Reconsidering Antarctic Bioprospecting through Territorialities of Science, Property, and ...

239 Pages·2011·2.41 MB·English

by  Jason Davis

Reconsidering Antarctic Bioprospecting through Territorialities of Science, Property,
and Governance

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of
Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University

By

Jason Michael Davis, M.A.

Graduate Program in Geography

The Ohio State University

2011

Dissertation Committee:

Becky Mansfield, Advisor

Mat Coleman

Nancy Ettlinger

ABSTRACT

Antarctic formations of science, property, and governance complicate how the
commercial use of genetic and biochemical data derived from biota (bioprospecting)
might be managed there. Antarctic science should be cooperative, but patents that
arise from bioprospecting could generate competition. If Antarctica is perceived as a
global commons, exclusive rights to its resources could threaten that status. The
peaceful governance of Antarctica is based on the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, but its
authority could be threatened by other groups seeking to govern over this new activity.
This dissertation explores these issues through two territorial approaches: one focused
on the hierarchical bureaucracy of Antarctica and another focused on alternative
geographical imaginaries of the continent. While there has been a great deal of
concentration on states and the Antarctic Treaty System, this study reveals that careful
reconsideration of geographical imaginaries can present alternate solutions.

ii
Dedicated to my wife, Julia Griffin,
who just started dating me when I began this dissertation.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank my adviser, Becky Mansfield, for her patience is seeing this
through to the end. I may not have always liked to hear what she had to say at the
moments that I received her comments, but it was always valuable advice and I
learned a lot from her.
Thanks also to my committee for their valuable input into the document as well
as the lessons that I learned from them in their classes. Mat Coleman expanded my
understanding of geopolitics considerably. Nancy Ettlinger expanded my view to
consider my work from other perspectives. Thanks also to prior committee members
Ellen Moseley-Thompson and Paul Robbins for helping to guide me to the place I am
today. Dr. Keith Warren and Dr. Donald Eckert also served admirably and came up
with provoking questions in the roles of my graduate school representatives on my
defense and candidacy exams, repectively.
Thanks also to the tireless work of the office staff of the OSU geography
department and Byrd Polar Research Center who helped me to navigate the
bureaucratic ins and outs of being a graduate student. I can’t imagine getting to where
I am without the efforts of people such as Dianne Carducci, Lynn Lay, or the countless
other people who made my work considerably easier.
iv
I am in awe of the academic peers I have met as fellow graduate students. My
academic “siblings,” April Luginbuhl Mather and Johanna Haas, let me know what it
was like to have strong and supportive older sisters that were great scholars in their
own rights. Much moral support was provided by individuals such as Eric Boschmann,
Madhuri Sharma, Nurcan Atalan-Helicke, and a number of other graduate students.
Thanks also to my encouraging family, who provided prodding or support on
an as-needed basis. I feel that David Laguardia belongs to this group, as his support
nourished me at a crucial time.
This research was funded by the National Science Foundation through a
Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant (Award # 0623497). Their
generosity allowed me to visit meetings and gather data that I would not otherwise
have done.

v
VITA

November 17, 1977...........................Born – Bethesda, MD, USA

2000...................................................A.B. Anthropology, The University of Chicago

2004...................................................M.A. Geography. The Ohio State University

2002 – 2008.......................................Graduate Teaching and Research Associate,
The Ohio State University

PUBLICATIONS

1. J. Davis, “National Geographic’s Representations of Antarctica.” Reports of
Polar and Marine Research, 560, pp. 28-47, (2007).

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Geography

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Dedication ....................................................................................................................iii

Acknowledgements......................................................................................................iv

Vita...............................................................................................................................vi

List of Figures ...............................................................................................................x

Chapters
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................1

1.1 Background on Bioprospecting and Antarctica...........................................4
1.1.1 Bioprospecting in general.............................................................4
1.1.2 The practice of bioprospecting in Antarctica...............................9
1.1.3 How Antarctic bioprospecting has been addressed....................11
1.2 Theory.......................................................................................................25
1.2.1 Modernism and Postmodernism.................................................25
1.2.2 Territoriality...............................................................................28
1.2.3 Territoriality: hierarchical bureaucracy......................................30
1.2.4 Territoriality: the creation of geographical imaginaries.............35
1.2.5 Comparing the two territorial approaches..................................40
1.3 Empirical Approach ..................................................................................42
1.3.1 Reflexive account of initial research approach..........................42
1.3.2 Data collection and analysis.......................................................44
1.4 Summary of the chapters to come.............................................................47

2. Is bioprospecting a threat to Antarctic science?..............................................48

2.1 A history of Antarctic science...................................................................52
2.1.1 Science during the early exploration of the Antarctic................53
2.1.2 The rise of Antarctic science during the IGY.............................55
2.1.3 The environmentalist challenge to Antarctic science.................58
2.2 Modern Science.........................................................................................63
2.2.1 The general articulation of Mertonian science...........................63
vii
2.2.2 Mertonian science in Antarctica.................................................67
2.2.3 Mertonian science applied to Antarctic bioprospecting.............71
2.3 Postmodern Sciences.................................................................................76
2.3.1 Latour's reaction against modern science...................................77
2.3.2 Postmodern science in Antarctica..............................................81
2.3.3 Postmodern scientific approaches to Antarctic bioprospecting..84
2.4 Conclusion: is bioprospecting a legitimate scientific activity?.................88

3. Is Antarctic bioprospecting a threat to an Antarctic Commons?.....................91

3.1 A History of Antarctic notions of ownership............................................94
3.1.1 Defining property and the commons..........................................95
3.1.2 Early exploration of Antarctica and claims to ownership..........98
3.1.3 Choosing between the Antarctic Treaty or U. N. trusteeship...101
3.1.4 The creation and implementation of Antarctica World Park....106
3.2 Modern standpoints on property..............................................................109
3.2.1 Lockean and Marxist approaches to ownership.......................110
3.2.2 Modern Property in Antarctica.................................................114
3.2.3 Modernist property and Antarctic bioprospecting....................118
3.3 Postmodern models of property and the commons.................................122
3.3.1 Ostrom's critiques of modernist property.................................123
3.3.2 Postmodern ownership in Antarctica.......................................127
3.3.3 Postmodern property ideas and Antarctic bioprospecting........128
3.4 Conclusions.............................................................................................133

4. Is bioprospecting a threat to existing Antarctic governance?........................135

4.1 How several activities within Antarctica have been governed................139
4.1.1 Governing all or part of Antarctic territory comprehensively..140
4.1.2 Governance of whaling in the Antarctic...................................144
4.1.3 Governance of tourism in the Antarctic...................................149
4.2 Modern governance.................................................................................154
4.2.1 Hobbes and subsequent realist ideas of governance.................155
4.2.2 Realist governance applied to Antarctica.................................159
4.2.3 Modern governance applied to Antarctic bioprospecting........161
4.3 Postmodern governance..........................................................................168
4.3.1 Governance not centered upon states.......................................169
4.3.2 Postmodern governance in Antarctica......................................173
4.3.3 Postmodern governance and Antarctic bioprospecting............175
4.4 Conclusions.............................................................................................178

5. Synthesis........................................................................................................180

5.1 Theoretical Conclusions..........................................................................184
viii
5.1.1 Modern geopolitics...................................................................185
5.1.2 Postmodern geopolitics............................................................188
5.2 Empirical Conclusions............................................................................191
5.2.1 Concerns addressed separately, through modernist views.......192
5.2.2 Alternative approaches to Antarctic bioprospecting................197
5.3 Synthesis of the Theoretical and Practical...............................................203

Bibliography..............................................................................................................208

ix