Resources

We hear a lot about “biological resources” when it comes to H5N1 and deposited virus samples with WHO reference laboratories.  We hear and read strong opinions on both sides of the issue, with each side having valid points.

A “resource” is something of some value, whether monetary or aesthetic, but a “value” none the less.  For the purposes of my point tonight I will set aside the fact that “value” is an abstract assignment and not intrinsic in the thing itself.  A resource is also something you either want to reserve for yourself or supply to those who have a desire for it, the more who wish to have your resource the more “value” accretes to that resource.  We see a demonstration of this weekly in at least some of the price per barrel cost of oil.

DeBeers understands controlling a market with an international demand.  And, if I can be forgiven for a personal interjection on an issue that I have “issues” with I would like to say that with the exception of a few days a few months ago I have not worn a diamond for years because of the way DeBeers treats its miners.  A market that is monopolized is a market where abuses must be “overlooked” in order to obtain the thing desired.  That’s just the way the world works.  Doesn’t make it right, just reality, and with diamonds, as long as women crave them DeBeers has no motivation to change the way they treat their miners.

Anyway, back on point.  If you have a resource that has a demand you expect to be able to make some money by supplying it.  There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that concept, it’s the way the world works. It is also one of the concrete successes of international free trade, as well as one of the heartbreaking failures.  Many countries are struggling out of abject and crushing poverty by having something people in far away places want and others have raped their own lands and people to supply an international hunger and demand with no forethought to long term or irreversible depletion and damage.

But the key thing to note however is “supply”.  There are specific counties that supply the world with either all or much of oil, diamonds, emeralds, silver, gold, and old growth wood, even pandas, tigers and exotic birds to name but a few.  These countries do the work of harvesting (or mining), readying for market, and delivery of the product either directly or through a contracted agent, thus earning profits off of nature’s bounty. 

Now onto Indonesia and the H5N1 virus.  Ah, you knew I would get to that eventually didn’t you.  Indonesia wishes royalties from the viral strain of H5N1 recovered within their country.  Without stepping into the veracity of that claim yet again, I would like to compare it to the other resources I listed above.

What “market” is Indonesia excluded from supplying by the use of the genetic materials artificially amplified in some obscure and secure lab somewhere from a sample deposited three years ago? In case you are curious… none.  Indonesia doesn’t want to “supply” the world with anything, Indonesia simply wants to be paid royalties on the work, development, and deployment of some “end product” that they had no hand or financial expenditure bringing to “market”.  If Indonesia should wish to supply the world with its own developed and efficacious vaccine against a human pandemic, or even epidemic for that matter, of human H5N1 it would be one thing, and that “thing” would be a “resource” on the world market, just like oil, diamonds, old growth forest, and exotic animals.

I read comments about Indonesia being an impoverished country and because of that I am expected to understand why they wish to earn profit on the years long work and genuine financial investment of others, and not only understand but to support Indonesia’s position because they are impoverished. OK, fine and well.  But I ask this question: Why are the people of Indonesia impoverished?  Could their government have anything to do with that?  Indonesians are not a people that are condemned to be impoverished due to any unchangeable circumstance.  

And for those that would be tempted to point their finger accusingly at colonialism I would like to point out the fact that America, Canada, and Australia were or are colonies of another country.  So I would argue that colonialism, even heavy-handed colonialism, isn’t the all encompassing culprit it is held up to be. Furthermore, I would argue that it is not an “in perpetuity” excuse for ineffectual and corrupt governance in the present day.

The world needs to find an answer to the issue of being able to utilize viral strains to protect human beings against a potentially deadly (at least presumed to be so to some) disease.  I’ve previously used the argument that human life cannot be assigned a dollar value (or in this case a “royalty”).  Others have used the argument of an impoverished people understandably wanting to share in the profits of a deployed vaccine developed from a viral strain recovered within their country.  

Both sides of the argument, my own and the one in opposition to it, frame it within the perspective of “humanity” and “human beings” and what is “fair” and “right”.  Perhaps a lesson should be gleaned from DeBeers… it’s business… and damn the human beings.

Put a price tag on the virus and those willing to pay it will do so, those not willing or able to pay it will not.  It is, after all, a “resource”, or so I’m informed.

Oh, wait.  We can’t do that because then only the “rich countries” will be able to have a vaccine.

A genuine dilemma.  A deadly virus and its vaccine are not diamonds, and it is hoped that no one involved in attempting to find a resolution utilizes the “DeBeers approach” to “resource” management, whether that “resource” is a virus or its vaccine.

SZ