Interesting Things
Big Pharma Accused of Free-Riding on Nature as Biodiversity Fund Stalls at $7,000
Big pharma is accused of exploiting nature's genetic resources for profit while failing to contribute meaningfully to a global biodiversity fund, which has attracted a negligible sum despite its massive potential. This story explores the ethical gap between scientific advancement and ecological responsibility.
The Empty Well: Pharma's Free-Riding on Nature
The world of cutting-edge medicine and biotechnology is deeply intertwined with the genetic blueprint of life. Pharmaceutical companies, whose fortunes are built on developing new drugs, rely heavily on gathering genetic information from organisms across the globe to fuel their research. This reliance has brought them into a complex relationship with the natural world, one that has recently drawn sharp criticism. A landmark biodiversity fund, established specifically to channel corporate profits back into conservation efforts, has fallen spectacularly short of its ambitious goals, leading to accusations that big pharma is simply "free-riding on nature."
The Cali Fund was conceived as a vital mechanism to address this gap, aiming to raise a staggering $1 billion (£750 million) annually for biodiversity conservation, particularly in low-income countries. The premise was simple: companies profiting from nature’s genetics should contribute to protecting that very nature and supporting the communities on the frontlines of biodiversity defense. Yet, less than eighteen months after its launch in February 2025, the fund remains virtually empty. As of the start of the Cop17 biodiversity summit in Armenia this week, the fund had received a mere $10,656 in commitments, with only $7,085 actually deposited. This stark reality raises serious questions about whether the industry is truly upholding its end of the bargain.
The Scale of the Disconnect
The scale of the potential contribution from the pharmaceutical sector versus what has actually materialized paints a picture of profound disconnect. Studies conducted by Zero Carbon Analytics (ZCA) suggested that if the top 15 pharmaceutical companies had adhered to proposed guidelines—contributing either 1% of their profits or 0.1% of their revenue—they could have contributed as much as $756 million last year. Considering that these top companies generated approximately $161 billion in profits in 2025, the suggested contribution was a tiny fraction of what they were earning.
This disparity fuels the accusation that these corporations are "free-riding" on nature. As June Rubis, an Indigenous peoples and local communities representative from Asia on the Cali Fund’s steering committee, noted, businesses "did not appear to recognise the importance of protecting nature or of supporting 'communities who have been in the frontlines of defending biodiversity conservation and therefore their future profits'." The argument is that the industry benefits immensely from accessing genetic information from global organisms for lucrative new medicines, yet it seems unwilling to share a proportionate slice of those profits for conservation.
Loopholes in the Mechanism
The complexity surrounding this issue is compounded by evolving scientific practices. The Cali Fund was designed to plug loopholes that emerged as research shifted away from relying solely on physical samples toward using digital sequence information (DSI). This shift has created new complexities, leading to industry pushback against the fund’s structure. Pharmaceutical companies have argued that the blanket contribution amount requested is inappropriate, pointing out that not all medicines rely on DSI and that the fund overlaps with existing legal frameworks.
Guilherme Cintra, director of innovation policy at the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations, highlighted these structural concerns. He suggested that the current mechanism relies on inaccurate assumptions about how data is used in drug discovery and asks companies to hand over a share of their total revenue, regardless of whether DSI was involved in a specific medicine's development. The spokesperson for the Cali Fund acknowledged the disappointing uptake, stating that contributions would likely remain modest until the operational infrastructure is better known and discussions at Cop17 provide clearer direction for companies to commit.
The Call for Compulsion Over Charity
The debate over voluntary contributions versus mandatory action is central to the ongoing struggle for meaningful conservation funding. Campaign for Nature has argued forcefully that relying on goodwill is insufficient. Brian O’Donnell, director of Campaign for Nature, stated that it is too optimistic to expect companies to contribute voluntarily and insisted that they "should be compelled to do so." This sentiment reflects a broader frustration that discussions about the fund are consuming more time than money is actually being deposited into its coffers.
The core issue isn't just about a missing dollar amount; it’s about accountability in an era where biotechnology holds immense power over life and health. Victoria Kalyvas, who authored the ZCA analysis, underscored the stakes: "The future of health is written in nature’s DNA," adding that the pharmaceutical industry stands to lose significantly from the destruction of biodiversity, just as patients do. The situation at Cop17 in Yerevan serves as a critical test case for whether this mechanism can evolve from a hopeful proposal into a concrete source of funding.
Broader Context: Innovation and Global Responsibility
While the immediate focus is on the Cali Fund’s failure, the broader context of innovation and global responsibility provides a larger lens through which to view these corporate actions. The push for innovation across sectors—from AI and quantum computing in medicine to addressing societal issues like early-onset cancer—highlights a tension between technological capability and ethical deployment.
The discussion around scientific progress often touches upon how we manage the consequences of that progress. For instance, research into early-onset cancers reveals that changes in diet, lifestyle, and environmental toxins are creating new health risks for younger generations, prompting scientists to investigate complex, multi-generational exposures. This mirrors the current dilemma: technological advancement creates immense potential benefits, but without a framework ensuring that the profits derived from natural resources are reinvested equitably, the system remains fundamentally unbalanced. The challenge now is to ensure that the pursuit of scientific breakthroughs—whether in medicine or conservation—is matched by a commitment to shared stewardship of the planet’s fundamental assets.
“Definitely, they’re free-riding” on nature, said Rubis, who added that businesses did not appear to recognise the importance of protecting nature or of supporting “communities who have been in the frontlines of defending biodiversity conservation and therefore their future profits”
Want our sources?
Enter your email and we’ll send the claim-linked sources used for this article.
We use this address only to send this source list.