InherencyAlthough promising, marine bioprospecting is low in the status quo due to regulatory issues and no federal mandate Global Ocean Commission 10 -- Bioprospecting and marine genetic resources in the high seas, pg. 1, http://www.globaloceancommission.org/wp-content/uploads/GOC-paper04-bioprospecting.pdfMarine 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.

PlanPlan: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration of the Earths oceans for the purpose of developing new pharmaceuticals. Disease

New zoonotic diseases are inevitable they will go globalKaresh et al 12 - Dr William B Karesh, Prof Andy Dobson DPhil, Prof James O Lloyd-Smith PhD, Juan Lubroth DVM h, Matthew A Dixon MSc i, Prof Malcolm Bennett PhD j, Stephen Aldrich BA k, Todd Harrington MBA k, Pierre Formenty DVM l, Elizabeth H Loh MS a, Catherine C Machalaba MPH a, Mathew Jason Thomas MPH m, Prof David L Heymann MD i n (1/12/2012, "Ecology of zoonoses: natural and unnatural histories," www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61678-X/fulltext, ADL)More than 60% of human infectious diseases are caused by pathogens shared with wild or domestic animals. Zoonotic disease organisms include those that are endemic in human populations or enzootic in animal populations with frequent cross-species transmission to people. Some of these diseases have only emerged recently. Together, these organisms are responsible for a substantial burden of disease, with endemic and enzootic zoonoses causing about a billion cases of illness in people and millions of deaths every year. Emerging zoonoses are a growing threat to global health and have caused hundreds of billions of US dollars of economic damage in the past 20 years. We aimed to review how zoonotic diseases result from natural pathogen ecology, and how other circumstances, such as animal production, extraction of natural resources, and antimicrobial application change the dynamics of disease exposure to human beings. In view of present anthropogenic trends, a more effective approach to zoonotic disease prevention and control will require a broad view of medicine that emphasises evidence-based decision making and integrates ecological and evolutionary principles of animal, human, and environmental factors. This broad view is essential for the successful development of policies and practices that reduce probability of future zoonotic emergence, targeted surveillance and strategic prevention, and engagement of partners outside the medical community to help improve health outcomes and reduce disease threats. This is the first in a Series of three papers about zoonoses Introduction Pathogens shared with wild or domestic animals cause more than 60% of infectious diseases in man.1 Such pathogens and diseases include leptospirosis, cysticercosis and echinococcosis, toxoplasmosis, anthrax, brucellosis, rabies, Q fever, Chagas disease, type A influenzas, Rift Valley fever, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Ebola haemorrhagic fever, and the original emergence of HIV.26 Zoonotic diseases are often categorised according to their route of transmission (eg, vector-borne or foodborne), pathogen type (eg, microparasites, macroparasites, viruses, bacteria, protozoa, worms, ticks, or fleas), or degree of person-to-person transmissibility.7 The greatest burden on human health and livelihoods, amounting to about 1 billion cases of illness and millions of deaths every year, is caused by endemic zoonoses that are persistent regional health problems around the world.2 Many of these infections are enzootic (ie, stably established) in animal populations, and transmit from animals to people with little or no subsequent person-to-person transmissionfor example, rabies or trypanosomiasis. Other zoonotic pathogens can spread efficiently between people once introduced from an animal reservoir, leading to localised outbreaks (eg, Ebola virus) or global spread (eg, pandemic influenza). Zoonoses made up most of the emerging infectious diseases identified in people in the past 70 years which, although relatively rare compared with endemic zoonoses, are a substantial threat to global health and have caused economic damage exceeding hundreds of billions of US dollars in the past 20 years.8, 9 Apart from the appearance of a pathogen for the first time in human beings, the distinction between endemic and emerging zoonoses can be viewed as temporal or geographical. An endemic disease in one location would be regarded as an emerging disease if it crossed from its natural reservoir and entered the human or animal populations in a new geographical area, or if an endemic pathogen evolved new traits that created an epidemic (eg, drug resistance). Key messages Nearly two-thirds of human infectious diseases arise from pathogens shared with wild or domestic animals Endemic and enzootic zoonoses cause about a billion cases of illness in people and millions of deaths every year, and emerging zoonoses are a rising threat to global health, having caused hundreds of billions of US dollars of economic damage in the past 20 years Ecological and evolutionary perspectives can provide valuable insights into pathogen ecology and can inform zoonotic disease-control programmes Anthropogenic practices, such as changes in land use and extractive industry actions, animal production systems, and widespread antimicrobial applications affect zoonotic disease transmission Risks are not limited to low-income countries; as global trade and travel expands, zoonoses are increasingly posing health concerns for the global medical community Ecological, evolutionary, social, economic, and epidemiological mechanisms affecting zoonoses' persistence and emergence are not well understood; such information could inform evidence-based policies, practices, and targeted zoonotic disease surveillance, and prevention and control efforts Multisectoral collaboration, including clinicians, public health scientists, ecologists and disease ecologists, veterinarians, economists, and others is necessary for effective management of the causes and prevention of zoonotic diseases Transmission of pathogens into human populations from other species is a natural product of our relation with animals and the environment. The emergence of zoonoses, both recent and historical, can be considered as a logical consequence of pathogen ecology and evolution, as microbes exploit new niches and adapt to new hosts. The underlying causes that create or provide access to these new niches seem to be mediated by human action in most cases, and include changes in land use, extraction of natural resources, animal production systems, modern transportation, antimicrobial drug use, and global trade. Although underlying ecological principles that shape how these pathogens survive and change have remained similar, people have changed the environment in which these principles operate. Domestication of animals, clearing of land for farming and grazing, and hunting of wildlife in new habitats, have resulted in zoonotic human infection with microorganisms that cause diseases such as rabies, echinococcosis, and the progenitors of measles and smallpox that had historically affected only animal populations through changes in contact and increased transmission opportunities from animals to people.1012 As human societies have developed, each era of livestock revolution presented new health challenges and new opportunities for emergence of zoonotic pathogens.13 In the past few decades, accelerating global changes linked to an expanding global population have led to the emergence of a striking number of newly described zoonoses, including hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, monkeypox, SARS, and simian immunodeficiency virus (the animal precursor to HIV). Some of these zoonoses, such as HIV, have become established as substantial new human pathogens that circulate persistently without repeat animal-to-person transmission. SARS could have established, but was contained by rapid global response to its emergence;14 other zoonoses, such as Ebola virus and Nipah virus, have not become established because of local control efforts or their intrinsic inability to transmit efficiently between people. However, others such as hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, which is enzootic in rodents in many locations, cause sporadic and infrequent clusters of infections in human beings.15 In all cases, these emerging zoonoses are defined by their relatively recent appearance (or detection) in a population or, in some cases, an amplification of transmission that increases the incidence, prevalence, or geographical distribution of previously rare pathogens.15 Emergence of a zoonosis depends on several factors that often act simultaneously to change pathogen dynamics. The capacity of a pathogen to transmit or spread in a population is commonly quantified by the basic reproduction number, or R0 (panel 1). In addition to inherent properties of the pathogen, factors affecting emergence or spread include environmental factors or changes in land use, human population growth, changes to human behaviour or social structure, international travel or trade, microbial adaptation to drug or vaccine use or to new host species, and breakdown in public health infrastructure.17 With more than a billion international travellers every year, infected individuals could potentially spread zoonotic diseases anywhere in the world. Thus, with the emergence of new infectious diseases and the chronic presence of known zoonotic diseases in many low-income and middle-income countries that might or might not be adequately diagnosed or reported, zoonoses are increasingly relevant to the global medical community.

Zoonoses cause human extinction different from other diseasesQuammen, award-winning science writer, long-time columnist for Outside magazine, writer for National Geographic, Harper's, Rolling Stone, the New York Times Book Review and others, 9/29/2012(David, Could the next big animal-to-human disease wipe us out?, The Guardian, pg. 29, Lexis) Infectious disease is all around us. It's one of the basic processes that ecologists study, along with predation and competition. Predators are big beasts that eat their prey from outside. Pathogens (disease-causing agents, such as viruses) are small beasts that eat their prey from within. Although infectious disease can seem grisly and dreadful, under ordinary conditions, it's every bit as natural as what lions do to wildebeests and zebras. But conditions aren't always ordinary. Just as predators have their accustomed prey, so do pathogens. And just as a lion might occasionally depart from its normal behaviour - to kill a cow instead of a wildebeest, or a human instead of a zebra - so a pathogen can shift to a new target. Aberrations occur. When a pathogen leaps from an animal into a person, and succeeds in establishing itself as an infectious presence, sometimes causing illness or death, the result is a zoonosis. It's a mildly technical term, zoonosis, unfamiliar to most people, but it helps clarify the biological complexities behind the ominous headlines about swine flu, bird flu, Sars, emerging diseases in general, and the threat of a global pandemic. It's a word of the future, destined for heavy use in the 21st century. Ebola and Marburg are zoonoses. So is bubonic plague. So was the so-called Spanish influenza of 1918-1919, which had its source in a wild aquatic bird and emerged to kill as many as 50 million people. All of the human influenzas are zoonoses. As are monkeypox, bovine tuberculosis, Lyme disease, West Nile fever, rabies and a strange new affliction called Nipah encephalitis, which has killed pigs and pig farmers in Malaysia. Each of these zoonoses reflects the action of a pathogen that can "spillover", crossing into people from other animals. Aids is a disease of zoonotic origin caused by a virus that, having reached humans through a few accidental events in western and central Africa, now passes human-to-human. This form of interspecies leap is not rare; about 60% of all human infectious diseases currently known either cross routinely or have recently crossed between other animals and us. Some of those - notably rabies - are familiar, widespread and still horrendously lethal, killing humans by the thousands despite centuries of efforts at coping with their effects. Others are new and inexplicably sporadic, claiming a few victims or a few hundred, and then disappearing for years. Zoonotic pathogens can hide. The least conspicuous strategy is to lurk within what's called a reservoir host: a living organism that carries the pathogen while suffering little or no illness. When a disease seems to disappear between outbreaks, it's often still lingering nearby, within some reservoir host. A rodent? A bird? A butterfly? A bat? To reside undetected is probably easiest wherever biological diversity is high and the ecosystem is relatively undisturbed. The converse is also true: ecological disturbance causes diseases to emerge. Shake a tree and things fall out. Michelle Barnes is an energetic, late 40s-ish woman, an avid rock climber and cyclist. Her auburn hair, she told me cheerily, came from a bottle. It approximates the original colour, but the original is gone. In 2008, her hair started falling out; the rest went grey "pretty much overnight". This was among the lesser effects of a mystery illness that had nearly killed her during January that year, just after she'd returned from Uganda. Her story paralleled the one Jaap Taal had told me about Astrid, with several key differences - the main one being that Michelle Barnes was still alive. Michelle and her husband, Rick Taylor, had wanted to see mountain gorillas, too. Their guide had taken them through Maramagambo Forest and into Python Cave. They, too, had to clamber across those slippery boulders. As a rock climber, Barnes said, she tends to be very conscious of where she places her hands. No, she didn't touch any guano. No, she was not bumped by a bat. By late afternoon they were back, watching the sunset. It was Christmas evening 2007. They arrived home on New Year's Day. On 4 January, Barnes woke up feeling as if someone had driven a needle into her skull. She was achy all over, feverish. "And then, as the day went on, I started developing a rash across my stomach." The rash spread. "Over the next 48 hours, I just went down really fast." By the time Barnes turned up at a hospital in suburban Denver, she was dehydrated; her white blood count was imperceptible; her kidneys and liver had begun shutting down. An infectious disease specialist, Dr Norman K Fujita, arranged for her to be tested for a range of infections that might be contracted in Africa. All came back negative, including the test for Marburg. Gradually her body regained strength and her organs began to recover. After 12 days, she left hospital, still weak and anaemic, still undiagnosed. In March she saw Fujita on a follow-up visit and he had her serum tested again for Marburg. Again, negative. Three more months passed, and Barnes, now grey-haired, lacking her old energy, suffering abdominal pain, unable to focus, got an email from a journalist she and Taylor had met on the Uganda trip, who had just seen a news article. In the Netherlands, a woman had died of Marburg after a Ugandan holiday during which she had visited a cave full of bats. Barnes spent the next 24 hours Googling every article on the case she could find. Early the following Monday morning, she was back at Dr Fujita's door. He agreed to test her a third time for Marburg. This time a lab technician crosschecked the third sample, and then the first sample. The new results went to Fujita, who called Barnes: "You're now an honorary infectious disease doctor. You've self-diagnosed, and the Marburg test came back positive." The Marburg virus had reappeared in Uganda in 2007. It was a small outbreak, affecting four miners, one of whom died, working at a site called Kitaka Cave. But Joosten's death, and Barnes's diagnosis, implied a change in the potential scope of the situation. That local Ugandans were dying of Marburg was a severe concern - sufficient to bring a response team of scientists in haste. But if tourists, too, were involved, tripping in and out of some python-infested Marburg repository, unprotected, and then boarding their return flights to other continents, the place was not just a peril for Ugandan miners and their families. It was also an international threat. The first team of scientists had collected about 800 bats from Kitaka Cave for dissecting and sampling, and marked and released more than 1,000, using beaded collars coded with a number. That team, including scientist Brian Amman, had found live Marburg virus in five bats. Entering Python Cave after Joosten's death, another team of scientists, again including Amman, came across one of the beaded collars they had placed on captured bats three months earlier and 30 miles away. "It confirmed my suspicions that these bats are moving," Amman said - and moving not only through the forest but from one roosting site to another. Travel of individual bats between far-flung roosts implied circumstances whereby Marburg virus might ultimately be transmitted all across Africa, from one bat encampment to another. It voided the comforting assumption that this virus is strictly localised. And it highlighted the complementary question: why don't outbreaks of Marburg virus disease happen more often? Marburg is only one instance to which that question applies. Why not more Ebola? Why not more Sars? In the case of Sars, the scenario could have been very much worse. Apart from the 2003 outbreak and the aftershock cases in early 2004, it hasn't recurred. . . so far. Eight thousand cases are relatively few for such an explosive infection; 774 people died, not 7 million. Several factors contributed to limiting the scope and impact of the outbreak, of which humanity's good luck was only one. Another was the speed and excellence of the laboratory diagnostics - finding the virus and identifying it. Still another was the brisk efficiency with which cases were isolated, contacts were traced and quarantine measures were instituted, first in southern China, then in Hong Kong, Singapore, Hanoi and Toronto. If the virus had arrived in a different sort of big city - more loosely governed, full of poor people, lacking first-rate medical institutions - it might have burned through a much larger segment of humanity. One further factor, possibly the most crucial, was inherent in the way Sars affects the human body: symptoms tend to appear in a person before, rather than after, that person becomes highly infectious. That allowed many Sars cases to be recognised, hospitalised and placed in isolation before they hit their peak of infectivity. With influenza and many other diseases, the order is reversed. That probably helped account for the scale of worldwide misery and death during the 1918-1919 influenza. And that infamous global pandemic occurred in the era before globalisation. Everything nowadays moves around the planet faster, including viruses. When the Next Big One comes, it will likely conform to the same perverse pattern as the 1918 influenza: high infectivity preceding notable symptoms. That will help it move through cities and airports like an angel of death. The Next Big One is a subject that disease scientists around the world often address. The most recent big one is Aids, of which the eventual total bigness cannot even be predicted - about 30 million deaths, 34 million living people infected, and with no end in sight. Fortunately, not every virus goes airborne from one host to another. If HIV-1 could, you and I might already be dead. If the rabies virus could, it would be the most horrific pathogen on the planet. The influenzas are well adapted for airborne transmission, which is why a new strain can circle the world within days. The Sars virus travels this route, too, or anyway by the respiratory droplets of sneezes and coughs - hanging in the air of a hotel corridor, moving through the cabin of an aeroplane - and that capacity, combined with its case fatality rate of almost 10%, is what made it so scary in 2003 to the people who understood it best. Human-to-human transmission is the crux. That capacity is what separates a bizarre, awful, localised, intermittent and mysterious disease (such as Ebola) from a global pandemic. Have you noticed the persistent, low-level buzz about avian influenza, the strain known as H5N1, among disease experts over the past 15 years? That's because avian flu worries them deeply, though it hasn't caused many human fatalities. Swine flu comes and goes periodically in the human population (as it came and went during 2009), sometimes causing a bad pandemic and sometimes (as in 2009) not so bad as expected; but avian flu resides in a different category of menacing possibility. It worries the flu scientists because they know that H5N1 influenza is extremely virulent in people, with a high lethality. As yet, there have been a relatively low number of cases, and it is poorly transmissible, so far, from human to human. It'll kill you if you catch it, very likely, but you're unlikely to catch it except by butchering an infected chicken. But if H5N1 mutates or reassembles itself in just the right way, if it adapts for human-to-human transmission, it could become the biggest and fastest killer disease since 1918. It got to Egypt in 2006 and has been especially problematic for that country. As of August 2011, there were 151 confirmed cases, of which 52 were fatal. That represents more than a quarter of all the world's known human cases of bird flu since H5N1 emerged in 1997. But here's a critical fact: those unfortunate Egyptian patients all seem to have acquired the virus directly from birds. This indicates that the virus hasn't yet found an efficient way to pass from one person to another. Two aspects of the situation are dangerous, according to biologist Robert Webster. The first is that Egypt, given its recent political upheavals, may be unable to staunch an outbreak of transmissible avian flu, if one occurs. His second concern is shared by influenza researchers and public health officials around the globe: with all that mutating, with all that contact between people and their infected birds, the virus could hit upon a genetic configuration making it highly transmissible among people. "As long as H5N1 is out there in the world," Webster told me, "there is the possibility of disaster. . . There is the theoretical possibility that it can acquire the ability to transmit human-to-human." He paused. "And then God help us." We're unique in the history of mammals. No other primate has ever weighed upon the planet to anything like the degree we do. In ecological terms, we are almost paradoxical: large-bodied and long-lived but grotesquely abundant. We are an outbreak. And here's the thing about outbreaks: they end. In some cases they end after many years, in others they end rather soon. In some cases they end gradually, in others they end with a crash. In certain cases, they end and recur and end again. Populations of tent caterpillars, for example, seem to rise steeply and fall sharply on a cycle of anywhere from five to 11 years. The crash endings are dramatic, and for a long while they seemed mysterious. What could account for such sudden and recurrent collapses? One possible factor is infectious disease, and viruses in particular.

Exploration is vital to biodiscovery and developing new cures for diseasesNRC, 03 (Committee on Exploration of the Seas, National Research Council Exploration of the Seas: Voyage into the Unknown National Academies Press http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10844)Justification for a New Ocean Exploration Program The ocean supports uswhether we live in land-locked or coastal communitiesin myriad ways. Living resources provide food, and exploration of marine biological and chemical diversity has led to the discovery of drugs to treat cancer and infections. Oil and natural gas extracted from the oceans have already been used to meet much of the energy needs of our societies. With the application of new technology to locate, extract, and exploit potential ocean resources, such as methane hydrates, renewable ocean energy, and seafloor minerals, the value of the oceans to society will continue to expand. Improved understanding of the oceans is necessary to better manage our living marine resources. The oceans provide a very large portion of Earths food supply (Figure 2.1; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1998). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimated capture fisheries (primarily marine) produced 83 million metric tons of fish in 2001. Approximately 16 kg (or 36 pounds) of fish per person on Earth were either captured or produced in that year. Appropriate fisheries management depends a great deal on knowledge of fish stocks, distribution, and life histories. Additional information about ocean circulation patterns, chemistry, seafloor terrain and fish distributions, for instance, should assist attempts to improve fisheries management. Marine organisms also supply a host of unique compounds for medical uses. The ancient horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus) supplies blood used in common toxin-screening tests, and its eyes continue to provide researchers with a model of how vision works. The nerve cells of the long- finned squid (Loligo pealei) include giant axons that are used by neuro- biologists as an analogue to understand mammalian neurobiology. These cells are approximately 100 times the diameter of a mammal axon, allowing experimentation and analysis that would otherwise be exceedingly difficult or impossible. Discodermolide, a compound extracted from marine sponges, has been shown to stop the growth of cancer cells in laboratory tests. The discovery of microorganisms within deep ocean sediments that could inhibit cancer cell growth has opened a door to the search for new compounds for use in medicine (Figure 2.2) (Mincer et al., 2002; Feling et al., 2003). These examples are among the hundreds of uses for marine organisms and com- pounds. Vast numbers of organisms remain to be discovered, and they will yield additional important benefits for humankind. Responsible exploitation of the genetic diversity of life in the ocean, including new and existing fisheries, requires a thorough understanding of those resources and their variability over time. As the human population expands, so will the need for energy and mineral resources. In 2002, the coastal zones of the United States provided 25 percent of the countrys natural gas production and 30 percent of the U.S. oil production (Minerals Management Service, 2003). The Minerals Management Service estimates the majority of undiscovered gas and oil is in coastal areas albeit in deeper and deeper water on the continental slope. The oceans sustain a large portion of Earths biodiversity in complex food webs; microbial life; extreme, deep habitats including within the sea- floor, and hydrothermal vents; and dynamic coastal environments. Indeed, the midwater environment of oceans harbor an ecosystem whose biomass is larger than that of the terrestrial biota. The complex biological systems both rely on and support the global cycling of carbon and nutrients, and they are estimated to sustain half of all carbon-based life on this planet Appreciation for the role of the oceans in global climate patterns and change continues to grow (Sutton and Allen, 1997; Rahmstorf, 2002). The oceans regulate climate by absorbing solar energy and redistributing it via global circulation patterns resulting in identifiable systems of climate and weather. Our knowledge of interannual climate variations has improved to the point that scientists are now be able to forecast El Nino climate distur- bances months in advance (Chen, 2001). With all of the benefits the oceans provide come potentially harmful sometimes disastroushazards to human health. Tsunamis, for example, are legendary in their power to devastate coastal communities (e.g., Satake et al., 1995). In the United States, a single hurricane can cause billions of dollars of damage; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2003), and coastal erosion threatens to destroy 25 percent of dwellings within 150 m of the coast (Heinz Center, 2002). Major earthquake faults offshore coastal states in the western United States are among the most potentially hazardous in the world given the concentrations in population and economic productivity. Although more difficult to estimate in monetary terms, water pollution and marine habitat degradation decrease the aesthetic value and the biotic richness of our coastal waters. Habitat degradation also threatens human health: viruses, bacteria, and infectious diseases that can be transmitted to human populations contaminate coastal waters (National Research Council, 1999). Finding: The oceans play a critical role in the maintenance of the ecosystems of the Earth. Resources contained in the oceans currently supply much of the worlds food and fuel supply, and maintain global climate patterns. The oceans harbor as yet undiscovered organisms new searches for life continue to discover previously unknown organ- isms. Only a portion of the potential of the oceans has been tapped. Recommendation: As was true when the International Decade of Ocean Exploration (1971-1980) was proposed and supported, ocean exploration remains a necessary endeavor to identify and fully describe the resources the oceans contain and uncover processes with far- ranging implications for the study of Earth as a whole. The pace at which we discover living and nonliving resources and improve our understanding of how the oceans respond to chemical, biological, and physical changes must increase.

Medicines found through marine bioprospecting help to cure even the most fatal of diseases.Nelson 12 (Emily Rose Nelson, R.J. Dunlap Marine Conservation Program Intern, http://rjd.miami.edu/conservation/drugs-from-the-deep-ocean-bioprospecting, December 14th 2012)Oceans cover over 70% of the earths surface. Some of the greatest biological diversity in the world is found in the seas. Over 200,000 species of invertebrates and algae have been identified, and this number is estimated to be only a small fraction of what is yet to be discovered. This immense biodiversity yields great chemical diversity. When working with potential pharmaceuticals this becomes extremely important, more chemically diverse substances are more suitable. The field of marine natural products is just over 40 years old and already over 15,000 chemical compounds have been identified as having biological function. Many of these chemicals have cancer fighting potential. Many sessile organisms emit chemicals to prevent others from evading their space. Often times these chemicals are used to slow and prevent cell growth of surrounding sponges, etc. It is believed that the same chemicals these organisms let out when competing for space can be used to stop the uncontrolled division of cancer cells. Cancer treatment compounds have advanced quite a bit due to funding from the National Cancer Institute. Discodermolide is a polypeptide isolated from deep water sponges (Discodermia). This substance stops the reproduction of cancer cells by disrupting the microtubule network (partially responsible for movement of cells). Bryostatin, a substance released by some bryozoans, is believed to be particularly useful against leukemia and melanoma. The Caribbean mangrove tunicate produces a compound (Ecteinascidin-743 or ET-743) that has been tested in humans for the treatment of breast and ovarian cancers and found to be effective. While cancer fighting treatments have received the most attention, discoveries have been made in many areas. Increased understanding of the highly specified modes of activity of these chemicals and their roles in the natural world allows scientists to better understand their use to humans. Many of these compounds are on the route to approval, and in the near future we will start to see a surge of marine pharmaceuticals. Filter feeders are constantly circulating water and small organisms through their system, thus they are continually exposed to parasites and disease causing bacteria. The chemicals they use to defend themselves could also be of use to humans. Ziconotide, a cysteine rich peptide, has been found to fight against neuropathic pain. These toxins, derived from the cone snail, are approximately 1,000 times more powerful than morphine. The sponge Petrosia contignata produces a strong anti-inflammatory with the potential for asthma treatment. Another group of anti-inflammatories comes from Caribbean soft corals and sea whips. These are used to reduce swelling and skin irritation. The use of marine chemical resources does not stop with pharmaceuticals. They can also be found in nutritional supplements, cosmetics and more. 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.Because of these difficulties, many pharmaceutical candidates remain untouched. On the bright side, currently there are large databases of chemical compounds. Our understanding of biological activity linked to these compounds is increasing. At the same time knowledge of human diseases is increasing at rapid speed. We can combine this knowledge and apply it to drug discovery and disease treatment.

Science LeadershipThe race for scientific leadership is on innovative science is vital to solving global impacts.Colglazier, 13 (E. William, Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State, Remarks on Science and Diplomacy in the 21st Century, 8/20/13, http://www.state.gov/e/stas/2013/213741.htm)In 2010 the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development released a strategic blueprint to chart the course of the next four years. In this first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, it was stated: Science, engineering, technology, and innovation are the engines of modern society and a dominant force in globalization and international economic development. The significance of this observation has been emphasized repeatedly to me over the past two years in conversations with representatives of many countries about science and technology. I have been struck by the fact that nearly every country has put at the very top of its agenda the role of science and technology for supporting innovation and economic development. This observation has been true for countries at every level of development not only for countries like Germany, Japan, China, India, Brazil, South Korea, and Singapore, but also for countries like Mexico, Colombia, Chile, South Africa, Indonesia, Czech Republic, Malaysia, and Vietnam. They are all seeking insights regarding the right policies and investments to help their societies to become more innovative and competitive to ensure a more prosperous future for their citizens. Why does nearly every country now have a laser-like focus on improving its capabilities in science, technology, and innovation in order to be more competitive in this globalized, interconnected world? My guess is that most countries see two trends clearly: (1) science and technology have a major impact on the economic success of leading companies and countries and (2) the scientific and technological revolution has been accelerating. If countries do not become more capable in science and technology, they will be left behind. The upside is great if they can capitalize on the transformative potential of new and emerging technologies. As one example, the information and communication technology (ICT) revolution has shown the potential for developing countries to use new technologies to leapfrog over the development paths taken by developed countries, such as with mobile phones in Africa. Countries also recognize that almost every issue with which they are confronted on the national, regional, and global level has an important scientific and technological component. This is true whether the issue concerns health, environment, national security, homeland security, energy, communication, food, water, climate change, disaster preparedness, or education. Countries know they have smart, creative, entrepreneurial people. They believe their people can compete, even from a distance, if the right investments are made and the right policies are implemented. And they know that to become more capable in science and technology and to create innovation and knowledge-based societies, they must collaborate with the world leaders in science and technology. New and emerging technologies have also affected the trajectory of fundamental science and engineering research by creating new capabilities for exploring and understanding the natural world. We are only at the beginning of exploiting the potential of these new capabilities. This is another reason for the acceleration of the scientific and technological revolution, progressing at such an incredibly rapid pace that it is hard to imagine, much less predict, what new transformative possibilities will emerge within a decade. Scientists are not much better at predicting the future than anyone else. I am very envious of young people who will see amazing developments in their lifetimes. As renowned computer scientist Alan Kay said, The best way to predict the future is to invent it.The US is at risk of losing its edge in science leadership - acting now is keyAkst, 14 (Jef AkstSenior Editor at The Scientist Magazine; "Slipping from the Top?: Experts and the American public worry that the country is at risk of losing its global leadership position in scientific research"; The Scientist Magazine; http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/31845/title/Slipping-from-the-Top-/; March 14th, 14)The United States is still a global leader in science and technology research, but the country must act now to avoid losing its edge. This was the overall consensus among two panels of experts, which included National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, assembled today (March 14) by Research!America, a nonprofit public education and advocacy alliance. I do think America continues to be a place where boldness and innovation and creativity are encouraged, Collins said. But there are warning signs, he added, such as the facts that the country is now ranked 6th in the world with regard to the proportion of its gross domestic product that is invested in research and development and that young high school students score relatively poorly in math and science compared to teens in other nations. If efforts are not taken to reverse these trends, Collins warned, we might see America lose their commitment to supporting research at the level that it will take to maintain that competitiveness.Science diplomacy is a vital tool in achieving growth and minimizing war.Colglazier, 13 (E. William, Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State, Remarks on Science and Diplomacy in the 21st Century, 8/20/13, http://www.state.gov/e/stas/2013/213741.htm)Science diplomacy helps other countries to become more capable in science and technology. One might worry that this creates more capable competitors, but I believe that it is in the interest of technologically advanced societies like in the U.S. and Europe to encourage more knowledge-based societies worldwide that rely upon science. The only way to stay in the forefront of the scientific and technological revolution, which is where I want the U.S. to be, is to run faster and to work with the best scientists and engineers wherever they reside in the world. That is why I support more global scientific engagement by the U.S. with leading scientists and engineers around the world. The approach that I favor was captured well in the title of an article in the October 2012 issue of Scientific American: A measure of the creativity of a nation is how well it works with those beyond its borders. I believe that the world has a special opportunity in this decade since so many countries are focusing on improving their capabilities in science and technology and are willing to make fundamental changes in investments and policies so they can build more innovative societies. If we can minimize wars and conflicts with skillful diplomacy, the potential is there for more rapid economic growth, faster expansion of the middle class, and increased democratic governance in many countries as well as increased trade between countries. This is an optimistic scenario. A range of future scenarios, including some that are quite pessimistic, are laid out in the fascinating report Global Trends 2030, published by the U.S. National Intelligence Council in 2012.(8) I believe that we can make the hopeful scenario a reality. Science diplomacy is one of our most important tools in achieving the desired outcome.War would cause global environmental catastrophes, including famine, warming and ecosystems collapseRobock 10 (Massive absorption of warming sunlight by a global stratospheric smoke layer would rapidly create Ice Age temperatures on Earth. The cold would last a long time; NASA computer models predict 40% of the smoke would still remain in the stratosphere ten years after a nuclear war. Nuclear Darkness LANGUAGE NUCLEAR WEAPONS EXPLAINED HIROSHIMA GLOBAL NUCLEAR ARSENAL HIGH-ALERT NUCLEAR WEAPONS WAR CONSEQUENCES SOLUTIONS SUPPORT THIS WEBSITE What is nuclear darkness? (http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/hundredfiftytonessmoke/) A.B.)Half of 1% of the explosive power of US-Russian nuclear weapons can create enough nuclear darkness to impact global climate. 100 Hiroshima-size weapons exploded in the cities of India and Pakistan would put up to 5 million tons of smoke in the stratosphere. The smoke would destroy much of the Earth's protective ozone layer and drop temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere to levels last seen in the Little Ice Age. Shortened growing seasons could cause up to 1 billion people to starve to death. A large nuclear war could put 150 million tons of smoke in the stratosphere and make global temperatures colder than they were 18,000 years ago during the coldest part of the last Ice Age. Killing frosts would occur every day for 1-3 years in the large agricultural regions of the Northern Hemisphere. Average global precipitation would be reduced by 45%. Earth's ozone layer would be decimated. Growing seasons would be eliminated. A large nuclear war would utterly devastate the environment and cause most people to starve to death. Deadly climate change, radioactive fallout and toxic pollution would cause already stressed ecosystems to collapse. The result would be a mass extinction event that would wipe out many animals living at the top of the food chains - including human beings. It only takes a few minutes to start a nuclear war that would leave the Earth uninhabitable. The U.S. and Russia keep hundreds of missiles armed with thousands of nuclear warheads on high-alert, 24 hours a day. They can be launched with only a few minutes warning and reach their targets in less than 30 minutes. A single failure of nuclear deterrence could cause these weapons to be launched in less time than it takes to read this page. No person or nation has the right to start a war which could destroy the human race. Nuclear weapons must be dismantled and abolished. A draft treaty, or Nuclear Weapons Convention, already exists which would ban nuclear weapons and ensure their elimination. We can and must make this happen.

US led science leadership solves all impactsFederoff 8 (Nina, science and technology adviser to the Sec of State,http://www.gpo.gov/f...10hhrg41470.htm)

Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss science diplomacy at the U.S. Department of State. The U.S. is recognized globally for its leadership in science and technology. Our scientific strength is both a tool of ``soft power''--part of our strategic diplomatic arsenal--and a basis for creating partnerships with countries as they move beyond basic economic and social development. Science diplomacy is a central element of the Secretary's transformational diplomacy initiative, because science and technology are essential to achieving stability and strengthening failed and fragile states. S&T advances have immediate and enormous influence on national and global economies, and thus on the international relations between societies. Nation states, nongovernmental organizations, and multinational corporations are largely shaped by their expertise in and access to intellectual and physical capital in science, technology, and engineering. Even as S&T advances of our modern era provide opportunities for economic prosperity, some also challenge the relative position of countries in the world order, and influence our social institutions and principles. America must remain at the forefront of this new world by maintaining its technological edge, and leading the way internationally through science diplomacy and engagement. The Public Diplomacy Role of Science Science by its nature facilitates diplomacy because it strengthens political relationships, embodies powerful ideals, and creates opportunities for all. The global scientific community embraces principles Americans cherish: transparency, meritocracy, accountability, the objective evaluation of evidence, and broad and frequently democratic participation. Science is inherently democratic, respecting evidence and truth above all. Science is also a common global language, able to bridge deep political and religious divides. Scientists share a common language. Scientific interactions serve to keep open lines of communication and cultural understanding. As scientists everywhere have a common evidentiary external reference system, members of ideologically divergent societies can use the common language of science to cooperatively address both domestic and the increasingly trans-national and global problems confronting humanity in the 21st century. There is a growing recognition that science and technology will increasingly drive the successful economies of the 21st century. Science and technology provide an immeasurable benefit to the U.S. by bringing scientists and students here, especially from developing countries, where they see democracy in action, make friends in the international scientific community, become familiar with American technology, and contribute to the U.S. and global economy. For example, in 2005, over 50 percent of physical science and engineering graduate students and postdoctoral researchers trained in the U.S. have been foreign nationals. Moreover, many foreign-born scientists who were educated and have worked in the U.S. eventually progress in their careers to hold influential positions in ministries and institutions both in this country and in their home countries. They also contribute to U.S. scientific and technologic development: According to the National Science Board's 2008 Science and Engineering Indicators, 47 percent of full-time doctoral science and engineering faculty in U.S. research institutions were foreign-born. Finally, some types of science--particularly those that address the grand challenges in science and technology--are inherently international in scope and collaborative by necessity. The ITER Project, an international fusion research and development collaboration, is a product of the thaw in superpower relations between Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan. This reactor will harness the power of nuclear fusion as a possible new and viable energy source by bringing a star to Earth. ITER serves as a symbol of international scientific cooperation among key scientific leaders in the developed and developing world--Japan, Korea, China, E.U., India, Russia, and United States--representing 70 percent of the world's current population. The recent elimination of funding for FY08 U.S. contributions to the ITER project comes at an inopportune time as the Agreement on the Establishment of the ITER International Fusion Energy Organization for the Joint Implementation of the ITER Project had entered into force only on October 2007. The elimination of the promised U.S. contribution drew our allies to question our commitment and credibility in international cooperative ventures. More problematically, it jeopardizes a platform for reaffirming U.S. relations with key states. It should be noted that even at the height of the cold war, the United States used science diplomacy as a means to maintain communications and avoid misunderstanding between the world's two nuclear powers--the Soviet Union and the United States. In a complex multi-polar world, relations are more challenging, the threats perhaps greater, and the need for engagement more paramount. Using Science Diplomacy to Achieve National Security Objectives The welfare and stability of countries and regions in many parts of the globe require a concerted effort by the developed world to address the causal factors that render countries fragile and cause states to fail. Countries that are unable to defend their people against starvation, or fail to provide economic opportunity, are susceptible to extremist ideologies, autocratic rule, and abuses of human rights. As well, the world faces common threats, among them climate change, energy and water shortages, public health emergencies, environmental degradation, poverty, food insecurity, and religious extremism. These threats can undermine the national security of the United States, both directly and indirectly. Many are blind to political boundaries, becoming regional or global threats. The United States has no monopoly on knowledge in a globalizing world and the scientific challenges facing humankind are enormous. Addressing these common challenges demands common solutions and necessitates scientific cooperation, common standards, and common goals. We must increasingly harness the power of American ingenuity in science and technology through strong partnerships with the science community in both academia and the private sector, in the U.S. and abroad among our allies, to advance U.S. interests in foreign policy.Bioprospecting and ocean exploration can provide new opportunities, put America into a greater leadership positionRosenberg 08 (Dr. Andrew, Senior Vice President, Science and Knowledge, humannature, http://blog.conservation.org/2011/06/u-s-ocean-policy-should-lead-the-way-for-global-reform/)At Conservation International, we know that while humans are mostly confined to the quarter of the planet covered by land, we are surrounded and sustained by vast oceans. In addition to supporting incredible biodiversity, oceans provide benefits to people in the form of food, energy, recreation, tourism and desirable places to live. They are also a tremendous economic driver, generating an estimated 69 million jobs and over $8 trillion dollars in wages per year in the United States alone. From renewable energy sources like wave and wind power to offshore aquaculture and deep-sea bioprospecting, our oceans and coasts provide new opportunities for technology developers, manufacturers, engineers and others in a vast supply chain to discover, innovate and develop new economic opportunities around the globe. America can lead this global innovation. Unfortunately, the health of our oceans is in serious decline; in too many places, coastal water quality is poor, fisheries are stressed, habitats for ocean life are degraded and endangered marine species are struggling to recover. Disasters such as last years BP oil spill have damaged the oceans and their inhabitants, which in turn has stressed the communities and industries that depend on healthy oceans. To turn the tide, our national, state and local leaders must make a commitment to more coordinated management of ocean resources. Our decisions must be based on sound science, and scientific work must be a funding priority in order for us to gain the benefits the oceans can provide. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative recently released Americas Ocean Future, a report that calls on leaders to support full and effective implementation of our nations first national ocean policy the National Policy for Stewardship of Ocean, Coasts and Great Lakes which was established by President Obama in July of 2010. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the national ocean policy has the potential to act as a catalyst for long-awaited and important reforms, including enhanced monitoring, assessment and analysis of the condition of our ocean ecosystems, how they affect and are affected by human activity and whether management strategies are achieving our environmental, social and economic goals. Using these tools to better understand our oceans will help us to more effectively manage these resources and strengthen coastal economies and communities across the country. As a member of the Joint Initiatives Leadership Council and an advisor to the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, I believe that monitoring what is happening in our oceans is critical to understanding how the physical, biological, chemical and human elements of ocean ecosystems interact. The Joint Initiative report recommends fully supporting an ocean observation system that would integrate data from sensors at the bottom of the ocean, from buoys on the oceans surface and from satellites with remote sensing technology high above the Earth. The report also emphasizes the importance of better integrating the study of our planets climate and ocean systems. We need to have a better understanding of how climate change affects the health of our oceans and marine life in order to develop strategies to mitigate negative consequences on ocean ecosystems and coastal communities. The report notes that information about climate impacts will be particularly important for coastal areas with infrastructure that is vulnerable to rising sea levels and strong coastal storms, including communities with naval facilities and transportation and energy infrastructure near the coast. The development of expanded and improved science, research and education around our oceans is a sound investment in improving our economy. The data and information collected from research activities will be used to inform coastal development, promote sustainable and safe fishing practices, and develop vibrant marine-based recreation and tourism. And promoting the education of our next generation of marine scientists will help us compete in a global economy increasingly driven by scientific and technological innovation. Our oceans are in crisis, and our national economy is suffering the decline of this important economic engine. For every year that we wait to institute a national ocean policy, we lose jobs and income that rely on healthy oceans, and miles of healthy coastlines for Americans to enjoy. We can do better by supporting the science and policy changes that continuously improve our stewardship of the 70 percent of the world that is our oceans.

SolvencyPlan doesnt disrupt ecosystems and biosynthesis means we only need to collect specimens once Imhoff 11 (Johannes, Antje Labes, Jutta Wiese, Biotechnology Advances, Volume 29, Issue 5, Marine Biotechnology in Europe, http://www.sciencedirect.com.turing.library.northwestern .edu/science/article/pii/S0734975011000346)

In contrast to the macroorganisms that are directly taken from the habitat (sometimes in large amounts), microorganisms are not even seen in the environmental sample but need enrichment and cultivation techniques to make them available for laboratory approaches. Therefore, only tiny amounts of the original sample (such as a piece of sponge, coral, sediment or other) are needed. Environmental damage by harvest from the habitat is avoided. Fig. 4 illustrates the path of isolation of microbes from the marine habitat in order to gain bioactive compounds for further drug development. Once bacteria and fungi have been brought into pure culture, straightforward procedures are available to cultivate them in larger volumes, to chemically analyze the natural products and identify the compounds, as well as to optimize the production by strain selection and elaboration of the optimal physico-chemical conditions for production. This includes design and development of the fermenta- tion process and selection of strains from a larger panel of similar strains that produce the desired compound as well as strain improvement by random or directed genetic manipulatioa Though these methods need to be adapted to each bacterium and each process separately, straightforward ways to do so are available. Additional improvement of the biosynthetic abilities of the producing strains is possible by combinatorial biosynthesis, which has emerged as an attractive tool in natural product discovery and development. Genetic engineering may be used to modify biosynthetic pathways of natural products in order to produce new and altered structures (Floss, 2006). This is of great advantage for the establishment of reproducible processes for the synthesis of desired natural products. Oceans are good for bioprospecting and advancements in technology make it possible to explore thoroughly.Global Ocean Commission 13 [A series of papers on policy options, prepared for the third meeting of the Global Ocean Commission, November 2013The 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 year. 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, 2 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.

Bioprospecting is incredibly advantageous; leads to development of new medicineJakarta 01 (Trips, CBD and Traditional Medicines: Concepts and Questions. Report of an ASEAN Workshop on the TRIPS Agreement and Traditional Medicine, Jakarta, February 2001)Bioprospecting can be defined as the systematic search for and development of new sources of chemical compounds, genes, micro-organisms, macro-organisms, and other valuable products from nature. It entails the search for economically valuable genetic and biochemical resources from nature. So, in brief, bioprospecting means looking for ways to commercialize biodiversity. Lately, exploration and research on indigenous knowledge related to the utilization and management of biological resources has also been included into the concept of bioprospecting. Thus, bioprospecting touches upon the conservation and sustainable use of biological resources and the rights of local and indigenous communities. Bioprospecting, if well managed, can be advantageous, since it can generate income for developing countries, and at the same time it can provide incentives for the conservation of biological resources and biodiversity. In addition, it can lead to the development of new products, including for example new medicines. On the other hand, if not well managed, bioprospecting may create a number of problems, including environmental problems related to unauthorized (over-) exploitation, and social and economic problems related to unfair sharing of benefits -or the total absence of benefit sharing- and to disrespect for the rights, knowledge and dignity of local communities.