What are the implications of the nagoya protocol for research on biodiversity?

BioScience

Volumn 61, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 256-257

  Kursar, Thomas A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^b SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Panama)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79953886920     PISSN: 00063568     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.4.2     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Ambrus S. 2007. Bioprospecting as force for conservation. EcoAméricas (August): 6-8.
2. Berruga E, Maurer P. 2006. Co-chair's Summary of the Informal Consultative Process on the Institutional Framework for the UN's Environmental Activities. UN. (10 January 2011; www.un.org/ga/president/60/ summitfollowup/enviro.html)
3. Esty DC, Ivanova MH. 2003. Toward a global environmental mechanism. Pages 67-82 in Speth JG, ed. Worlds Apart: Globalization and the Environment. Island Press.
4. Dettenhofer M, Hampl N. 2009. Development of a biomedical innovation economy-Panama. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation 4: 21-32.
5. Joly CA, Rodrigues RR, Metzger JP, Haddad CFB, Verdade LM, Oliveira MC, Bolzani VS. 2010. Biodiversity conservation research, training, and policy in São Paulo. Science 328: 1358-1359.
6. Kursar TA, et al. 2006. Securing economic benefits and promoting conservation through bioprospecting. BioScience 56: 1005-1012. (Pubitemid 44927724)