IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/agrebk/qt4t56m5b8.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuing Research Leads: Bioprospecting and the Conservation of Genetic Resources

Author

Listed:
  • Rausser, Gordon C.
  • Small, Arthur A.

Abstract

Bioprospecting has been touted as a source of finance for biodiversity conservation. Recent work has suggested that the bioprospecting value of the "marginal unit" of genetic resources is likely to be vanishingly small, creating essentially no conservation incentive. This result is shown to flow specifically from a stylized description of the research process as one of brute-force testing, unaided by an organizing scientific framework. Scientific models channel research effort towards leads for which the exepected productivity of discoveries is highest. Leads of unusual promise then command information rents, associated with their role in reducing the costs of search. When genetic materials are abundant, information rents are virtually unaffected by increases in the profitability of product discovery, and decline as technology improvements lower search costs. Numerical simulation results suggest that, under plausible conditions, the bioprospecting value of certain genetic resources could be large enough to support market-based conservation of biodiversity.

Suggested Citation

  • Rausser, Gordon C. & Small, Arthur A., 2000. "Valuing Research Leads: Bioprospecting and the Conservation of Genetic Resources," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt4t56m5b8, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:agrebk:qt4t56m5b8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/4t56m5b8.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fisher, Anthony C & Krutilla, John V & Cicchetti, Charles J, 1974. "The Economics of Environmental Preservation: Further Discussion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(6), pages 1030-1039, December.
    2. DiMasi, Joseph A. & Hansen, Ronald W. & Grabowski, Henry G. & Lasagna, Louis, 1991. "Cost of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 107-142, July.
    3. Heal, G.M., 1995. "Markets and Biodiversity," Papers 95-17, Columbia - Graduate School of Business.
    4. Kenneth J. Arrow & Anthony C. Fisher, 1974. "Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty, and Irreversibility," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Chennat Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Classic Papers in Natural Resource Economics, chapter 4, pages 76-84, Palgrave Macmillan.
    5. Polasky Stephen & Solow Andrew R., 1995. "On the Value of a Collection of Species," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 298-303, November.
    6. Evenson, Robert E & Kislev, Yoav, 1976. "A Stochastic Model of Applied Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 84(2), pages 265-281, April.
    7. Burton A. Weisbrod, 1964. "Collective-Consumption Services of Individual-Consumption Goods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 78(3), pages 471-477.
    8. Weitzman, Martin L, 1979. "Optimal Search for the Best Alternative," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(3), pages 641-654, May.
    9. Kohn, Meir G. & Shavell, Steven, 1974. "The theory of search," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 93-123, October.
    10. Brown, Gardner Jr. & Goldstein, Jon H., 1984. "A model for valuing endangered species," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 303-309, December.
    11. Simpson, R David & Sedjo, Roger A & Reid, John W, 1996. "Valuing Biodiversity for Use in Pharmaceutical Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(1), pages 163-185, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rausser, Gordon & Small, Arthur, 1997. "Bioprospecting with Prior Ecological Information," CUDARE Working Papers 198653, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Costello, Christopher & Ward, Michael, 2006. "Search, bioprospecting and biodiversity conservation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 615-626, November.
    3. Amy Craft & R. Simpson, 2001. "The Value of Biodiversity in Pharmaceutical Research with Differentiated Products," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 18(1), pages 1-17, January.
    4. Stuart Kauffman & Jose Lobo & William G. Macready, 1998. "Optimal Search on a Technology Landscape," Research in Economics 98-10-091e, Santa Fe Institute.
    5. Marcoul, Philippe & Weninger, Quinn, 2008. "Search and active learning with correlated information: Empirical evidence from mid-Atlantic clam fishermen," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1921-1948, June.
    6. Zhao, Jinhua & Kling, Catherine L., 2001. "A new explanation for the WTP/WTA disparity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 293-300, December.
    7. Caracciolo, Francesco & Gotor, Elisabetta & Holloway, Garth J. & Watts, Jamie, 2008. "The Origin, Development And Structure Of Demand For Plant Genetic Resources. The Impact Of The In Trust Agreements To The CGIAR Collections Availability," 82nd Annual Conference, March 31 - April 2, 2008, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK 36773, Agricultural Economics Society.
    8. Sedjo, Roger & Simpson, R. David, 1996. "Valuation of Biodiversity for Use in New Product Research in a Model of Sequential Search," RFF Working Paper Series dp-96-27, Resources for the Future.
    9. Simpson, R. David & Sedjo, Roger A., 1996. "Valuation of Biodiversity for Use in New Product Research in a Model of Sequential Search," Discussion Papers 10618, Resources for the Future.
    10. Simpson, R. David & Craft, Amy, 1996. "The Social Value of Using Biodiversity in New Pharmaceutical Product Research," RFF Working Paper Series dp-96-33, Resources for the Future.
    11. Stephen Polasky & Holly Doremus & Bruce Rettig, 1997. "Endangered Species Conservation On Private Land," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(4), pages 66-76, October.
    12. James R. Kahn & Robert V. O'Neill, 1999. "Ecological Interaction as a Source of Economic Irreversibility," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 66(2), pages 391-402, October.
    13. Miao, Ruiqing, 2012. "Essays on Investments in New Technologies --- Policy, Information, and Learning," ISU General Staff Papers 201201010800003414, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    14. Kauffman, Stuart & Lobo, Jose & Macready, William G., 2000. "Optimal search on a technology landscape," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 141-166, October.
    15. Lynn Mainwaring, 2001. "Biodiversity, Biocomplexity, and the Economics of Genetic Dissimilarity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(1), pages 79-83.
    16. Thomke, Stefan & von Hippel, Eric & Franke, Roland, 1998. "Modes of experimentation: an innovation process--and competitive--variable," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 315-332, July.
    17. Jackie Krafft & Isabelle Nicolaï, 1995. "Commitment Procedures In R&D Investments : An Examination Of Different Varieties," Post-Print hal-01799270, HAL.
    18. Narain, Urvashi & Hanemann, W. Michael & Fisher, Anthony C, 2007. "The irreversibility effect in environmental decisionmaking," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt7bc5t8cf, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    19. Branstetter, Lee & Chatterjee, Chirantan & Higgins, Matthew J., 2022. "Generic competition and the incentives for early-stage pharmaceutical innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    20. Laura J. Kornish & Karl T. Ulrich, 2011. "Opportunity Spaces in Innovation: Empirical Analysis of Large Samples of Ideas," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 107-128, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:agrebk:qt4t56m5b8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dabrkus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.