The Convention on Biological Diversity and Intellectual Property Rights: The Challenge of Indigenous Knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Convention on Biological Diversity provides for the use of intellectual property rights in the furtherance of its cardinal objectives. Not being an intellectual property convention, it offers no practical or independent scheme on how to use intellectual property rights in the pursuit of its said goals. Instead, it relies on the international intellectual property system. The principal instrument of that system is the TRIPs Agreement, which prescribes formal intellectual property rights for global application. Exploring conventional patent and trade secret regimes of intellectual property rights, this paper argues that the Trips Agreement constitutes an obstacle to the realization of the conceptual objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity with regard to the knowledge of indigenous and local communities. Thus, a global intellectual property order capable of enhancing the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity should not ignore Indigenous Protocols and jurisprudence on knowledge protection. This lingering review of the TRIPs Agreement's Article 27 provides the opportunity to move that instrument in the direction of a cross-cultural approach to intellectual property rights that has already been endorsed by the Convention on Biological Diversity and the World Intellectual Property Organization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".