Realizing Benefit Sharing: Is There a Role for Ethics Review? - Benefit Sharing - page 181

the CBD, it has been legally accepted that natural resources in developing coun-
tries are not unowned, only to become valuable with added (Western) labour. The
fact that nobody has 'made' their own DNA is not therefore in itself an objection
to benefit sharing.
The objection to benefit sharing which arises from prohibitions against undue
inducement and commodification of the body is more serious. At the same time, it
must be understood that benefit sharing does not mean handing over cash for DNA
samples, which could be regarded as straightforward commodification. The CBD's
Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable
Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (see Chap. 2 ) lists considera-
bly fewer monetary than non-monetary benefits. The latter include collaboration
in scientific research, collaboration in education and training, institutional capac-
ity-building, access to scientific information, contributions to the local economy,
research directed towards priority needs, such as health and food security, liveli-
hood security benefits and social recognition.
This brings us to an important point that helps us explain why research par-
ticipants in the developing world should be treated differently from those in devel-
oped countries in relation to the governance of human biological resources. DNA
donors from Northern countries generally benefit automatically from education
and livelihood security benefits. Those contributing to medical research in the
North can usually rest assured of (see Chap. 2 ):
• Access to ever-increasing numbers of medical interventions to achieve and
maintain health, which are tailored to local health needs and (in principle)
accessible to all
• Increased knowledge about human health, which is made available to citizens
through general education or health campaigns.
Hence, the 'altruistic' donor in the North could be regarded as part of a com-
munity which offers a fair exchange model to such donors. People experience a
tangible form of reciprocity for their participation in the complex social and eco-
nomic network encompassed by the health care system, reminiscent of a Maussian
society, ensuring the fairness of the entire exchange. Assured of far more than the
mere cup of tea and biscuit traditionally received by blood donors since Titmuss's
time, individuals from affluent countries might appear to be acting out of solidar-
ity with their group, but their ostensible altruism is strongly bolstered by the fact
that their contribution is virtually risk-free, and reciprocation is provided through
the assurance of fair compensation via the health care system.
It is still the case that others may free-ride (type 1 exploitation, see Chap. 2 )
on the willingness of research participants to donate their time or even take risks.
In this regard, Berg and Chadwick ( 2001 ) are right to appeal for more solidarity
within communities. But it would be highly exploitative to demand such solidar-
ity from donors who are outside the fair exchange model and who contribute their
DNA without receiving any benefit in return. Participants from an impoverished
developing country are assured of none of the above benefits, and the use of their
donated genetic material for the benefit of affluent, distant strangers deserves