ABSTRACT
Databases also represent the point at which conflicting trends of thought associated with the exchange of information converge. On the one hand, they reflect a global move towards the free flow and accessibility of information through electronic means. Indeed, it is rare that recommendations for improved biodiversity research management and communication between institutions overlook improved and more accessible databases. On the other hand, biodiversity, economic botany, medicinal plant and other databases inadequately address the need to restrict access to information on genetic resources and traditional knowledge in order to allow providers greater control over their use. For example, NAPRALERT does not have any procedures in place to regulate the use of traditional knowledge, although some staff members are exploring possible options (Gyllenhaal, pers comm, 1999). NAPRALERT is made available for free to nonprofit users in developing countries, which is a significant benefit, amounting to roughly US$400,000 in value per year (Gyllenhaal, pers comm, 2000). However, this is not widely considered adequate in today’s post-Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) paradigm of exchange, in which source countries and communities seek control over access, as well as benefit-sharing (Gupta, 1995).
