Should national parks be opened to commercial "prospectors." Not mining prospectors, but rather modern-day scientists and researchers looking for, perhaps, a cure for cancer or maybe an industrial reagent? The National Park Service apparently believes so, as its final Environmental Impact Statement on "benefits-sharing agreements" with scientists supports such agreements.

Three years in the making, that document proposes agreements that the agency believes "could return benefits to the park and the public if the research results lead to the development of commercially valuable materials."

Mundane-sounding as it might be, this document could bring loud criticism to the Park Service for what some see as opening up the National Park System to commercial bio-prospecting. Back in 2007 several groups rose to oppose the Park Service's move in this direction, launching a website, Parks Are Not For Sale, that derided commercial research in the parks.

"Commercial bioprospecting in general undermines the basic mission, purpose and spirit of the National Parks," the groups said at the time. "While we strongly support scientific research in the parks, we believe there should be no research within the park system that is expressly commercial."

On Monday one of the lawyers involved with that effort declined comment on the latest development until she could fully digest the Park Service's FEIS.

Running more than 600 pages when you consider the appendices, the FEIS contains a preferred alternative that the Park Service says would "not change the existing strict research permit process."

"Regulations would 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. They would continue to prohibit the commercial use or sale of park specimens and prohibit damage to or consumptive use of park resources," the agency said in a news release Monday. "Under the preferred alternative, a benefits-sharing agreement may be negotiated with researchers who wish to commercialize their research results."

Park Service officials maintain implementation of the preferred alternative would not lead to commercialization of the parks. "The proposed changes are not about commercializing the parks, but are about the public receiving some benefit from commercial projects that result from analysis of samples collected in national parks," the agency's release said.

The matter now falls in the lap of Park Service Director Jon Jarvis, who is expected to announce his position on the issue early next year.

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 released 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.

How many parks might benefit from commercial relationships? Surely, Yellowstone is unique due to its thermal features. But could there be something valuable lurking in the temperate rainforests of Olympic National Park, or the dark depths of Mammoth Cave, or the hard-baked salt pan of Death Valley?

According to the NPS, before any benefit-sharing agreements are entered into, a prospective permittee must meet all the regulatory requirements for obtaining a research permit; the park unit must comply with all resource protection requirements; and a permit must be issued. Typically, negotiations would not occur until after research has already been conducted, the agency said.

The NPS has identified four types of non-monetary benefits that could occur under some or all benefits-sharing agreements: knowledge and research relationships, training and education, research-related equipment, and special services such as laboratory analysis. All benefits received under any type of benefits-sharing agreement would be dedicated to the conservation of resources protected and managed by the National Park Service.

Currently, an average of more than 200 national parks annually host independent research efforts, authorized under permits generated under current policies and procedures, according to the Park Service, which added that only a small portion of NPS research permittees are expected to be affected by benefits-sharing.

The Final EIS is available online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov by selecting the “Washington Office”. It is also available on CD or in hard copy by writing the Benefits Sharing FEIS Team, Yellowstone Center for Resources, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming 82190.