provide a few illustrations, Merck announced in September 2011 that it will make maternal care and obstetrics a focal issue for CSR (www.merckformothers.com), working with the UN to provide accessible treatment for women in poor regions. Royal DSM, a Dutch chemical company, donates nutritional supplements and health foods in conjunction with the World Food Programme (Beard and Hornik 2011), and Brazilian managers of Proctor & Gamble pushed for less expensive quality products that could help poorer individuals live more comfortable lives (Kanter 2011). In 2002, Novartis established a non-profit research center in Singapore to study diseases that most commonly affect tropical, less developed regions and are neglected in treatment research in more developed countries (http://www.nibr.com/research/developing_world/NITD/index.shtml).

Novartis states in its 2010 Global Reporting Initiative that it supports the CBD and works to maintain recognition of national sovereignty over resources and to develop education and drug research opportunities for scientists in other countries, thereby simultaneously contributing to social and environmental responsibility.

No BioprospectingToo many barriers for bioprospecting developmentRose et al 12 - Department of Management, Technology, and Innovation @ Grenoble School of Management (Janna, Cassandra Quave, and Gazi Islam, “The Four-Sided Triangle of Ethics in Bioprospecting: Pharmaceutical Business, International Politics, Socio-Environmental Responsibility and the Importance of Local Stakeholders,” Ethnobiology and Conservation, 10/4/12, http://ethnobioconservation.com/index.php/ebc/article/view/14/13)

After a researcher conducts fieldwork to collect natural specimens, chemicals or proteins are extracted from the specimens. These extracts are screened for effectiveness against one or more diseases or pathogens. If they exhibit favorable activity, they are further tested for toxicity (against human or mammalian cells), and they are chemically analyzed to identify the one (or sometimes multiple) chemicals or molecules that are responsible for their activity. This can take several months to a few years to complete, and at any stage, the compound might be dropped for showing toxicity, having too complex a chemistry, solubility (and thus delivery) concerns, or already being known. If the chemical or molecule is identified and tests show that it is effective and non-toxic, then the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics will next be explored, as well as the specific mechanism of action with the target of a disease. This is often carried out using animal testing and basically means that researchers have to pinpoint exactly how the molecule will act in the human body and how the body will respond to it. This also means that researchers have to know exactly how the molecule is interacting with the target in order to treat the disease. Researchers might also slightly alter the molecule at this point to optimize these interactions. At this stage in development, a molecule is seen as very promising. Its value has been increasing at each stage in the R&D pipeline, although it is difficult to enumerate the value. This might be a critical point for large firms to consider purchasing or investing in the

product’s future R&D (Amir-Aslani and Mangematin 2009; McGrath and Nerkar 2004). Indeed, if the molecule is to continue to clinical trials, major funding allocations must be met, as this is the most expensive part of the drug development process. Most academic research laboratories or small biotechnology firms do not have enough monetary resources available to pursue clinical trials. In fact, even the pre-clinical stages of development that meet regulatory standards often require costly GMP (good manufacturing practice) production of the compound(s) and GLP (good laboratory practice) testing that is typically outsourced to large CRO’s (contract research organizations) that specialize in this field. Thus large firms with substantial capital devoted to R&D are increasingly necessary in this lengthy, risky process, as they have the assets to carry them through the

short term until expected (high) revenues can be generated. A firm must apply for permission to conduct clinical trials through the US’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or another similar institution (in Europe or other countries). The regulations of each respective regional institution must be met in order for a drug to be marketed and sold in that

jurisdiction. The FDA protocol is considered to be the most rigorous and most expensive to complete. Clinical trials involve at least three stages, using different samples of the population (a few healthy individuals, the very sick, and the population at large). Participants in the trials are usually compensated for their time and any negative effects. If all three stages of trials show that the drug is beneficial in treating disease and does not cause serious side effects, then an application for approval of the drug must be compiled and submitted again to the FDA or governing health institution of a region. This is the point when a drug is launched onto the market. Production quality and standards must be upheld, and the product must be packaged, marketed, and advertised. Well after a drug is approved,

the FDA continues to check safety and quality standards of drugs and biotechnological products on the market. On average, it is estimated that the expense of bringing a new drug from the discovery phase, through the FDA regulatory hurdles, and to market ranges from approximately $800 million to $2 billion USD.

Too many barriers prevent bioprospecting developmentRose et al 12 - Department of Management, Technology, and Innovation @ Grenoble School of Management (Janna, Cassandra Quave, and Gazi Islam, “The Four-Sided Triangle of Ethics in Bioprospecting: Pharmaceutical Business, International Politics, Socio-Environmental Responsibility and the Importance of Local Stakeholders,” Ethnobiology and Conservation, 10/4/12,

http://ethnobioconservation.com/index.php/ebc/article/view/14/13)

Potential problems with this model include the use of a large pharmaceutical company as initial researchers in the process of bioprospecting.

Increasingly, large pharmaceuticals are not engaging in direct bioprospecting ventures because of the legal ambiguity of property rights and fears of parties not fulfilling their obligations or discontinuing agreements. Thus, researchers from academic institutions or small firms are often the first to engage in

bioprospecting research. With less funding, manpower, and resources, these researchers are more likely to conduct small studies, and they usually cannot afford to pay in advance for access to natural resources or information. Still, they can draw up an ABS agreement and stipulate what should happen if their research is carried out and another researcher or large firm wants to acquire access to the resources. However, if transnational rules were established for different types of researchers and stakeholders in the bioprospecting process, these contracts could be drawn up and enforced more easily across borders. Moreover, transnational laws would enforce universities, who in fact are the owners of any IP generated by their faculty (the “inventors” on patentable technology), to adhere to such agreements, ensuring that ABS agreements are incorporated in the package of any relevant IP to companies wishing to pursue R&D for eventual commercialization.

Bioprospecting structurally not profitable enough to spur major investmentFirn 3 (Richard, Department of Biology, University of York, “Bioprospecting – why is it so unrewarding?”, Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 207–216, 2003, pg. 209//nz)

Bioprospecting must thus be seen not as an independent process but as a contributor to a larger activity. The fact that so many large, successful pharmaceutical and agrochemical companies spend much more on making and screening synthetic chemicals than they do on isolating and testing natural products suggests that bioprospecting must bring with it disadvantages as well as advantages. The extent of this neglect of bioprospecting is brought into sharp focus when it is appreciated that the much publicised $1 million bioprospecting investment by Merck and Co. in INBio in 1991 was less than 0.1% of that company’s R & D budget for that year. Although evidence has been presented (ten

Kate and Laird 1999) as to the extent and value of natural product screening programmes to some pharmaceutical companies, it is sometimes overlooked that the total expenditure on such projects remains at best a very small fraction of the R & D budget of the major companies. Indeed, several major pharmaceutical companies have totally eliminated or scaled down their natural product screening programmes (Cordell 2000). A recent survey of companies

involved in bioprospecting concluded that no major pharmaceutical company had found investment in bioprospecting especially rewarding (Macilwain 1998). However, a recent sophisticated economic analysis (Rausser and Small 2000) has suggested that technological advances could increase the success of bioprospecting. Unfortunately, that analysis ignored some

fundamental scientific considerations and it is only by appreciating these factors that a realistic evaluation of the potential for bioprospecting can be achieved.

Conclusions Prospecting has always tended to enrich the dreams and build up the hopes of some sectors of the community. There is no doubt that there are many exciting, very valuable chemicals awaiting discovery in organisms but they lie hidden among a much larger number of chemicals that are currently of little human value. The developing understanding of secondary metabolite production suggests that combinatorial (bio)chemistry was evolved by organisms to enhance the chances of finding the rare, potent, biologically active molecule that enhanced the fitness of the producer. Given that humans often have quite different needs to those of other organisms in terms of the types of biological activity that could be beneficial, it is rational for humans to develop and utilise their own high throughput screening programmes to find the biological activity they seek. Once such a screen is operating, the most efficient method of proceeding is to test the widest range of chemical compounds that can be obtained most cheaply, preferably using chemicals that can be made economically on a large scale. It is easier to identify ways by which human knowledge can be used to improve combinatorial chemistry or combinatorial biochemistry in the laboratory than it is to see how knowledge can be used to improve the success rate of bioprospecting in the field. The scientific realities discussed in this paper underpin the previous economic analyses (Barbier and Aylward 1996; Simpson et al. 1996; Simpson 1997), which suggested that the economic potential for bioprospecting is, and is likely to remain, very limited.

Limited research and investment in bioprospecting- no positive cost motiveFirn 3 (Richard, Department of Biology, University of York, “Bioprospecting – why is it so unrewarding?”, Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 207–216, 2003, pg. 207 //nz)

Abstract. Some economic analyses have placed high values on the chemical diversity residing in threatened habitats [Balick and Mendelsohn (1992), Conservation Biology 6: 128–130; Principe (1996), In Biodiversity and its Importance to Human

Health, Columbia University Press, New York; Rausser and Small (2000), Journal of Political Economy 108: 173–206]. Consequently, bioprospecting (searching for new biologically active chemicals in organisms) is considered by some to be a way of funding the preservation of biodiversity, especially in the less developed countries. However, the large multinational pharmaceutical and agrochemical companies spend very little of their research effort on bioprospecting [Cordell (2000), Phytochemistry 55: 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 of possessing useful biological activity. The common belief that every natural product has been selected by its producer such that only biologically active natural products are made is not correct. Given that random collections of synthetic or natural products have a similar chance of containing a chemical with specific activity against any one target, and given that

synthetic chemicals are nearly always much easier to synthesise on an industrial scale, it is predictable that major agrochemical and pharmaceutical companies will devote only a limited amount of their R & D budget to bioprospecting. Although Rausser and Small (2000) argued that scientific advances will make bioprospecting more cost-effective in future,

an alternative scenario is presented where current biotechnological developments will further erode the value of bioprospecting. It is concluded that there should be no reliance on large-income streams being available from bioprospecting agreements to help fund the preservation of biodiversity.

Biodiversity => Stability

Biodiversity key to ecosystem stabilityOksanen 04 (Department of Behavioural Sciences and Philosophy, University of Turku 4

Markku “Philosophy and biodiversity” P 85-86)

Stability, generally speaking, refers to the ability of systems to withstand changes. For instance, a community’s ability to resist invasion can be taken as an indication of its stability. In ecological theory, definitions of stability in terms of the idea of equilibrium have been common: a stable system returns easily to its equilibrium after small perturbations, and system stability increases as time required to return to equilibrium decreases. The main problem with such definitions is the difficulty of specifying the notion of equilibrium in ecological systems. Constant competition for food as well as genetic variability cause continual changes in populations, and ecologists have adopted measures of stability which rely on variability in population or community densities (see McCann 2000). In general, stability increases as densitymoves further from extremely low or high densities, that is, when variation in density decreases. Recent experimental results indicate that diversity measured as species richness within an ecosystem tends to be positively correlated with stability measured as decreased variability in community density.1 This, however, should not be taken to mean that diversity is the driver of this relationship, but that ecosystem stability depends on the ability of the species in the communities to respond differentially to perturbations. By regulating their interaction processes like food-web structures, rich ecosystems are able to protect themselves against internal and external destabilizing factors, and decreasing biodiversity tends to increase the overall mean interaction strength and thereby the probability that systems undergo destabilizing dynamics and collapse (McCann 2000, 233).

Bioprospecting Solves DiseaseBioprospecting is key to solve super diseases Wangchuk 8 - researcher at James Cook University (Phurpa, “Health Impacts of Traditional Medicines and Bioprospecting: A World Scenario Accentuating Bhutan's Perspective,” Journal of Bhutan Studies, June 2008 http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/41223486/health-impacts-traditional-medicines-bioprospecting-world-scenario-accentuating-bhutans-perspective)

Despite these developments, of the known 30,000 human diseases or disorders, only one-third can some how be treated symptomatically with

drugs and that too at a great economic and social cost. This is because of the fact that the drugs available today are still not very effective particularly with respect to the fight against drug resistant pathogens and newly emerging infections. This includes infectious diseases such as AIDS, influenza, tuberculosis and malaria as well as other chronic disorders like cancer, autoimmune disorders and central nervous system disabilities (e.g. Alzheimer’s disease). They are incurable and often fatal causing great suffering and disability. Hence, these diseases including resistant pathogens are of special concern to communities worldwide. There is an urgent need to find concrete solutions for combating such epidemics. Prevention of famine, drought, poverty, flood, war, political upheaval, economic failure, environmental depletion and pollution would be good solutions to reduce infections and the development of resistance. Strengthening and developing Journal of Bhutan Studies 118 traditional medicines through evidence-based research for use against the diseases especially the chronic ones and also against

drug resistant pathogens is another potential area. Another most important strategy to combat both new as well as the re-emerging infectious diseases is to develop an arsenal of new drugs. New drugs could be developed synthetically, but experience has taught us that the natural products are rich in structurally diverse bioactive molecules that quite often become potential candidates for new drugs. In fact, in 1996, six

out of the top 20 pharmaceutical prescription drugs dispensed were natural products. Therefore, it is very important that mankind value and appreciate the role and impacts of natural products, traditional medicines and modern drugs discovered from natural products. This paper presents the role and the impacts of the natural products, traditional medicines and the nature-based drug discoveries. It also describes the potential, constraints and future directions in the area of natural product-based traditional medicines and nature-based drug discovery programs accentuating Bhutan’s perspectives.

Disease spread will cause extinction Steinbruner 98 – Senior Fellow at Brookings Institution [John D., “Biological weapons: A plague upon all houses,” Foreign Policy, Dec 22,A

It s a considerable comfort and undoubtedly a key to our survival that, so far, the main lines of defense against this threat have not

depended on explicit policies or organized efforts. In the long course of evolution, the human body has developed physical barriers and a biochemical immune system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could design or as yet even fully understand. But evolution is a sword that cuts both ways: New diseases emerge, while old diseases mutate and adapt. Throughout history, there have been epidemics during which human immunity has broken down on an epic scale. An infectious agent believed to have been the plague bacterium killed an estimated 20 million people over a four-year period in the fourteenth century, including nearly one-quarter of Western Europe's population at the time. Since its

recognized appearance in 1981, some 20 variations of the mv virus have infected an estimated 29.4 million worldwide, with 1.5 million people currently dying of AIDS each year. Malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera--

once thought to be under control--are now making a comeback. As we enter the twenty-first century, changing conditions have enhanced the potential for widespread contagion. The rapid growth rate of the total world population, the unprecedented freedom of movement across international borders, and scientific advances that expand the capability for the deliberate

manipulation of pathogens are all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the future than it has ever been in the

past. The threat of infectious pathogens is not just an issue of public health, but a fundamental security problem for the species as a whole.