The quest for patent rights has seen bioprospecting as a scientific and commercial research paradigm in which bioprospectors explore secluded locations around Cameroon in order to find ‘new drugs from exotic plants’. Bioprospectors derive genetic and biochemical materials that are both scientifically and commercially valuable, and they subsequently patent these materials abroad away from the original source to justify legal ownership through intellectual property law. An almost unprecedented amount of discussion has been stimulated on the merits and demerits of genetic engineering of crop plants and biodiversity exploitation and has divided both the public and scientific communities. The arguments for and against genetic engineering are invariably based on visions or missions of the new technology from widely different ethical perspectives. Fundamental issues of man's relationship with nature and theological matters are issues of concern. The genetic engineering of living cells, plants, animals and human beings has brought ethical concerns and issues to the conservation of biodiversity. Agricultural productivity depends in part on the availability of biodiversity for the development of improved cultivars. Until the 1970s, biodiversity was considered to be part of the ‘common heritage of humanity’. Under the regime of patent rights, biological resources are treated as belonging to the ‘public domain’ and are not owned by any individual, group, or state. From a common heritage of mankind, biodiversity is evolving into a resource under the sovereignty of nation states and is subject to intellectual property rights (IPRs). The new technology has witnessed a lot of illegal exploitation and commercialisation of these biological resources which is considered as biopiracy.