Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
NanoEthics
Published in: NanoEthics 2/2016

27-06-2016 | Original Paper

Locating Responsible Research and Innovation Within Access and Benefit Sharing Spaces of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the Challenge of Emerging Technologies

Authors: Sarah A. Laird, Rachel P. Wynberg

Published in: NanoEthics | Issue 2/2016

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This paper reviews the location of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) approaches within the access and benefit sharing (ABS) policy spaces of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Nagoya Protocol. We describe how a range of dialogues on ethical research practices found a home, almost inadvertently, within the ABS policy process. However, more recent RRI dialogues around emerging technologies have not been similarly absorbed into ABS policy, due in part to the original framing of ABS and associated definitional and scope issues. Consideration is given to the challenges posed to these policy processes by the transformative and rapid nature of scientific and technological change today, including the emerging field of synthetic biology. Drawing on experiences from regulating ABS, we emphasize that the integration of RRI into policies for new, emerging, or poorly understood activities such as synthetic biology faces deficiencies such as limits to government capacity, jurisdictional confusion, shortages in funds, and an absence of strategic approaches. We conclude that a coordinated combination of diverse policy processes within the CBD might provide an invaluable space for RRI dialogues on social justice, sustainability, biosafety, and other issues raised by emerging technologies.
previous article Responsible, Inclusive Innovation and the Nano-Divide
next article Science Policy and Concomitant Research in Synthetic Biology—Some Critical Thoughts

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Literature
1.
Convention on Biological Diversity (1992). UNEP, Montreal
2.
Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010). The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Toronto
3.
4.
WCED (1987) Our common future, United Nations
5.
Posey DA, Dutfield G (1996) Beyond intellectual property: toward traditional resource rights for indigenous peoples and local communities. IDRC, Ottawa
6.
Laird S (2002) Biodiversity and traditional knowledge: equitable partnerships in practice. Earthscan, London
7.
ISE (2006) ISE Code of Ethics (with 2008 additions). International Society of Ethnobiology, Bristol
8.
PIIPA (2013) Bioprospecting resource guide public interest intellectual property advisors, Washington, DC
9.
BGCI (2016) Botanic garden policies on access and benefit-sharing. Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Richmond
10.
Von Schomberg R (2013) A vision of responsible innovation. In: Owen R, Heintz M, Bessant J (eds) Responsible innovation. Wiley, London, pp 51–74CrossRef
11.
Dana G, Kuiken T, Rejeski D, Snow AA (2012) Synthetic biology: four steps to avoid a synthetic-biology disaster. Nature 483(7387):29CrossRef
12.
ETCGroup (2012) Synthetic biology: 10 key points for delegates to COP 11
13.
Hoffman E, Newman S (2012) Synthetic biology: big promises backed by bad theory. Friends of the Earth, Washington, DC
14.
Callaway E (2013) Synthetic biologists and conservationists open talks. Nature 496(7445):281CrossRef
15.
Redford K, Adams W, Mace G (2013) Synthetic biology and conservation of nature: wicked problems and wicked solutions. PLoS Biol 11(4):e1001530CrossRef
16.
Reid WV, Laird SA, Meyer CA, Gámez R, Sittenfeld A, Jansen D, Gollin MA, Juma C, Mezerette C, Girad P (1993) Biodiversity prospecting: using genetic resources for sustainable development. Worldwatch Institute Washington, DC
17.
Sanchez V (1994) Biodiplomacy: genetic resources and international relations. ACTS, Nairobi
18.
Macilwain C (1998) When rhetoric hits reality in debate on bioprospecting. Nature 392(6676):535–540CrossRef
19.
Wynberg R, Laird S (2009) Bioprospecting, access and benefit sharing: revisiting the ‘grand bargain’. In: Wynberg R, Schroeder D, Chennells R (eds) Indigenous peoples, consent and benefit sharing. Springer, Berlin, pp 69–86
20.
Robinson D (2010) Confronting biopiracy: cases, challenges and international debates. Routledge/Earthscan, Oxon
21.
Wynberg R, Schroeder D, Chennells R (eds) (2009) Indigenous peoples, consent and benefit sharing: lessons from the San-Hoodia case. Springer, Berlin
22.
Chennells R (2013) Traditional knowledge and benefit sharing after the Nagoya Protocol: three cases from South Africa. Law Environ Dev J 9:163
23.
Wynberg R (2016) Paradoxes of access and benefit sharing. Global Africa. Cornell University, Ithaca
24.
Laird S, Wynberg R (2008) Access and benefit-sharing in practice: trends in partnerships across sectors. Technical Series. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal
25.
Galloway B, Wynberg R, Knott K (2016) Commercialising a perfume plant, Commiphora wildii: impacts on livelihoods of the indigenous Himba peoples in north-west Namibia. Int Forestry Review, in prep
26.
27.
King SR, Carlson TJ, Moran K (1996) Biological diversity, indigenous knowledge, drug discovery and intellectual property rights: creating reciprocity and maintaining relationships. J Ethnopharmacol 51(1):45–57CrossRef
28.
Iwu MMLS (1998) Drug development and biodiversity conservation in Africa: case study of a benefit-sharing plan. The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Toronto
29.
Laird SA, Wynberg R (2008) Access and benefit-sharing in practice: trends in partnerships across sectors. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
30.
Wynberg R, Chennells R (2009) Green diamonds of the South: an overview of the San-Hoodia case. In: Indigenous peoples, consent and benefit sharing. Springer, Berlin pp. 89–124
31.
Cragg GM, Katz F, Newman DJ, Rosenthal J (2012) The impact of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity on natural products research. Nat Prod Rep 29(12):1407–1423. doi:10.​1039/​c2np20091k CrossRef
32.
Schiele S, Scott, D, Abdelhakim, D, Garforth, K, Gomez Castro, B, Schmidt, L and Cooper, HD (2015) Possible gaps and overlaps with the applicable provisions of the convention, its protocols and other relevant agreements related to components, organisms and products resulting from synthetic biology techniques. Technical Series, vol Part II of Synthetic Biology. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal
33.
E H (2016) Synthetic biology debate ahead of biodiversity treaty’s top meeting. Third World Network Biosafety Information Service, Austin, Texas
34.
SBSTTA (2016) Recommendation XX/8 synthetic biology. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Toronto
35.
Bagley MA, Rai AK (2014) The Nagoya Protocol and Synthetic Biology Research: a look at the potential impacts. Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper (2014–05), WWICS, Washington, DC
36.
Bagley MA (2015) Digital DNA: the Nagoya Protocol, Intellectual Property Treaties, and Synthetic Biology
37.
Muller MR (2015) Genetic resources as natural information: implications for the Convention on Biological Diversity and Nagoya Protocol. Routledge, London
38.
Vogel J (2015) Foreword. In: Ruiz Perez Muller M (ed) Genetic resources as natural information: implications for the Convention on Biological Diversity and Nagoya Protocol. Routledge, London
39.
ETC Group (2012) Synthetic biology: 10 key points for delegates. ETC Group, Ottawa
40.
Schei PJ, Tvedt MW (2010) The concept of “genetic resources” in the Convention on Biological Diversity and how it relates to a functional international regime on access and benefit-sharing. The Fridtjof Nansen Institute
41.
42.
Laird S (2013) Bioscience at a crossroads: access and benefit sharing in a time of scientific, technological and industry change: the pharmaceutical industry. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal
43.
Laird S, Wynberg R (2012) Diversity and change in the commercial use of genetic resources: implications for access and benefit-sharing policy. Special Issue: Socio-economics and management of bioprospecting. Int J Ecol Econ Stat 26 (3)
44.
Laird S (2013) Bioscience at a crossroads: access and benefit sharing in a time of scientific, technological and industry change: industrial biotechnology. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal
45.
Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS III, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14(2):32
46.
Gilbert N (2010) Biodiversity law could stymie research. Nat News 463(7281):598CrossRef
47.
Welch EW, Shin E, Long J (2013) Potential effects of the Nagoya Protocol on the exchange of non-plant genetic resources for scientific research: actors, paths, and consequences. Ecol Econ 86:136–147CrossRef
48.
Group E (1995) Bioprospecting, biopiracy, and indigenous peoples Ottawa
49.
50.
Inovio (2012) Inovio receives U.S. patent for SynCon® H1N1 influenza universal vaccine
51.
Wynberg R, Laird S, Van Niekerk J, Kozanayi W (2015) Formalization of the natural product trade in southern Africa: unintended consequences and policy blurring in biotrade and bioprospecting. Soc Nat Resour 28(5):559–574CrossRef
52.
UNEP (2014) Decision adopted by the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Republic of Korea
53.
WWICS (2015) US trends in synthetic biology research funding. Synbio project. WWICS, Washington, DC
54.
Scott D, Abdelhakim, D, Miranda, M, Hoft, R and Cooper, HD (2015) Potential positive and negative impacts of components, organisms and products resulting from synthetic biology techniques on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural considerations. Technical Series, vol Part I of Synthetic Biology. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal
55.
UNEP (2015) Update report and synthesis of views in response to paragraph 7(b) of Decision XII/24 on new and emerging issues: synthetic biology. Montreal
56.
57.
58.
59.
Bergeson L, Campbell, LM, Dolan, SL, Englare, RE, Baron, KF, Auerback, B, Backstrom, TD, Vergnes, JS, Bultena, JP, Auer, CM (2015) The DNA of the US regulatory system: are we getting it right for synthetic biology? WWICS, Washington, DC
60.
Endy D (2014) Designing life: the ethics of synthetic biology. Science Gallery Dublin
61.
Tucker J (2012) Innovation, dual use and security. Managing the risks of emerging biological and chemical technologies. MIT, Cambridge
62.
Whittall H (2014) Designing life: the ethics of synthetic biology, Science Gallery Dublin
63.
Perls D (2014) Synthetic biology needs transparency. Friends of the Earth
64.
Pauwels E (2013) Public understanding of synthetic biology. Bioscience 63(2):79–89CrossRef
65.
Mazerik J, Rejeski D, Mazerik J, Rejeski D (2014) A guide for communicating synthetic biology. SYNBIO, Science and Technology Innovation Program edn. WWICS, Washington, DC
66.
ETC Group (2007) Extreme genetic engineering: an introduction to synthetic biology, ETC Group, Ottawa
67.
68.
Solazyme.com (2015) Microalgae, Macro Solutions
69.
Matondi PB, Havnevik K, Beyene A (eds) (2011) Biofuels, land grabbing and food security in Africa. Zed Books, London
70.
71.
Drinkwater K, Kuiken T, Lightfoot S, McNamara J, Oye K (2014) Creating a research agenda for the ecological implications of synthetic biology. vol Synbio. MIT Center for International Studies and WWICS, Cambridge, MA and Washington, DC
72.
Zika E, Papatryfon, I, Wolf, O, Gómez-Barbero, M, Stein AJ and Bock, AK (2007) Consequences, opportunities, and challenges of modern biotechnology for Europe, European Communities, Luxembourg
73.
Carlson R (2011) Biodesic 2011 bioeconomy update. Biodesic LLC:1–6
74.
75.
76.
Laird SA, McLain R, Wynberg RP (2010) Wild product governance: finding policies that work for non-timber forest products. Earthscan, London
77.
78.
De Beer T (2015) Stakeholder involvement in the development of genetically modified (GM) food labelling in South Africa. University of Cape Town
79.
European Commission (2015) Science with and for society: responsible research and innovation, European Commission Decision C (2015)2453 of 17 April 2015, Brussels
80.
Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J (2012) Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Sci Public Policy 39(6):751–760CrossRef
81.
Metadata
Title
Locating Responsible Research and Innovation Within Access and Benefit Sharing Spaces of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the Challenge of Emerging Technologies
Authors
Sarah A. Laird
Rachel P. Wynberg
Publication date
27-06-2016
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
NanoEthics / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 1871-4757
Electronic ISSN: 1871-4765
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0268-z

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

NanoEthics 2/2016 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Responsible, Inclusive Innovation and the Nano-Divide

Original Paper

A Problem with Societal Desirability as a Component of Responsible Research and Innovation: the “If we don’t somebody else will” Argument

Original Paper

CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing – new and old ethical issues arising from a revolutionary technology

Introduction

Nanoscale-Technologies as Subjects of Responsible Research and Innovation

Erratum

Erratum to: A Problem with Societal Desirability as a Component of Responsible Research and Innovation: the “If we don’t somebody else will” Argument

Book Review

Perfecting Human Futures: Transhuman Visions and Technological Imaginations

Premium Partner

    Image Credits