INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND SIDDHA MEDICINE:

In an article written last July in The Hindu, one of India’s largest newspapers, the Director of the Central Research Institute for Siddha Medicine, G. Veluchamy, expressed concern over the preservation of traditional knowledge and the “prevention of granting patents for non-original inventions in our traditional knowledge system at the international level” (http://www.thehindu.com/2005/07/25/stories/2005072509300300.htm). Furthermore, J. Venkatesh, a member of an exposition of traditional medicines called “Ayush 2005,” expressed concern over “the growing trend in western nations to patent drugs and compositions that have been traditionally used in India by Siddha and Ayurveda practitioners” (Ibid.).

The ethical issues around bio-piracy and the power of pharmaceutical companies must be addressed. Sue V. Rosser’s writing on Postcolonial Feminist Critiques is useful in understanding this issue:
“Currently the pharmaceutical companies remove plants from the rainforest in the developing country and take them to Europe or North America. In the Northern continent the medicinal properties of the plant are extracted, synthesized and patented to be sold by the pharmaceutical company for an exorbitant profit… For example, Shiva (1997) states that 75% of the 120 active compounds currently isolated from higher plants and widely used in modern medicine were known in traditional systems” (Rosser 2000, 56-7).

Within the current model of globalization, there is a lack of discourse about intellectual property rights and accountability. In many ways, the dominant power of biomedicine continues the trajectory of colonial and imperial expansion due to its neglect of moral responsibilities. There is great inertia in this regard, particularly because of the enormous political and economic power that the system of biomedicine still holds, as well as the exorbitant profits to be made through pharmaceuticals.

One significant challenge to the commoditization of Siddha medicine is the materia medica itself, and the concerns over safety and standardization. From a chemical perspective, Siddha medicine is a fascinating example of the use of inorganic compounds for the treatment of disease, often called iatro-chemistry. This includes the use of salts, minerals, mercury and other chemical compounds generally considered to be toxic to the human body. Little research has been done on the psychological and physiological changes caused by these medicines.

The role of academic research institutions in preserving Siddha medical knowledge might also be understood as a movement towards commoditization of indigenous knowledge. Many of the scholars cited in this work and the author hail from institutions that have designated fields of knowledge which spawn funding, employment opportunities, courses on the subject, conferences, publications, and other formal group affiliations.

These discursive fields are worth noting because they not only draw interest and recognition to the topic of Siddha medicine, but also resources, researchers, and research which may or may not lead to the further commoditization of Siddha medicine. Whether or not these discursive fields contribute to imperial domination of Siddha medicine has yet to be determined. Ethnographical accounts of Siddha practitioners themselves might be useful to understand the way in which they perceive the activities of non-practitioner scholars or other “outsiders” to the tradition.

At this point, the patenting of Siddha medicines is still a relatively recent phenomena which is only beginning to cause concern among practitioners. Economic expansion, one of the agendas of imperialism, is certainly a common characteristic among all corporations. Yet what are the implications of an Indian corporation patenting Siddha medical preparations? Again, it is too early to chart the final outcomes, but judging from previous historical events, it would not be far-fetched to expect that imperialism will continue under the guise of “globalization” and “free-market trade” in this arena.

The WHO has written extensively on this matter in its “Review of Traditional Medicine in the South-East Asia Region.” In a somewhat chilling account of recent policies, the issues around intellectual property rights, patents, and health disparities are outlined:
“Before 1995, patents for drugs (which are now a part of intellectual property) were decisions that countries made in their national interest. With the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement, which included a section on TRIPS, intellectual property became a part of the multilateral agreement. This severely limited the option for countries to obtain medicines that would improve the health of their people” (WHO Project No.: IND EDM 050 2004, 18).

It is remarkably unjust that a system could at once steal knowledge, re-package it and then sell it to the person it stole it from without any significant legal barriers. Yet that is precisely what the legacy of colonial and imperial power instructs: to take and take without exchange in any sense of the term. In actuality, the medicines which will be researched and developed may only rarely benefit those who originally “owned” them:
“At present, the market potential appears to determine which medicines are developed. This is to the detriment of diseases found predominantly in the developing world, for which very few medicines have been developed. Less than 1% of new drugs developed in the past 25 years were for diseases of the developing world, which constitutes 80% of the world’s population” (WHO Project No.: IND EDM 050 2004, 18).