Bioprospecting refers to searching the world’s remotest areas for genetic resources with commercial value. Bioprospecting is hardly a new phenomenon – the active ingredient in aspirin, for example, comes from willow bark, whose medicinal properties were known to the ancient Greeks. In recent years, however, the ethics of the practice have been debated. Opponents, who use the term biopiracy, view it as the exploitation of developing countries’ resources and indigenous medical knowledge for the developed world’s profit. Pharmaceutical companies argue that drugs resulting from bioprospecting can help thousands of people. Furthermore, they are not patenting native plants, rather the techniques used to extract compounds from them. Despite these arguments, in 2005 the Indian government successfully overturned a US patent to extract an anti-fungal agent from the neem tree. Central to the debate is the question of who owns the world’s biodiversity. The UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was established in 1993 to ensure that bioprospectors obtain consent from and share any profits with the source nation. The United States, however, has not ratified the CBD. It is not only the pharmaceutical industry that has fallen foul of sovereign rights to biological resources. In 2008, Mexican farmers won an appeal to revoke a US patent on Mexican Enola beans. Similarly, following a diplomatic crisis between India and the United States, a Texan company lost the right to patent basmati rice.