The
national parks might provide a very good model for future corporate exploitation
of Europa.
Witness the current controversy over commercial
collection of extremophiles from Yellowstone. One organism in particular,
Thermus Aquaticus (Taq), collected from Yellowstone in the 1960's, became the
source of Taq Polymerase, which jump-charged DNA replication and the science of
genetics in the 1980s. When the patent for Taq P. was sold in 1994, it was
worth about $300 million annually. So now Congress is wrestling over what
to do with future bio discoveries from national parks. The situation is
NOT analogous to mining or forestry, where you are pulling out massive natural
resources to sell them. It involves intellectual property that is
obtainable only because of a unique natural setting--a thimbleful of bugs gives
you INFORMATION that is worth millions. The bugs themself have virtually
no cash value (although any bugs from Europa would of course have the cash value
of exotic zoo specimens/souvenirs). But the real industrial value of an
extreme bio environament can be "harvested", for want of a better word, with
virtually no visible impact on the site itself. The question is how to
share the wealth. In the U.S. Nat. Parks, biotechs want to be able to
purchase both exclusive and nonexclusive collection permits, with promise to
share future profits, if any, with the park service. The NPS likes the
idea, because it provides additional funds in a time of dying government support
for parks, and the tourism and preservation missions of the parks are not harmed
(as they are with mining and timbering on public lands). But many
environmental groups oppose such schemes, arguing that allowing corporate
purchase of intellectual rights from public natural products opens a Pandora's
box and is morally akin to allowing Sequoia timbering or buffalo hunts.
Then there's the question of determining value of intellectual property created
through information obtained in the national park. Should the government
get a fee from every Ansel Adam's photograph sold? Every copy of a book by
John Muir? The biotechs argue no one will do the basic research if they
don't pay for it with the hope of future rewards--environmentalists argue the
NPS is selling off nature and a public trust.
Expect
the same arguments to emerge on every world humanity explores. While there
is no known or easily imaginable natural resource on Europa that cannot be
obtained in bulk far cheaper on Earth, or perhaps in the Asteroid Belt as well
if you assume a space-faring society, the intellectual value derived from
Europan life could be worth billions. Yet it's highly unlikely that any
single corporation or group would be granted exclusive permission to research
potential commercial applications of Europan life. I'd expect something
like we have now in the parks--a mixture of big industry, education-based
research, and small entrepreneurs, all of them working within a shifting
bureaucratic system where no one completely trusts anyone else and individuals
are always switching loyalties from one group to another.
Michael Ray Taylor
-----Original Message-----Actually Yosemite isn't the best example; it's primary purpose is recreational. The only public property in the U.S.A. where wildlife takes precedence over any human activity are wildlife refuges. National parks, forests, and monuments may balance the needs of wildlife, but only in refuges are the needs of wildlife protected as the primary rule... and often it takes the endangered species act to promote the concerns for wildlife in other areas.
From: Thomas Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 2:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IceEven then, a refuge is not absolute protection for all wildlife; the U.S. government is currently at work trying to find loopholes to allow oil production in wildlife refuges. When push comes to shove, economic incentives will always win over any protection measures... even if those measures do not make economic sense in the long term.
That being said, I think space is protected by international treaty from economic exploitation (despite propaganda from private industry). Then again, Antarctica on earth is also supposed to be protected by international treaty, but many countries like Australia lay claim to it.
The best defense europan life will have against humanity is to not have any economic value; at least not until humanity reaches a level of maturity that pursues knowledge and art over material wealth. I'm not holding my breath for this to happen.
"William P. Niedringhaus" wrote:
If Europa has life, we should not open it to private corporations.== You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
It should be protected, as we protect Yosemite here.
