BIOTECHNOLOGY IN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES: OPPORTUNITIES, ETHICAL CHALLENGES AND SUSTAINABILITY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32351/rca.v11.451Keywords:
intercultural bioethics, biopiracy, traditional knowledge, community participation, data sovereigntyAbstract
Biotechnology is considered a pillar of current scientific and technological development, and its implementation in indigenous communities poses ethical, social, and environmental challenges that require critical and contextualized analysis. This article aims to analyze the relationship between biotechnology and indigenous peoples, with emphasis on Latin America and Mexico, through a qualitative methodology based on a documentary review supported by critical-interpretive analysis of the scientific literature published between 2015 and 2026, aside from a few exceptions involving foundational works. It examines specific applications such as the conservation of native species, ecosystem restoration, sustainable agriculture, and genomics applied to health and territory. It also presents cases from indigenous communities, such as the Tzeltal and Tzotzil peoples in Chiapas and the Nahua peoples in Puebla, as well as experiences in Latin America (the Ecuadorian Amazon and Chimborazo), which reveal both potential benefits and existing tensions. Among the challenges identified are biopiracy, violations of free, prior, and informed consent, asymmetries in benefit-sharing mechanisms, and the persistence of colonial approaches in scientific research. The article incorporates new governance frameworks such as the Cali Fund for Digital Sequence Information (COP16) and the C.A.R.E. Principles of Indigenous Data Sovereignty. It concludes that biotechnology can effectively contribute to sustainable development when it is based on the principles of justice, effective community participation, and respect for cultural autonomy, and that co-design approaches integrating scientific and traditional knowledge are required.
Downloads
References
Alarcón-Lavín, R. R. (2010). La biopiratería de los recursos de la medicina indígena tradicional en el Estado Chiapas, México: El caso ICBG-Maya. Revista Pueblos y Fronteras Digital, 5(10), 151–180. https://doi.org/10.22201/cimsur.18704115e.2010.10.149
Anderson, M. Z., Tsosie, K. S., Peters, C. L., Trinidad, S. B., McCartney, A., Fernandez, S., Dale, K. J., Perez Rivera, S., Banta, C., Bhattacharyya, O., Billy, J., Brennan, R., Cu:k Ba’ak, R., Dhein, K., Dickinson, R., Ducheneaux, G., Gerth, A., Hernandez-Hernandez, K., Howard, D. S., Parasidis, E., Thomas, N. A., & Yracheta, J. M. (2025). A Tribal data repository to advance Indigenous health and sovereignty. Nature Genetics, 57, 2614–2619. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-025-02382-0
Bellon, M. R., Mastretta-Yanes, A., Ponce-Mendoza, A., Ortiz-Santamaría, D., Oliveros-Galindo, O., Perales, H., Acevedo, F., & Sarukhán, J. (2018). Evolutionary and food supply implications of ongoing maize domestication by Mexican campesinos. Proceedings. Biological sciences, 285(1885), 20181049. https://teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/rspb.2018.1049.pdf
Bocco, G., Velázquez, A., & Torres, A. (2000). Ciencia, comunidades indígenas y manejo de recursos naturales. Un caso de investigación participativa en México. Interciencia, 25(2), 64–70. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/339/33904403.pdf
Carrillo-Pérez, E., Ruiz-Manríquez, A., & Yeomans-Reina, H. (2004). Aislamiento, identificación y evaluación de un cultivo mixto de microorganismos con capacidad para degradar DDT. Revista Internacional de Contaminación Ambiental, 20(2), 69–75. https://www.revistascca.unam.mx/rica/index.php/rica/article/view/23121
Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Analysis of experience. World Development, 22(9), 1253–1268. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(94)90003-5
Claw, K. G., Anderson, M. Z., Begay, R. L., Tsosie, K. S., Fox, K., & Garrison, N. A. (2018). A framework for enhancing ethical genomic research with Indigenous communities. Nature Communications, 9, 2957. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05188-3
Conforme-García, M. M., Dávila-Ulloa, M., Sarango-Ordóñez, J. P., & Medina-Gahona, G. A. (2024). Estrategias de Biotecnología Verde: Hacia una Recuperación Sostenible de Bosques Amazónicos. Código Científico Revista De Investigación, 5(E3), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.55813/gaea/ccri/v5/nE3/313
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). (2025). Cali Fund operational framework: Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. CBD/COP/DEC/16/2. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-16/cop-16-dec-02-en.pdf
De la Garza & Camino, M. (2025). Genómica de poblaciones y tradición indígena. Dilemas éticos. Estudios de Cultura Maya, 66, 283–292. https://doi.org/10.19130/iifl.ecm.66.2025/fall-wint/1480
Edwards, N., McLester-Davis, L. W. Y., Kline, C., Brown, A., Caron, N. R., & Parr-Brownlie, L. C. (2025). Towards the implementation of Indigenous data governance in neurogenomics research. Nature Neuroscience, 28(12), 2171–2174. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-025-02070-6
Fondo para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de América Latina y el Caribe (FILAC). (2021). Pueblos indígenas deben ser actores claves en la ciencia, la tecnología y la innovación. https://www.filac.org/pueblos-indigenas-deben-ser-actores-claves-en-la-ciencia-la-tecnologia-y-la-innovacion/
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2017). The future of food and agriculture: Trends and challenges. https://www.fao.org/3/i6583e/i6583e.pdf
Hernández-Vicente, P. O. (2025). La etnobiología y el impacto actual en los pueblos indígenas. Con Ciencia Serrana: Boletín Científico de la Escuela Preparatoria Ixtlahuaco, 7(13), 8–9. https://doi.org/10.29057/ixtlahuaco.v7i13.14068
Kasianov, A. (2024). [Acuerdo de acceso y distribución de beneficios de Basecamp Research con Camerún]. Basecamp Research. https://www.biopharmatrend.com/news/basecamp-research-partners-with-cameroon-to-share-benefits-from-genetic-data-use-in-landmark-agreement-904/
Keleman, A., Hellin, J., & Bellon, M. R. (2009). Maize diversity, rural development policy, and farmers’ practices: Lessons from Chiapas, Mexico. The Geographical Journal, 175(1), 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2008.00314.x
Larqué-Saavedra, A. (2016). Biotecnología prehispánica en Mesoamérica. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas, 7(5), 1047–1060. https://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/rfm/v39n2/0187-7380-rfm-39-02-00107.pdf
LeBaron von Baeyer, C., et al. (2024). Why community consultation matters in genomic research benefit-sharing models. Frontiers in Genetics. . https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.278308.123
López-García, A., Gómez-Hernández, M., & Gándara, E. (2024). Variation in traditional knowledge of culturally important macromycete species among three indigenous communities of Oaxaca, Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 20, 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-024-00679-8
López, E., & Quintero-Jiménez, A. (2025). Implicaciones bioéticas en el uso de la biotecnología para la conservación de agaves en Hidalgo. Biotecnia, 27(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.18633/biotecnia.v27.2432
National Institutes of Health. (2025). Considerations for researchers working with Tribal communities: Sovereignty, ethics, and data-sharing issues. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://cascadiacopeshub.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/harding-et-al-conducting-research-with-tribal-communities-sovereignty-ethics-and-data-sharing-issues.pdf
Ortiz Monasterio Quintana, A. (2006). ¿Entre la espada y la pared? Conocimiento indígena y bioprospección en México. Ciencias, 83, 42–52. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/644/64408308.pdf
Osuna-Flores, I., & Sañudo-Ayala, E. (2024). Biotecnología Intercultural en México. Revista Propuesta Ambiental, 2(1), 32–41. Recuperado de: https://zenodo.org/records/14052354
Pankararu, C. J., Teixidor-Toneu, I., Odonne, G., Asante, F., Bandeira, S. O., Barrera-Bello, Á. M., Benitez-Capistros, F. J., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Dalcin, E., Dennehy-Carr, Z. H., Diallo, K., Drouet-Cruz, H. T., Fonseca-Kruel, V. S., Gallois, S., Gnansounou, S. C., Hamza, A. J., Hugé, J., Jordan, F. M., Kalle, R., Khan, N. I., Kuijper, I., Levis, C., Lima, A. S., Mattalia, G., Milliken, W., Munga, C. N., Narchi, N. E., Ngeve, M. N., Ofori, S. A., Phartyal, S. S., Peroni, N., Pironon, S., Polanía, J., Prakofjewa, J., Toledo Silva, M., Sõukand, R., Thomas, M. B., Ulian, T., Uprety, Y., Vandebroek, I., Ximenes, A. C., Zank, S., & Hanazaki, N. (2026). A global biodiversity use data infrastructure acknowledging indigenous and local knowledge. npj Biodiversity, 5, 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-026-00121-0
Pinhanez, C., Cavalin, P. R., Storto, L., Finbow, T., Cobbinah, A., Nogima, J., Vasconcelos, M., Domingues, P., de Souza Mizukami, P., Grell, N., Gongora, M., & Gonçalves, I. (2024). Harnessing the power of artificial intelligence to vitalize endangered Indigenous languages: Technologies and experiences. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.12620
Pretty, J. N. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 23(8), 1247–1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(95)00046-F
Raíces Indígenas. (2024). Semillas del futuro: Biotecnología en el rescate de variedades indígenas. https://raicesindigenas.net/interseccion-con-la-tecnologia/semillas-futuro-biotecnologia-rescate-variedades-indigenas/
Red de Evaluación Social de Tecnologías en América Latina (Red TECLA). (2024). Evaluación de biotecnologías en comunidades campesinas e indígenas. https://www.biodiversidadla.org/Campanas-y-Acciones/Evaluacion-de-biotecnologias-en-comunidades-campesinas-e-indigenas
Roblada Mancilla, S. A., Gavilanes Santillán, L. A., González Gallegos, M. de L., González Figueroa, R., Cárdenas Rodríguez, E., & Heinze, A. (2024). Experiencias en el uso de bioinsumos para la salud y la regeneración ecosistémica y comunitaria. Enfoques Transdisciplinarios: Ciencia Y Sociedad, 2(2), 245-261. https://revistaenfoques.ciatej.mx/index.php/revistaenfoques/article/view/51
Rojas, D. D. A., & Nemogá, S. G. R. (2021). Bioética en los procesos de investigación y bioprospección: relaciones con pueblos indígenas y comunidades locales en Colombia. Revista Colombiana de Bioética, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.18270/rcb.v16i1.3249
Salceda, S. A., Desántolo, B., & Plischuk, M. (2015). Espacio de reflexión: el por qué y para quién de la investigación bioantropológica. Revista Argentina de Antropología Biológica, 17(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.17139/raab.2015.0017.02.06
Sardi, M. L., & Azpiroz-Cleñan, V. (2024). Ética, antropología biológica y pueblos indígenas: Reflexiones desde el diálogo de saberes. Revista Uruguaya de Antropología y Etnografía, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.29112/ruae.v9i2.2326
Silva-Flores, L. (2024). Innovación social y desarrollo local sostenible: el caso de la comunidad indígena de Tlajomulco. Estudios de la Gestión, (16). https://doi.org/10.32719/25506641.2024.16.1
Teran, M. Y. (2023). Los pueblos indígenas expresan su preocupación por la biología sintética. Cultural Survival Quarterly. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/es/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/los-pueblos-indigenas-expresan-su-preocupacion-por-la
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 MenteClara Foundation’s Peer-reviewed Journal

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in this journal agree with the following terms:
a. Authors publish under a Creative Commons Acknowledgment 4.0 International license that allows others to share the work with an authorship acknowledgment of the work and the initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors, who retain their rights after publication, are allowed and encouraged to disseminate their work electronically (for example, in institutional repositories or on their own website) before and during the submission process, as it may result in productive exchanges as well as earlier and greater citations of published works (See The Effect of Open Access).
Since November 1st, 2018, all articles published in this journal are available under a Creative Commons Acknowledgment 4.0 International license.
View the 