Protecting Indigenous Wisdom In The Age Of Artificial Intelligence

Advances in biotechnology and AI are making it easier to commercialise traditional ecological knowledge, exposing gaps in existing legal protections.
India’s three main legal instruments for protecting traditional ecological knowledge, the Biological Diversity Act, the Patents Act, and the Forest Rights Act, were designed for a pre-algorithmic era and contain structural gaps.
Four reforms within the existing legal architecture could begin to close the gap without primary legislation.

For generations, Indigenous communities, Adivasis, and farmers across India have developed valuable knowledge about nature. They know which crops survive drought, how to improve soil naturally, and how to manage forests without harming the environment. This traditional ecological knowledge has been passed down through experience rather than written records.

A gram sabha being held in Mendha-Lekha village (one of the earliest villages in India to secure Community Forest Rights) in Maharashtra. Image by Subodh Kulkarni via Wikimedia Commons

Today, rapid advances in biotechnology and artificial intelligence (AI) are making it easier than ever to study, copy, and commercialize this knowledge. While these technologies offer many benefits, they also create new risks. Companies and researchers can now use community knowledge to develop new products, datasets, or AI tools without properly recognizing or rewarding the people who created that knowledge. India’s current laws were designed before the rise of AI and modern biotechnology, leaving important gaps in protection.

A well-known example is the neem patent dispute. In 1994, a U.S. company and the United States Department of Agriculture received a European patent for using neem extracts to control fungi. However, Indians had used neem for medicine, farming, and pest control for centuries. After a long legal battle led by Indian organizations, the patent was cancelled because the knowledge was already part of India’s traditional practices.

Although the neem case ended in India’s favor, future cases may not be so simple.

Instead of copying a plant or herbal remedy directly, researchers can now collect information about traditional farming methods, analyze soil microbes, or train AI models using community practices. These new products may not look like traditional knowledge, making it much harder to prove where they came from.

Gaps in India’s existing laws

India has three major laws that help protect traditional knowledge, but each has limitations.

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002, regulates access to biological resources such as plants, seeds, and microbes. It also includes benefit-sharing for communities whose knowledge is linked to these resources. However, the law mainly applies when someone collects the physical biological resource. If researchers only use the knowledge or data without taking the resource itself, the law may not apply.

Changes made to the Act in 2023 have also reduced some safeguards. Indian researchers no longer need prior approval before using biological resources for research. Instead, they are required to register only when a patent is granted. This creates more opportunities for valuable traditional knowledge to be used without communities knowing about it.

Finger millet. The most valuable ecological knowledge is the understanding of how biological, climatic and social variables interact in a particular landscape (Image by Aathavan Jaffna via Wikimedia Commons)

The Patents Act, 1970, prevents patents from being granted on traditional knowledge itself. India’s Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) has successfully helped stop hundreds of foreign patent applications involving Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani, Yoga, and other traditional systems. However, the law does not stop companies from making small changes to traditional knowledge and patenting the improved version. As a result, communities often receive no legal rights or financial benefits from products developed using their knowledge.

The Forest Rights Act, 2006, recognizes the rights of forest-dwelling communities to manage forest resources. While it could also support community knowledge rights, implementation has been uneven. In many forest areas, especially around tiger reserves, community rights are still pending or disputed, making it difficult for local people to claim ownership over their traditional knowledge.

The challenge has become even greater because biotechnology is advancing rapidly. DNA sequencing has become cheaper, and free software allows researchers to analyze complex biological data. AI can quickly identify patterns and develop new commercial products based on traditional farming practices. What once took decades can now happen within a few years. In many cases, communities may not even know their knowledge has been used until products reach the market.

Experts believe India can strengthen protection without passing entirely new laws.

One important step would be to expand benefit-sharing rules under the Biological Diversity Act so that they also apply to products, AI models, and datasets developed from traditional ecological knowledge, even if no biological material is collected.

Another recommendation is to improve the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library. Instead of being managed mainly by the government, communities should have greater control over documenting their knowledge, deciding what information can be shared, and determining who can access it.

The Biligiri Rangaswamy Hills in Karnataka. Communities living in the buffer zone of the BRT Tiger Reserve hold some of the most vast traditional ecological knowledge systems in the Western Ghats (Image by Prashanthns via Wikimedia Commons)

Patent applicants should also be required to disclose whether their invention uses traditional ecological knowledge. This would make it easier to identify community contributions and ensure that benefit-sharing arrangements are followed. The recently adopted World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge provides an international example of this approach.

Experts also suggest that wildlife and forest management plans should formally recognize traditional ecological knowledge. Conservation strategies prepared under the Wildlife Protection Act should document community knowledge and establish clear rules for attribution and benefit-sharing whenever research or commercial activities rely on it.

Ultimately, traditional ecological knowledge is different from a modern invention. It is the result of generations of observation, experimentation, and adaptation by communities living closely with nature. AI and biotechnology may accelerate innovation, but they should not erase the contributions of those who developed this knowledge over centuries.

The neem case showed that India could defend its traditional knowledge after a patent had already been granted. However, future disputes involving AI, biotechnology, and ecological data may be far more complex. Updating policies now can help ensure that communities receive proper recognition and fair benefits before their knowledge becomes someone else’s commercial product.

(Published under Creative Commons from Mongabay India)