A Conversation with April Christofferson about her latest book, Buffalo Medicine.

Q. Your new novel, Buffalo Medicine, represents a departure from the medical thrillers you've written thus far, doesn't it?

A. In many respects, yes. While my earlier novels centered around medical and biotech issues prominent in today's headlines, Buffalo Medicine really centers around an environmental issue that is now reaching an explosive status: whether bison that leave Yellowstone National Park should be slaughtered to avoid the risk of bison transmitting brucellosis to cattle.

Brucellosis can cause cattle to abort their fetuses. Its presence in a herd of cattle can have disastrous economic effects to ranchers. The kicker, however, is that the brucellosis fear is a myth. It's never happened. After decades and decades of cattle and bison intermingling, there's never been a single documented case of transmission between the species. It's almost a scientific impossibility. Yet the cattle industry is using it as an excuse to slaughter this country's last herd of truly wild bison.

Therefore, to the extent that Buffalo Medicine deals with the brucellosis issue, it fits with the medical thrillers I've written before. The setting, however - today's cattle country - and the environmental focus, set it apart from the others.

Q. Your main character in Buffalo Medicine is a ranch vet named Jed McCane. Jed's working on a vaccine for brucellosis - something that should be met with welcome arms by everyone. But it's not.

A. Exactly. Jed has come up with an idea for an aerosolized vaccine. That means it could be administered to wild animals, such as bison, as well as cattle. Montana has been brucellosis-free for years. The only threat to that status - at least as the livestock industry portrays it (in reality, elk who carry brucellosis present a greater threat) - comes from the bison that harbor brucellosis. If Jed's vaccine works, it should wipe out the threat of brucellosis forever. Which is why Jed can't understand why anyone would feel threatened by his vaccine.

Q. But someone does ...

A. Yes. So much so that they attempt to kill Jed in order to stop his research on the vaccine.

Q. It doesn't make sense.

A. Not at first glance, but the issue is a complex one. Scientist after scientist, including a 1992 study by the United States Congress's General Accounting Office and a 1998 study by the National Academy of Sciences, have concluded that there is almost no risk of transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle. Yet the cattle industry plays the risk up - has, indeed, created a near hysteria about it. Why? Because of public lands grazing.

Wyoming Game and Fish official, interviewed in the December 1997 issue of National Parks Magazine, explained it: "If the public gets used to the idea that bison, like elk or deer, should be free to roam on federal lands, then it may lead to a reduction in the amount of public lands forage allotted to livestock. That's what the ranchers really fear."

Ranchers are allowed to lease federal lands for a nominal price - much less than the market rate. They graze their cattle there. Without this program - which amounts to a federal subsidy of the ranching industry - they could not survive. The bison slaughter is a political battle, a battle for priority. If we eliminate the fear of bison who carry brucellosis, the cattlemen fear that this will eventually erode their rights to federal lands; that the bison may one day be deemed to have priority over cattle to such lands. That is why the ranchers in BUFFALO MEDICINE don't want Jed's vaccine to come to fruition - it would eliminate their excuse to slaughter the bison. It would make the bison's presence on federal lands that much more acceptable.

Q. But why bison? Don't elk carry brucellosis too?

A. Exactly! Elk have just as high, or even higher, an incidence of brucellosis, yet no one is proposing that they be slaughtered - despite the fact that recently it was discovered that infected elk did, indeed, transmit brucellosis to cattle. The reason for this disparate treatment between elk and bison is two fold. First and foremost, the hunting industry is huge money in the West. They also have a powerful lobby. No way they would allow any such talk.

Secondly, bison present a heightened threat to cattlemen, which has nothing to do with brucellosis. Bison are native to the west. They've grazed there and evolved to its arid conditions over thousands of years. Livestock producers would have us believe that the West is suitable to livestock production, but again, this is a myth. Did you know that private lands in the state of Maryland produce as much beef as Montana's BLM and Forest Service lands combined? That it takes many times more land to raise a cow in Montana than in Iowa? Or that the state of Florida produces more beef cattle than the state of Wyoming? A cow can live for a year on two acres in the East while the same cow would require a hundred acres in the West. The West is simply not suited to raising livestock. That is not to say, however, that the answer is to eliminate ranching in the West. But it's absolutely imperative that we take a long and hard look at the realities of the situation and come up with new answers that will make ranching sustainable well into the future.

Another factor to consider is the fact that subsidized grazing permits give ranchers control of hundreds of millions of acres of federal land for ridiculously low fees. Over 300 million acres of public land in the West are leased to cattlemen at a fraction of their market value. The University of Maryland's School of Public Affairs conducted a study that showed that the BLM's grazing program costs the taxpayer $200 million, but generates just $20 million in revenue! What kind of hold on this country does the Western ranching industry have to allow such economic nonsense?

Another example: the battle over Yellowstone's bison centers around just one or two grazing allotments. The federal government receives approximately $1200 a year from the lease of the Horse Butte allotment. Guess what the program to slaughter bison who wander on to it costs the taxpayer? Almost $2 million annually. What economic sense does that make? Well, to the cattle industry, it makes a whole lot of sense. Hyping the fear of brucellosis protects the priority of their grazing rights, and industry lobbyists will let nothing stand in the way of those rights.

Q. You sound anti-ranching. Are you?

A. No. It was actually always my dream to move West and live on a ranch. My grandfather, Floyd "Doc" Carroll, who has always been my hero, was a Wyoming rancher and a veterinarian, like Jed McCane. Several years ago he was inducted into the Cowboy Hall of Fame as one of this country's "Great Westerners." It was one of the proudest moments of my life. Six or seven decades ago, Doc actually served on a team of vets whose job was to eradicate brucellosis. I grew up spending summers on his ranch and in love with the West. I had, and continue to have, tremendous respect and admiration - and (coming from Chicago) no small amount of envy - for ranchers and the ranching lifestyle. I love its connection to the earth and animals and nature. The simplicity and challenge of it But times have changed. There are many hard working, highly ethical ranchers out there, struggling to get by. But today the ranching industry has the strongest lobby in the West. Like many political lobbies, it uses its clout to get whatever it wants - at any expense. They are using myths - lies - to justify the slaughter of animals I've treasured since my parents started taking me to Yellowstone as a small child. I know that my grandfather would not have supported that. I know he would have fought to prevent the senseless slaughter of America's last free roaming herd of bison.

My son and his wife are rangers at Yellowstone. The park and its animals are their life, their passion. They've become mine too. They give me great solace, and I've seen from my frequent visits there, that the same is true for millions of people from around the world. Our last wild places have to be protected. My son has said that once we lose them, we lose just about everything. At first I thought this was an overstatement, but after much reflection, I've come to agree. What would life be without places like Yellowstone? Without bison? Are we willing to sacrifice everything for another industry - true, one that we've romanticized as a country ever since the Westward migration began - but still, an industry? That's what ranching is This is all about dollars and cents. About a power system in the West that is no longer relevant, is not sustainable in its current state. Allowing the bison to be slaughtered is a very dangerous step in the wrong direction.

The plight of today's ranchers, especially small ranchers, is a heart breaking one, one that desperately needs answers and this country's support. The answer is not to eliminate ranching in the West. The answer is finding more and more innovative solutions - such as land trusts - to save ranch lands from development, to guarantee wide open spaces well into the future, and to protect the ranching lifestyle, which is a noble and beautiful lifestyle. More alternatives must be explored and supported. All that I'm trying to say in Buffalo Medicine is that killing buffalo needlessly is not the answer.

Q. Will you continue writing in this direction?

A. Definitely. I've become passionate about the environment. The older I get, the more I become convinced that nature not only represents a tremendous source of spiritual sustenance for me and countless others, but also that its protection is the most pressing issue facing our world today. We are, in effect, destroying our home - the earth. Aside from the emotional aspect - I feel strongly that we, as humans, have no right to play God with the fate of the earth or other species - there is a very practical argument as well: once we've succeeded in destroying the earth, how will man survive? And if he does, what kind of existence will he have? It's time to take the crisis facing this earth seriously, and I plan to write more about it in future books.

A Conversation with April Christofferson about her recent book, Patent to Kill.

Q. Your past two books, The Protocol and Clinical Trial, painted a pretty negative picture of the biotech/pharmaceutical industry, didn't they?

A. I'm afraid so. I wish I could say that what I write is pure fiction; however, after working (first as a pharmaceutical rep, then as an attorney) in the industry for years, and doing extensive research, I believe that, for the most part, my depiction of the industry is pretty accurate.

Q. Your books revolve in large part around corporate greed. A timely topic these days.

A. I would hate to say I welcomed hearing about Enron, or WorldCom, or Global Crossing, but there was a part of me that did want to jump for joy when they were exposed. Having come from a pretty conservative (fiscally) business environment, when I first entered the biotech world, I was shocked at what were common, accepted business practices--the same practices we're now reading about in the wake of all the corporate scandals this year: generous stock options, forgiveable loans, luxurious offices and other perks. The thing that really made these practices seem off-kilter to me is that the biotech industry is one in which it takes many, many years for a company to show a profit--if ever. I got to where I thought maybe I was the one who was crazy for thinking there was "something wrong with this picture." But when you're talking about corporate greed within the pharmaceutical industry the dangers are far greater than what we saw with Enron.

Q. What do you mean?

A. Employees, investors, they suffered tremendous losses as a result of Enron's questionable business practices. Losses I don't mean to minimize. They will affect thousands upon thousands of lives on a daily basis for years to come. The public is understandably outraged, demanding answers, and justice. Still, the losses were financial (though I recognize that financial hardship often impacts a person's physical health and well being). But greed within the pharmaceutical industry takes the repercussions a step further--it can directly endanger lives, jeopardize health, and invade the integrity of a person's very being.

Q. It sounds like you may be talking about your next book, Patent to Kill.

A. Actually, all three of my medical thrillers. The Protocol dealt with the cloning of a human being. Clinical Trial delved into a world where pharmaceutical companies routinely disregard the safety of patients in order to rush through FDA requirements for clinical trials and get their product to market before a competitor beats them to it.

Patent to Kill revolves around something called "biopiracy." Biopiracy is a term coined by human rights groups. It's a terrible form of exploitation. Pharmaceutical companies and research institutions go into third world countries, learn all they can about the healing practices and medicinal plants of a tribe--information that is often willingly shared by the tribe out of a sense of wanting to help. These researchers then take the plant back home, patent it and, if a pharmaceutical is derived from it, make obscene amounts of money. The indigenous tribe gets nothing. In fact, according to patent law, once the corporation patents it, the tribe no longer has the legal right to use it without licensing the right--and paying royalties--to the patent holder! Indigenous peoples are suddenly unable to use plants they've used for generations in cultural and healing ceremonies, that grow right there; say, in the rainforest. It defies comprehension. But it's happening. So often that many organizations have sprung up around the world to monitor and resist biopiracy. One group, the Coalition Against Biopiracy, even issues something called the "Captain Hook Awards"--a highly uncoveted award--which lists the biggest culprits.

Q. Care to name a few "winners?"

A. Gladly. One recent "Most Offensive" award went to the University of Toledo, which was awarded a monopoly patent on Endod--a plant that has been cultivated and used by Ethiopians for centuries. When Ethiopian researchers discovered that Endod might be effective in controlling a water borne disease called schistosomiasis and requested the right to do further research, the University of Toledo told them they'd have to pay $125,000 (or $50,000, plus a 2.5% royalty charge)! The winner the previous year's "Most Offensive" award patented the Ayahuasca medicinal plant from the Amazon. Ayahuasca has been used in sacred indigenous ceremonies for centuries. Runner up for "Most Offensive" that year went to L'Oreal, for patenting the use of Kava to reduce hair loss. Kava's been grown and used in Pacific countries as a ceremonial beverage for generations.

But it's the "Most Dangerous" Award for 2000 that frightens and outrages me (and ethicists monitoring the situation) most, and led to the idea for Patent to Kill.

Q. I'm almost afraid to ask: who won the Most Dangerous award?

A. You should be (afraid to ask, that is)! The Award in 2000 went to the U.S. Government--for patenting the blood of a Hagahai man from Papua New Guinea.

Q. Blood!?

A. That's right. In 1995, the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) issued a patent to the NIH (National Institutes of Health) for an unmodified human cell line drawn from an indigenous person from Papua New Guinea, a member of the Hagahai tribe. It was the first time an indigenous person's cells had ever been patented and it resulted in global outrage. To make matters worse, the NIH was unable to document that the Papua New Guinea government or the Hagahai man from whom the blood was drawn ever gave their consent, or were consulted about the patent application. The international protest over this patent was so great that the US Government was forced to withdraw the patent; however, what this patent, and many to follow, means is that pieces of indigenous peoples' bodies are now the potential "intellectual property" of corporations and governments.

This kind of research holds little to no benefit to the donor populations, but stands to make patent holders (pharmaceutical companies) rich.

Q. Why would anyone want to patent blood?

A. The global traffic in human biomaterials is enormous. It's been predicted that in the year 2002 the worldwide market for cell lines (derived from blood samples) and tissue cultures will bring in corporate revenues of almost $1 billion. Every major pharmaceutical company is active in this field, which means there is huge trafficking amongst researchers in indigenous peoples' blood samples, a virtual gold rush for DNA.

Q. I thought patents were for inventions. How can anyone patent a cell line?

A. You're absolutely right. Patents were intended to protect inventions. How a cell line, or DNA qualify as inventions I don't know. I'm an attorney who's worked in the biotech arena for years (though not as a patent lawyer) and I still don't understand how, using even the most liberal interpretation of the patent laws, the USPTO ever got away with granting patents on life. Our forefathers would roll over in their graves to see this. Of course, my views on patents on pharmaceuticals are very strong, and, I might add, not shared by most people in the industry.

Q. Care to explain?

A. Patents are nothing more than a way for a pharmaceutical company to create a monopoly. That's why companies defend their patents in the courts so aggressively. It's their way to prevent competition--in particular competition from a drug that's just as effective but costs less. A perfect example: GlaxoSmithKline was charging about $10,000 per person per year for its AIDS cocktails. When the Brazilian healthy ministry developed its own treatment and planned to provide AIDS drugs free to Brazil's needy, the US took Brazil to the WTO--charging that free distribution to people with AIDS discriminates against US commercial activity!

This is why the pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable in the country--also one of the most reviled. As far as I'm concerned, patents are major barriers to increased biomedical research. They drive up the cost of drugs, making them out of reach for patients who desperately need them

And the injustice only mounts when you're talking about patents on human cells. For example, a cell line was established from tissues removed from a patient named John Moore during surgery. Moore's doctor patented the cell line. Despite intense legal efforts, Moore has failed to regain control of the material that originated from his own body. Now if a sophisticated U.S. citizen can't fight this practice and win, how on earth can an indigenous person from the Amazon protect him or herself? What's really frightening is the fact that we're only in the early stages of establishing patent monopolies over genes, cell lines, even organisms. I hate to think where this is going.

Q. What do you see as the answers to these problems?

A. To start with, call an immediate moratorium on patents of biomaterials. Genes should not be commercialized, especially behind a veil of promises to cure disease.

And safeguards have to be set in place, especially for indigenous peoples.

The Council for Responsible Genetics recently formulated a Genetic Bill of Rights. At the very least, the following principles should be observed:

"All indigenous peoples have the right to manage their own biological resources, to preserve their traditional knowledge, and to protect these from expropriation and biopiracy by scientific, corporate or government interests. All people have the right to genetic privacy including the right to prevent the taking or storing of bodily samples for genetic information without their voluntary consent."

Q. Realistically, what do you hope Patent to Kill will do?

A. Open eyes. Enron started the process. People have removed their blinders now. It's time to take the same hard look at practices in the pharmaceutical industry. I think people will be blown away.

And, of course, entertain. Patent to Kill is, after all, a novel. As its title implies, it takes what I've discussed to the limit, which makes for a pretty exciting tale, set in the rainforests of the Amazon.

Still, it all started with reality!