A "benefits-sharing agreement" that could reap national parks untold profits from businesses or researchers that do research in the parks with an eye on commercial opportunities has been finalized by the National Park Service.

More than three years in the making, the document allows for agreements to be entered into with researchers for monetary, or non-monetary, benefits, the agency said Tuesday.

Park Service Director Jon Jarvis said the benefits-sharing agreement would not lead to commercialization of national parks, but could return some royalties to the parks that would be put to work on conservation issues.

“Implementing these changes is not about commercializing the parks,” said Mr. Jarvis in a press release. “This decision is about the public receiving some benefit from commercial projects that result from analysis of samples collected in national parks.”

This decision does not change the existing strict NPS research permit process, which remain separate from any benefits-sharing negotiations. The commercial use or sale of park specimens is still prohibited, as is damage to or the consumptive use of park resources.

Regulations continue to prohibit issuing permits for activities that would adversely affect, impact, or damage public health and safety, visitor use activities, proper use of NPS facilities, scientific research, environmental or scenic values, or a park’s natural or cultural resources. Typically, very small amounts of natural materials are removed under a research permit for study under laboratory conditions.

In other words, while a researcher or company might sign a benefits-sharing agreement with a specific park, it can't begin collecting specimens until it has obtained a permit to do so from the park. Those permits are not automatic just because a benefits-sharing agreement has been signed, the document states.

That said, benefits-sharing agreements are standard industry practice and are endorsed by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), Yellowstone officials said Tuesday. BIO has published voluntary "Guidelines for Bioprospecting" that encourages members to engage in benefits-sharing agreements with providers of their research specimens.

Additionally, the park officials said, researchers acknowledge by signing their research permit that if they fail to enter into a benefits-sharing agreement prior to using their research for commercial purposes, "the permittee will pay the NPS a royalty rate of 20% of gross revenue from such sales or other revenues."

According to the Park Service, "the best known example of a viable commercial product arising from research results related to the study of biological material originating in national parks was the invention of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) process. The PCR process, which facilitates the widespread use of DNA analyses, often uses an enzyme isolated from the Thermus aquaticus bacteria collected in Yellowstone National Park."

The question of whether the National Park Service should benefit if research in one of its parks leads to a commercially viable venture has been a thorny question at least since the mid-1990s, when a San Diego-based biotech company went exploring in Yellowstone National Park for microbes with bizarre lifestyles. These are "extremeophiles," types of organisms that can endure truly extreme environments, such as the hot, roiling, acidic waters of the park's hot springs. These microbes come in a wide range of talents: Some can endure extreme heat, others extreme cold, some highly saline conditions, others are capable of gobbling up carbon dioxide and hydrogen gases, a skill possibly useful in cleaning up toxic wastes.

In the industrial world these organisms might be highly valuable if their skills are carefully harnessed. In the matter involving the San Diego company, Diversa Corp., some groups sued Yellowstone over an agreement it reached with Diversa. While the court eventually upheld the agreement, which in part called for Diversa to pay the park $20,000 a year, the judge did order the Park Service to conduct a National Environmental Policy Act analysis of that agreement.

Now, nearly a decade after that order was handed down, the Park Service has stated its position on benefits sharing. It's a position that possibly could have wide-ranging implications. How much should parks be compensated by biotech companies? Is the $20,000 a year Yellowstone negotiated with Diversa -- which in 2007 merged with a corporation called Verenium -- a reasonable amount?

According to a 1997 Wall Street Journal story, over the years microorganisms found in Yellowstone's thermal features have been used to develop or improve on a wide range of industrial processes. Believe it or not, but according to the Journal the park's microbes have helped improve baked goods and produced a better-tasting head on a mug of beer.

The benefits-sharing document, which you can find at this site, states that royalty terms would remain confidential. Once a year, though, the Park Service would report to Congress annually on the royalties it receives.

At the National Parks Conservation Association, Patricia Dowd said the agreement was a good one.

"The decision strikes a good balance of prohibiting the commercial use or sale of research specimens, while allowing research of specimens to occur in our national parks," said Ms. Dowd, who heads the group's Yellowstone field office. "The public can learn from our national parks, and our parks can benefit from research."

Approximately 270 national park sites issue research permits under current policies and procedures. Only a small portion of NPS sites and research permittees are expected to
be affected by benefits-sharing.