Sure, some believe that TK needs to be protected through systems like IPR, but we also need to keep in mind the research and scholarship that does not believe this to be true

Proponents of a new legal regime for TK often invoke concepts of property in their defense. To denounce “biopiracy” and the plunder of TK assumes that what was pirated or plundered is property.2 A recent report by WIPO, for instance, states that "holders of TK should be entitled to fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of their knowledge."3 This statement likewise presupposes that the benefits of knowledge or the knowledge itself, or both, are property to be shared among TK holders. Proponents suggest that the legal protection of TK will serve several important goals. These include promoting respect for TK; deterring the misappropriation of TK; empowering TK holders, who are typically marginalized indigenous peoples; and protecting tradition-based innovation. The existing IP system is said to be unable to meet the needs of TK holders; as a result, extensive legal change is required.4 Some of the literature on TK takes as self-evident the proposition that TK ought to be protected, and focuses instead on how to do so: to revamp the patent system, to create sui generis rights via international treaties, to build global databases of TK that can be used to block patent applications, and so forth. Other analysts consider the more basic question of whether IP protection is in order. And still others contend that IP protection for at least some TK is contrary to how many indigenous communities conceive of their cultural heritage.