Recognition of ‘indigenous innovation’ may lead to continual reinventions
Robinson, Senior Lecturer in the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of New South Wales, 2020 Daniel, “Biopiracy and the Innovations of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities”, Indigenous Peoples' Innovation, ANU Press, 2020, Accessed from JSTOR on https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt24hfgx.10 on July 25, 2024 //SaChin
The Artemisia case does, however, indicate that scientific and traditional innovation systems can interact in mutually beneficial ways. What is important is that the terms of the exchange between different parties is ‘fair and equitable’. Indeed, there are more cases emerging wherein researchers or companies have successfully established mutually beneficial arrangements with indigenous communities (for example, the commercial use of Argan oil for cosmetics by Cognis and L’Oreal).35 However, what is frustrating about the cases described in this chapter (and in many other biopiracy cases) is that the ‘traditional’ contribution to the innovation is poorly recognised at best (as in the kwao krua case) and completely ignored in others. If we stopped thinking of the indigenous peoples’ contributions as ‘traditional knowledge’ and formally recognised ‘indigenous innovation’, we may well find some patents and plant variety certificates are never actually granted because of their lack of novelty. We may find that inventiveness and obviousness are perceived differently if patent examiners are able to peer through the guise of ‘technical’ language to see that the wheel is being continually re-invented.