New Scientist - 09.11.2019

9 November 2019 | New Scientist | 21

NEXT week, delegates will gather
in Rome to discuss a question that
could have profound implications
for global biodiversity, food
security and public health.
Stripped of technical language, it
boils down to this: who owns life?
The Rome meeting convenes
the governing body of the
International Treaty on Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture. It is also known as
the “seed treaty” because it mostly
deals with seed collections. It
will address arrangements for
accessing these genetic resources,
and how to share any benefits
resulting from their exploitation.
Central to that discussion will be
“digital sequence information”.
The seed treaty covers only
samples of the physical material
that constitutes plants. But as
more species are sequenced
and their molecular blueprints
digitised, they can be exploited –
for creating a drought-resistant
crop plant, say – without accessing
a physical sample.
It is not just plants at stake.
The outcome of the Rome
meeting is likely to influence a
meeting for the Convention on
Biological Diversity next October.
This treaty covers all life, and
also neglects digital sequences.
Given that an organism’s DNA,
RNA or protein sequence is merely
information stored in a molecule,
you might think that extending
these treaties to cover digital
sequence information would be
uncontentious. Far from it. So far,
JOSIE FORDall attempts to reach a consensus

Comment

Views

The columnist

Graham Lawton

assesses our climate

change progress p22

Letters

We must deal with

the roots of domestic

violence p24

Aperture

Futuristic looking

solar panels in the

Chilean sand p28

Culture

The chasm between

scientists and those

rejecting science p30

Culture columnist

Chelsea Whyte finds

clone fun in Living

With Yourself p32

have failed, and some have called

the issue “the monster in the

closet”. Part of the problem is that

digital sequence information isn’t

clearly defined: should it include

only DNA and RNA sequence data,

for example, or also amino acid

sequences and epigenetic data?

The larger issue is whether

including it will further the goals

of the treaties, which aim to fairly

share the fruits of Earth’s genetic

resources. On this, the world is

split. On one side are the generally

biodiverse and developing

countries, which want digital data

included to close what they see as

a loophole. On the other are the

developed countries, which have

carried out most of the cataloguing

of that biodiversity, and drawn

most benefit from it. They don’t

want the digital data covered.

Much of the information sits in

public databases that researchers

can access without obligations

towards donor countries. Some

in developed nations fear that

adding red tape, similar to the

agreements that control the

sharing of physical samples, will

slow crucial research. Because

biodiversity loss is a problem, and

species can’t be conserved until

they have been catalogued, they

argue that it will be the developing

countries that mainly lose out.

Another area of concern

is public health. Containing

epidemics and developing new

drugs depend on the rapid sharing

of pathogen information.

A drug recently shown to be

effective against Ebola was made

by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals in

the US using digital data derived

from a clinical sample taken from

a Guinean woman during the 2014

Ebola outbreak in West Africa, and

deposited in GenBank. Regeneron

isn’t obliged to share the benefits

with Guinea because there was

no physical sample involved. If the

firm had to share, it may have had

less incentive to develop the drug

and more people might have died

in the current Congolese outbreak.

There are potential solutions.

Users of digital databases could be

required to sign data access and

use agreements, which would

protect donors’ interests, while

leaving research unrestricted until

it was commercialised. It is time

to discuss these because, while the

stand-off endures, more and more

biodiverse countries are bringing

in restrictive national legislation

on access and benefit-sharing,

and that is unlikely to help anyone,

including them. ❚

Who owns life?

A debate over who can access and exploit the planet’s genetic

resources will have ramifications for all of us, says Laura Spinney

Laura Spinney is a

journalist based in Paris.

Follow her @lfspinney