Team:Manchester/managementtest

Is the palm oil industry the only sector that can hold up the economies of Indonesia and Malaysia?

There’s no doubt about it, the economies of Malaysia and Indonesia, amongst other countries, rely heavily on the cultivation of palm oil.

But could there be a viable alternative, another industry which could support the economy as effectively?

• Industries such as livestock^[1], agriculture^[2], services^[3], tourism^[4] and so on are already well-established and support the countries’ economies alongside the palm oil industry
• Focussed development on any of the industries is foreseen to maintain the economies but in the meantime, environmental problems arise. Livestock industry, first of all, results in land-clearance in order to plant feed crops for the livestock. 8% of global water is used in the industry for different purposes^[5] and the waste water or manure created, often composed of nutrients and harmful components, would be discarded into rivers and seas which affect the natural water source. Water and soil are polluted by chemical pesticides and fertilisers used in agriculture industry^[6]. In Malaysia, tourism is considered as profitable as palm oil industry but disturbs the ecosystem^[7] through the construction of tourism facilities and an increase in carbon footprints^[8][9]. Perhaps most interesting, the biotech industry is strongly supported by the Malaysian government^[10], suggesting that our project may well have a future on Malaysian and Indonesian soil (see PATENTING(link))
• The palm oil industry is well-known for having a short payback period and is highly productive. If replaced by another sector, the new industries run the risk of being far less economical and efficient. Moreover, the palm oil industry is able to provide a better living for the workers by allowing the government to be able to provide basic facilities for the workers and the families in some properly planned plantations and mills.

Without the steady business for the countries that the palm oil industry provides, and without a real viable alternative to the wealth of income generated through this sector, it is probable that the unemployment figures will rise^[11] and the living standard of the people who work in the palm oil industry might drop even lower. Therefore it is imperative to consider the implications of removing the palm oil industry completely from countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia before introducing a synthetic alternative to this naturally-occurring product.

References:

[1] http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5019e/y5019e0l.htm
[2] http://www.miti.gov.my/storage/documents/917/com.tms.cms.document.Document_15ae1e5f-c0a81573-314955ec-59c9ebaf/1/MITI%20Weekly%20Bulletin%20Volume%20228%20-%2026%20February%202013.pdf
[3] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/malaysia/gdp-growth-annual
[4] https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/storageapi/sites/all/files/pdf/ibrahim.pdf
[5] http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/lifesci/wcc/research/resources/wateruse/technology/livestock.pdf
[6] http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/hoofprints.pdf
[7] http://www.geography.learnontheinternet.co.uk/topics/tourism6.html
[8] http://www.tourism-climate.de/emissions.htm
[9] http://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/Business/SectoralActivities/Tourism/FactsandFiguresaboutTourism/ImpactsofTourism/EnvironmentalImpacts/tabid/78775/Default.aspx
[10] http://www.biotechcorp.com.my/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/publications/White_Paper_Agricultural.pdf
[11] http://www.cmzoo.org/conservation/palmOilCrisis/

To patent, or not to patent, that is the question

In an attempt to minimise the negative impact the commercialisation of our project would have on the economies of developing countries largely dependent on the palm oil industry, our ideas and constructs could be patented. Patenting a product derived through synthetic biology is not a new concept, in fact companies such as Givaudan have already patented microbial routes to valuable commodities such as vanillin, for example^[1]

Cons of patenting:

• It could lead to the privatisation of synthetic life forms^[2], as well as furthering the privatisation of products and processes found within nature^[3]
• Patenting could hinder progress in research and development, as the legislature around the patent may be very restrictive
• Following on from above, patents can be very broad in scope. Some people feel that genomic patents should only be issued if the standard criteria of patents are clearly apparent: patents must demonstrate novelty, usefulness and non-obviousness. This would potentially alleviate some of the restriction suggested above^[2]

Pros of patenting:

• Patenting leads to a protection of knowledge, which encourages researchers to publish and distribute their findings openly
• The CINVESTAV-IPN-UNAM iGEM team 2012 alluded to the fact that licences could be written into a patent^[4], which would still protect the inventor’s work but would also make the technology accessible to others

Therefore, our project could potentially be patented, and then licenced out to countries reliant on the palm oil industry either for a reduced rate, or free of charge.

References:

[1] http://cen.acs.org/articles/90/i29/Sweet-Smell-Microbes.html
[2] http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn298.pdf
[3] http://www.biosafety-info.net/file_dir/15148916274f6071c0e12ea.pdf
[4] https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/3/36/Intellectual_Property_report.pdf