全球生物多样性行动可能取决于遗传数据共享协议

Jacqueline Batley, Andrew L. Hufton, Guilherme Oliveira, Rajeev K. Varshney
{"title":"全球生物多样性行动可能取决于遗传数据共享协议","authors":"Jacqueline Batley,&nbsp;Andrew L. Hufton,&nbsp;Guilherme Oliveira,&nbsp;Rajeev K. Varshney","doi":"10.1002/ggn2.202200031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This month, parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are meeting in Montreal with the aim of concluding negotiations on an important new action plan for global biodiversity conservation, known as the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). In these negotiations, genetic data from plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms, known as digital sequence information (DSI) in policy circles, has emerged as a central source of tension. A number of parties are demanding that benefits arising from the use of these genetic data be better shared with the countries where the genetic material was collected.</p><p>The Nagoya Protocol, a component of the CBD, recognized the right of countries to share in the benefits derived from their nation's genetic resources, and established a framework by which countries can regulate and track the use of physical “genetic resources” (i.e., biological samples, strains, plant lines, etc., containing genetic material). This framework, however, is complex and, in the opinion of many, has proven inefficient at driving meaningful benefit sharing.<sup>[</sup><span><sup>1</sup></span><sup>]</sup></p><p>Researchers and other stakeholders have raised serious concerns about applying such a framework to DSI.<sup>[</sup><span><sup>2, 3</sup></span><sup>]</sup> Some of the proposals on the table could spell an end to the culture of open sequence sharing that has defined non-human genetics research for decades, and which is widely agreed to have massive positive effects on research progress and economic value creation. A poorly developed solution could therefore have a negative impact on biodiversity research that is crucial to the aims of the CBD. Representatives of indigenous peoples and local communities have also been active in the discussions on this topic and argue that the rights and roles of their communities must be respected in any final agreement.<sup>[</sup><span><sup>4</sup></span><sup>]</sup></p><p>That this issue alone could stymie global biodiversity conservation efforts is not in doubt. Talks in August on a major ocean biodiversity treaty failed to make progress because of lack of agreement on DSI,<sup>[</sup><span><sup>5</sup></span><sup>]</sup> and African negotiators have warned that they will not agree to a GBF that lacks a concrete solution to DSI.<sup>[</sup><span><sup>6</sup></span><sup>]</sup> The issue has also proven contentious in a recent meeting of the Governing Body session of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.<sup>[</sup><span><sup>7</sup></span><sup>]</sup> It is clear that an effective benefit sharing solution must be part of any global action plan to conserve biodiversity.</p><p>But grounds for optimism remain. Scientists and major research organizations are arguing that it is possible to build a solution that will drive benefit-sharing, protect open science and promote biodiversity conservation.<sup>[</sup><span><sup>4, 8, 9</sup></span><sup>]</sup> An open letter expressing these principles, organized by the DSI Scientific Network, has been signed by over a thousand researchers and more than 30 scientific organizations and institutions from around the globe.<sup>[</sup><span><sup>10</sup></span><sup>]</sup></p><p>We, writing both as scientists and on behalf of <i>Advanced Genetics</i>, encourage researchers to raise their voices on this crucial issue and speak out for sensible and equitable solutions that will preserve scientific data sharing. We must defend the collaborative nature of modern research, because only together can we address the major challenges facing our planet.</p><p>A.L.H., G.O. and R.K.V. are unpaid members of the DSI Scientific Network.</p>","PeriodicalId":72071,"journal":{"name":"Advanced genetics (Hoboken, N.J.)","volume":"3 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9993466/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Global Action on Biodiversity May Hinge on Genetic Data Sharing Agreement\",\"authors\":\"Jacqueline Batley,&nbsp;Andrew L. Hufton,&nbsp;Guilherme Oliveira,&nbsp;Rajeev K. Varshney\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ggn2.202200031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This month, parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are meeting in Montreal with the aim of concluding negotiations on an important new action plan for global biodiversity conservation, known as the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). In these negotiations, genetic data from plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms, known as digital sequence information (DSI) in policy circles, has emerged as a central source of tension. A number of parties are demanding that benefits arising from the use of these genetic data be better shared with the countries where the genetic material was collected.</p><p>The Nagoya Protocol, a component of the CBD, recognized the right of countries to share in the benefits derived from their nation's genetic resources, and established a framework by which countries can regulate and track the use of physical “genetic resources” (i.e., biological samples, strains, plant lines, etc., containing genetic material). This framework, however, is complex and, in the opinion of many, has proven inefficient at driving meaningful benefit sharing.<sup>[</sup><span><sup>1</sup></span><sup>]</sup></p><p>Researchers and other stakeholders have raised serious concerns about applying such a framework to DSI.<sup>[</sup><span><sup>2, 3</sup></span><sup>]</sup> Some of the proposals on the table could spell an end to the culture of open sequence sharing that has defined non-human genetics research for decades, and which is widely agreed to have massive positive effects on research progress and economic value creation. A poorly developed solution could therefore have a negative impact on biodiversity research that is crucial to the aims of the CBD. Representatives of indigenous peoples and local communities have also been active in the discussions on this topic and argue that the rights and roles of their communities must be respected in any final agreement.<sup>[</sup><span><sup>4</sup></span><sup>]</sup></p><p>That this issue alone could stymie global biodiversity conservation efforts is not in doubt. Talks in August on a major ocean biodiversity treaty failed to make progress because of lack of agreement on DSI,<sup>[</sup><span><sup>5</sup></span><sup>]</sup> and African negotiators have warned that they will not agree to a GBF that lacks a concrete solution to DSI.<sup>[</sup><span><sup>6</sup></span><sup>]</sup> The issue has also proven contentious in a recent meeting of the Governing Body session of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.<sup>[</sup><span><sup>7</sup></span><sup>]</sup> It is clear that an effective benefit sharing solution must be part of any global action plan to conserve biodiversity.</p><p>But grounds for optimism remain. Scientists and major research organizations are arguing that it is possible to build a solution that will drive benefit-sharing, protect open science and promote biodiversity conservation.<sup>[</sup><span><sup>4, 8, 9</sup></span><sup>]</sup> An open letter expressing these principles, organized by the DSI Scientific Network, has been signed by over a thousand researchers and more than 30 scientific organizations and institutions from around the globe.<sup>[</sup><span><sup>10</sup></span><sup>]</sup></p><p>We, writing both as scientists and on behalf of <i>Advanced Genetics</i>, encourage researchers to raise their voices on this crucial issue and speak out for sensible and equitable solutions that will preserve scientific data sharing. We must defend the collaborative nature of modern research, because only together can we address the major challenges facing our planet.</p><p>A.L.H., G.O. and R.K.V. are unpaid members of the DSI Scientific Network.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72071,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advanced genetics (Hoboken, N.J.)\",\"volume\":\"3 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9993466/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advanced genetics (Hoboken, N.J.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ggn2.202200031\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advanced genetics (Hoboken, N.J.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ggn2.202200031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本月,《生物多样性公约》(CBD)缔约方在蒙特利尔举行会议,目的是完成一项重要的全球生物多样性保护新行动计划的谈判,即2020年后全球生物多样性框架(GBF)。在这些谈判中,来自植物、动物、真菌和微生物的基因数据,在政策圈被称为数字序列信息(DSI),已成为紧张局势的主要来源。一些缔约方要求与收集遗传材料的国家更好地分享使用这些遗传数据所产生的利益。《名古屋议定书》是《生物多样性公约》的一个组成部分,承认各国有权分享本国遗传资源所产生的惠益,并建立了一个框架,使各国能够管理和跟踪物理“遗传资源”(即含有遗传物质的生物样品、品系、植物品系等)的使用。然而,这个框架很复杂,而且在许多人看来,在推动有意义的利益分享方面效率低下。[1]研究人员和其他利益相关者对将这种框架应用于DSI提出了严重的担忧。[2,3]一些摆在桌面上的提议可能会终结开放序列共享的文化,这种文化几十年来定义了非人类遗传学研究,并被广泛认为对研究进展和经济价值创造具有巨大的积极影响。因此,一个不完善的解决方案可能会对生物多样性研究产生负面影响,而生物多样性研究对《生物多样性公约》的目标至关重要。土著人民和地方社区的代表也积极参与了关于这一专题的讨论,他们认为,在任何最后协议中都必须尊重其社区的权利和作用。[4]毫无疑问,单单这个问题就会阻碍全球生物多样性保护的努力。8月份关于一项重要的海洋生物多样性条约的谈判未能取得进展,因为缺乏关于DSI的协议[5],非洲谈判代表警告说,他们不会同意缺乏关于DSI的具体解决方案的GBF[6]。在《粮食和农业植物遗传资源国际条约》理事会最近的一次会议上,这个问题也被证明是有争议的。[7]显然,有效的利益分享解决方案必须成为任何保护生物多样性的全球行动计划的一部分。但乐观的理由依然存在。科学家和主要研究机构认为,有可能建立一种解决方案,推动利益分享、保护开放科学和促进生物多样性保护。[4,8,9]由DSI科学网络组织的一封表达这些原则的公开信,已经有来自全球的一千多名研究人员和30多个科学组织和机构签署。[10]我们以科学家的身份并代表《先进遗传学》发表文章,鼓励研究人员在这个关键问题上发出他们的声音,并为合理和公平的解决方案大声疾呼,以保持科学数据的共享。我们必须捍卫现代研究的合作性质,因为只有共同努力,我们才能应对地球面临的主要挑战。, G.O.和R.K.V.是DSI科学网络的无偿成员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Global Action on Biodiversity May Hinge on Genetic Data Sharing Agreement

This month, parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are meeting in Montreal with the aim of concluding negotiations on an important new action plan for global biodiversity conservation, known as the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). In these negotiations, genetic data from plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms, known as digital sequence information (DSI) in policy circles, has emerged as a central source of tension. A number of parties are demanding that benefits arising from the use of these genetic data be better shared with the countries where the genetic material was collected.

The Nagoya Protocol, a component of the CBD, recognized the right of countries to share in the benefits derived from their nation's genetic resources, and established a framework by which countries can regulate and track the use of physical “genetic resources” (i.e., biological samples, strains, plant lines, etc., containing genetic material). This framework, however, is complex and, in the opinion of many, has proven inefficient at driving meaningful benefit sharing.[1]

Researchers and other stakeholders have raised serious concerns about applying such a framework to DSI.[2, 3] Some of the proposals on the table could spell an end to the culture of open sequence sharing that has defined non-human genetics research for decades, and which is widely agreed to have massive positive effects on research progress and economic value creation. A poorly developed solution could therefore have a negative impact on biodiversity research that is crucial to the aims of the CBD. Representatives of indigenous peoples and local communities have also been active in the discussions on this topic and argue that the rights and roles of their communities must be respected in any final agreement.[4]

That this issue alone could stymie global biodiversity conservation efforts is not in doubt. Talks in August on a major ocean biodiversity treaty failed to make progress because of lack of agreement on DSI,[5] and African negotiators have warned that they will not agree to a GBF that lacks a concrete solution to DSI.[6] The issue has also proven contentious in a recent meeting of the Governing Body session of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.[7] It is clear that an effective benefit sharing solution must be part of any global action plan to conserve biodiversity.

But grounds for optimism remain. Scientists and major research organizations are arguing that it is possible to build a solution that will drive benefit-sharing, protect open science and promote biodiversity conservation.[4, 8, 9] An open letter expressing these principles, organized by the DSI Scientific Network, has been signed by over a thousand researchers and more than 30 scientific organizations and institutions from around the globe.[10]

We, writing both as scientists and on behalf of Advanced Genetics, encourage researchers to raise their voices on this crucial issue and speak out for sensible and equitable solutions that will preserve scientific data sharing. We must defend the collaborative nature of modern research, because only together can we address the major challenges facing our planet.

A.L.H., G.O. and R.K.V. are unpaid members of the DSI Scientific Network.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信