ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) commits its 196 nation parties to conserve biological diversity, use its components sustainably, and share fairly and equitably the benefits from the utilization of genetic resources. The last of these objectives was further codified in the Convention's Nagoya Protocol (NP), which came into effect in 2014. Although these aspirations are laudable, the NP and resulting national ambitions on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) of genetic resources have generated several national regulatory regimes fraught with unintended consequences (1). Anticipated benefits from the commercial use of genetic resources, especially those that might flow to local or indigenous communities because of regulated access to those resources, have largely been exaggerated and not yet realized. Instead, national regulations created in anticipation of commercial benefits, particularly in many countries that are rich in biodiversity, have curtailed biodiversity research by in-country scientists as well as international collaboration (1). This weakens the first and foremost objective of the CBD—conservation of biological diversity. We suggest ways that the Conference of the Parties (CoP) of the CBD may proactively engage scientists to create a regulatory environment conducive to advancing biodiversity science.
No caption available
… 
Content may be subject to copyright.
SCIENCE sciencemag.org
PHOTO: SANDESH KADUR
By K. Divakaran Prathapan1, Rohan
Pethiyagoda2, Kamaljit S. Bawa3, Peter H.
Raven4, Priyadarsanan Dharma Rajan,5
and 172 co-signatories from 35 countries*
The Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) commits its 196 nation parties
to conserve biological diversity, use
its components sustainably, and share
fairly and equitably the benefits from
the utilization of genetic resources. The
last of these objectives was further codified
in the Convention’s Nagoya Protocol (NP),
which came into effect in 2014. Although
these aspirations are laudable, the NP and
resulting national ambitions on Access and
Benefit Sharing (ABS) of genetic resources
have generated several national regulatory
regimes fraught with unintended conse-
quences (1). Anticipated benefits from the
commercial use of genetic resources, espe-
cially those that might flow to local or in-
digenous communities because of regulated
access to those resources, have largely been
exaggerated and not yet realized. Instead,
national regulations created in anticipation
of commercial benefits, particularly in many
countries that are rich in biodiversity, have
curtailed biodiversity research by in-country
scientists as well as international collabora-
tion (1). This weakens the first and foremost
objective of the CBD—conservation of biolog-
ical diversity. We suggest ways that the Con-
ference of the Parties (CoP) of the CBD may
proactively engagescientiststo create a regu-
latory environment conducive to advancing
biodiversity science.
The opportunity to ever know about many
of the kinds of organisms with which we
share this world is rapidly slipping through
our fingers. Of the estimated 12 million spe-
cies of eukaryotes on Earth, fewer than 2 mil-
lion have been named. Current estimates are
that 20% of the species on Earth are in dan-
ger of extinction, driven primarily by a range
of human activities. Although biological re-
sources had long been treated as a common
heritage of humankind, the CBD reinforced
the notion of sovereign rights of nation states
over biological resources within their politi-
cal boundaries and entrusted the nation par-
ties to take measures to share benefits arising
from the utilization of genetic resources.
In most countries, particularly developing
countries, the agendas of numerous pressure
groups, many of them well-intended but not
prioritizing science, get mixed up during the
legislative process, while conservation biolo-
gists and taxonomists, a vanishingly small
constituency, hold little leverage. Thus, the
resulting national legislations vary greatly,
from being extremely prohibitive of research,
to a very few that are relatively enabling,
such as Costa Rica and South Africa. The
problem is particularly acute where there is
a poor policy-science interface resulting from
weak scientific institutions.
In many developing nations, conservation
approaches may be largely reduced to mere
protectionism—preventing deforestation and
prohibiting the destruction of fauna and flora.
Given the magnitude of the threats, effective
conservation also demands the scientific un-
derstanding of species, the anthropogenic and
other disturbances they face, and the develop-
ment of scientific conservation interventions.
None of this is possible unless scientists have
access to the resources they seek to study,
and ability to share resources and expertise
with other countries. No one country will ever
have the expertise to identify all the plants,
animals, fungi, and protists that it contains.
COMMERCIAL VALUE: HYPE VERSUS REALITY
The CBD inspired many biodiversity-rich
nations to entertain unrealistic expectations
regarding the commercial value of their na-
tive species. It is true that important medi-
cines have been derived from plants, and
less commonly, animals. However, a widely
publicized example (2) that captured the
public imagination and the attention of gov-
ernments, estimating that “11 of the top 25
best-selling pharmaceutical products are
entities derived from natural products,” is
misleading. These “natural products” are
derived largely from ubiquitous organisms
over which sovereign ownership or com-
munity interest could not be reasonably or
practically asserted. Eight are derived from
fungi common in soil or similar environ-
ments, and two are obtained from geneti-
cally engineered bacteria or ovarian cells (2).
Additionally, high-throughput screening,
combinatorial chemistry, synthetic biology,
and other advanced methodologies have
largely replaced the role of natural products
in the discovery of new molecules for devel-
oping new drugs, rendering physical access
to biological material less important than it
has been in the past. Modern technologies,
including CRISPR gene editing, are redefin-
ing the modalities of access and utilization
of biological resources in ways that were not
foreseeable during NP negotiations.
Overall, examples of financially significant
ABS agreements, a quarter-century after the
CBD was signed, are scarce. Often-mentioned
cases are marginal arrangements for the use
of plant extracts for treatment of bone frac-
tures as is traditional in the Cook Islands, the
failed Merck-INBio initiative in Costa Rica,
and the now discredited case of the “Indian
ginseng.” A survey of mostly megadiverse
countries having functional ABS legislation
showed that very few commercial ABS agree-
ments (2.05 per year per country) have been
concluded (3), suggesting lack of demand for
genetic resources by potential users, as well
as restrictive procedures for access, as factors
for the poor performance.
1Kerala Agricultural University, Thiruvananthapuram
695522, Kerala, India. 2Ichthyology Section, Australian
Museum, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3University of
Massa chuset ts, Boston , MA, USA. 4Missouri Botanical Garden,
St. Lou is, MO 63 166, USA. 5Ashoka Trust for Research in
Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Bangalore 560064,
India. *A full list of co-signatories can be found in the
supplementary materials. Email: prathapankd@gmail.com;
priyan@atree.org
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
When the cure kills—CBD
limits biodiversity research
National laws fearing biopiracy squelch taxonomy studies
POLICY FORUM
29 JUNE 2018 • VOL 360 ISSUE 6396 1405
Taxonomy of many species of Rhododendron from
the Himalaya (four are seen flowering) is uncertain.
DA_0629PolicyForum.indd 1405 6/27/18 10:26 AM
Published by AAAS
on June 28, 2018 http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from
sciencemag.org SCIENCE
INSIGHTS |
POLICY FORUM
OBSTACLES TO RESEARCH
The principles underlying the CBD and NP
are laudable, and underscore that interna-
tional collaboration in research is crucial for
conservation of biodiversity and that access to
genetic resources should be facilitated. How-
ever, even as national governments, following
the CBD, began to enact legislation to regu-
late access to their biological resources and
benefit-sharing from the derived products,
consequences of such actions on biodiver-
sity research and food security were pointed
out by the science community (4–6). About
100 countries have enacted, or are consider-
ing, laws that regulate access by scientists to
biological material and benefit sharing. Since
the CBD came into effect, and especially after
the NP led nation states to step up legisla-
tive processes to tighten their control over
genetic resources (1, 7), obtaining permits
for access to specimens for noncommercial
research has become increasingly difficult
in many countries in South Asia, East Africa,
and South America, including megadiverse
countries and biodiversity hotspots (8). More
than 1200 Brazilian researchers recently sub-
mitted an appeal to the Ministry of the En-
vironment to differentiate taxonomic studies
from commercial research under the New
Biodiversity Law (9). In some cases, research-
ers have even been prosecuted.
Although the importance of biological in-
ventories and taxonomy is widely appreci-
ated, especially by the CBD itself, for most
nations, including those with the largest
numbers of species, the cataloging of spe-
cies remains woefully incomplete, an already
difficult challenge made more so by legisla-
tion ensuing from the CBD (1, 4). Taxonomy
involves comparison of preserved specimens,
including types scattered across the world’s
natural history museums. Although most
countries have established institutions for
regulating access and material transfer, cross-
border exchange and loaning of such histori-
cal specimens, and taxonomic revisions and
monographic studies on widely distributed
groups of organisms, can now be extremely
challenging, if not impossible owing to fears
of biopiracy. Although the system works
well among developed countries, museums
may be wary of risks of loaning specimens
to scientists in developing countries, fear-
ing that their return may not be permitted.
Biodiversity research has seemingly become
suspect in the minds of many regulatory bod-
ies, owing to fear that a taxonomic discovery
today might conceivably translate into a com-
mercial development tomorrow. Meanwhile,
biodiversity is vanishing and scarce talent is
walking away from research.
The recent decision to consider the use
of digital sequence information (DSI) under
the framework of the CBD and NP (10) may
go beyond physical access to genetic mate-
rials and run counter to the larger overall
goals of the CBD. Scientific information in
the form of DSI is increasingly being pub-
lished through portals of the International
Nucleotide Sequence Database Collabora-
tion (INSDC) such as GenBank. Unlimited
and open access of DSI encourages collabo-
ration to gain insights into the evolution,
maintenance, conservation, and sustainable
use of biological diversity.
Although NP Article 8(a) appears to en-
courage regulations that do not impede
bona fide scientific research, the NP’s
definition of the “utilization of genetic re-
sources” as the “means to conduct research
and development on the genetic and/or bio-
chemical composition of genetic resources”
(Article 2c) makes no exceptions for purely
academic or conservation-related biodiver-
sity research, such as taxonomic studies.
The protocol cautions nations to take into
account “the need to address a change of
intent for such research,” effectively warn-
ing regulators of the “risk” of pure research
spawning commercial applications.
FINDING SOLUTIONS IN SEEDS
With the sovereignty of nations over their
biological resources now well established,
and the ABS regimes put in place by many
countries, individual states are unlikely to
discontinue restrictive practices on their
own, despite the CBD itself acknowledg-
ing the importance of research and knowl-
edge-sharing. Though well-intentioned, the
regulations are inimical to the pursuit of
basic biodiversity science. The CoP should
recognize the problem and urge the parties
to establish enabling legal mechanisms for
conservation-relevant biodiversity research,
including taxonomy. Without close coopera-
tion between scientists and national policy-
making bodies, the broader goals of the
CBD will be difficult to achieve.
Not-for profit research, such as invento-
ries and taxonomic studies intended for the
public domain, should be differentiated from
commercial research leading to proprietary
rights (8). Access has to be open when the
benefits are in the public domain and the
providers of the resource are free to make use
of the benefits like anybody else. However, if
the benefits are confined to the private realm
through intellectual property rights, the pro-
vider may secure a share bilaterally (11).
The International Treaty on Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture, popu-
larly known as the “Seed Treaty,” provides a
promising model. This treaty ensures world-
wide public accessibility of genetic resources
of essential food and fodder crops. Whereas
the CBD and NP necessitate access to genetic
resources on a bilateral basis through case-
by-case negotiations, the Seed Treaty adopted
a multilateral system for access and benefit
sharing (MLS) through a Standard Material
Transfer Agreement, averting the need for
bilateral negotiations. The MLS established
under the Seed Treaty has been viewed as
a very successful model in terms of volume
of material exchanged (8500 transfers every
week) (12), in contrast to the very limited per-
formance of the bilateral system of CBD and
NP (3). Exchange of genetic material under
the Seed Treaty is exempted from the NP, and
the benefit-sharing requirement arises only
when access for further research and breed-
ing is restricted through intellectual property
rights. One possible course of action for the
CoP to the CBD might be to add an explicit
treaty or annex to promote and facilitate
biodiversity research, conservation, and in-
ternational collaboration. Such a treaty will
address legal uncertainties in the governance
of global research commons such as micro-
bial culture collections held by the World
Federation of Culture Collections as well as
DSI published through the portals of INSDC
or taxonomic type materials held in various
museums all over the world.
As scientists aspiring to describe Earth’s
biological diversity in the face of formidable
odds, we ask that the parties to the CBD
do more to raise the legal curtain that has
fallen between biodiversity scientists and
the biodiversity they strive to discover, doc-
ument, and conserve. j
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. D. Neumann et al., Org. Divers. Evol. 18, 1 (2018).
2. K. ten Kate, S.A. Laird, The Commercial Use of
Biodiversity: Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit
Sharing (Earthscan, London, 1999).
3. N. Pauchard, Resources 6, 11 (2017).
4. A. Grajal, Conserv. Biol. 13, 6 (1999).
5. K. D. Prathapan et al., Curr. Sci. 94, 170 (2008).
6. K. D. Prathapan, P. D. Rajan, Curr. Sci. 97, 626 (2009).
7. E. C. Kamau et al., Eds., Research and Development
on Genetic Resources: Public Domain Approaches in
Implementing the Nagoya Protocol (Routledge, 2015).
8. E. C. Kamau, G. Winter, “Unbound R&D and bound benefit
sharing,” in Research and Development on Genetic
Resources: Public Domain Approaches in Implementing
the Nagoya Protocol, E. C. Kamau et al., Eds. (Rout ledge,
2015).
9. F. A. Bockmann et al., Science 360, 865 (2018).
10. www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/np-mop-02/np-mop-
02-dec-14-en.pdf/ (2016).
11. C. von Kries, G. Winter, “Defining commercial and
non-commercial research and development under the
Nagoya Protocol and in other contexts, in Research and
Development on Genetic Resources: Public Domain
Approaches in Implementing the Nagoya Protocol, E. C.
Kamau et al., Eds. (Routledge, 2015).
12. E. C. Kamau, “The Multilateral system of the international
treaty on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture:
Lessons and room for further development,” in Common
Pools of Genetic Resources: Equity and Innovation in
International Biodiversity Law, E. C. Kamau, G. Winter, Eds.
(Routledge, 2013).
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
www.sciencemag.org/content/360/6396/1405/suppl/DC1
10.1126/science.aat9844
1406 29 JUNE 2018 • VOL 360 ISSUE 6396
DA_0629PolicyForum.indd 1406 6/27/18 10:26 AM
Published by AAAS
on June 28, 2018 http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from
CBD limits biodiversity research−−When the cure kills
co-signatories from 35 countries
K. Divakaran Prathapan, Rohan Pethiyagoda, Kamaljit S. Bawa, Peter H. Raven, Priyadarsanan Dharma Rajan and 172
DOI: 10.1126/science.aat9844
(6396), 1405-1406.360Science
ARTICLE TOOLS http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6396/1405
MATERIALS
SUPPLEMENTARY http://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2018/06/27/360.6396.1405.DC1
REFERENCES http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6396/1405#BIBL
This article cites 6 articles, 1 of which you can access for free
PERMISSIONS http://www.sciencemag.org/help/reprints-and-permissions
Terms of ServiceUse of this article is subject to the
is a registered trademark of AAAS.Science
licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. The title
Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. 2017 © The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive
(print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published by the American Association for the Advancement ofScience
on June 28, 2018 http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from
www.sciencemag.org/content/360/6396/1405/suppl/DC1
Supplementary Materials for
When the cure killsCBD limits biodiversity research
K. Divakaran Prathapan*, Rohan Pethiyagoda, Kamaljit S. Bawa, Peter H. Raven,
Priyadarsanan Dharma Rajan*, and 172 co-signatories from 35 countries
*Corresponding author. Email: prathapankd@gmail.com (K.D.P.); priyan@atree.org (P.D.R.)
Published 29 June 2018, Science 360, 1405 (2018)
DOI: 10.1126/science.aat9844
This PDF file includes:
List of co-signatories
List of co-signatories
Luis E. Acosta (luis.acosta@unc.edu.ar), Instituto de Diversidad y Ecología Animal (IDEA), CONICET-
Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina
Byron Adams (byron_adams@byu.edu), Monte L. Bean Museum, Brigham Young University,
Provo, Utah, USA
Sina Adl (sina.adl@usask.ca), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Shane T. Ahyong (shane.ahyong@austmus.gov.au), Australian Museum, Sydney, New South Wales,
Australia
Robert Anderson (randerson@mus-nature.ca), Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Claudia P. Arango (claudia.arango@qm.qld.gov.au), Queensland Museum, South Brisbane, Queensland,
Australia
Miquel A. Arnedo (marnedo@gmail.com), Department of Evolutionary Biology, Ecology and
Environmental Sciences & Biodiversity Research Institute, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
Jonathan W. Armbruster (armbrjw@auburn.edu), Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA
Luciano Javier Avila (avilacnp@gmail.com), IPEEC-CONICET, Puerto Madryn, Chubut,
Argentina
Celso O. Azevedo (bethylidae@gmail.com), Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, Vitória, Espírito
Santo, Brazil
Diego Baldo (diegobaldo@gmail.com), Universidad Nacional de Misiones, Posadas, Argentina
Maxwell V. L. Barclay (m.barclay@nhm.ac.uk), Natural History Museum, London, UK
Rosemarie Baron-Szabo (Rosemarie.Baron-Szabo@senckenberg.de), Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, DC, USA; and Senckenberg Research Institute, Frankfurt/Main, Germany
Aaron M. Bauer (aaron.bauer@villanova.edu), Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania, USA
Bastian Bentlage (bastian.bentlage@gmail.com), University of Guam Marine Laboratory, Mangilao,
Guam, USA
Aleš Bezděk (bezdek@entu.cas.cz), Biology Centre CAS, Institute of Entomology, 370 05 České
Budějovice, Czech Republic
Graham Bird (zeuxo@clear.net.nz), Waikanae, Kapiti, 5036, New Zealand
Vladimir Blagoderov (v.blagoderov@nms.ac.uk), National Museums Scotland, UK
Ladislav Bocak (ladislav.bocak@upol.cz), Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Palacky
University, Olomouc, Czech Republic
Alexandre Bonaldo (bonaldo@museu-goeldi.br), Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Belém, Pará, Brazil
Jason E. Bond (jbond@auburn.edu), Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn,
Alabama, USA
Christopher J. Borkent (chris.borkent@gmail.com), California State Collection of Arthropods,
California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, California, USA
Marc A. Branham (marcbran@ufl.edu), Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
Salvador Carranza (salvador.carranza@ibe.upf-csic.es), Institut de Biologia Evolutiva,
Barcelona, Spain
Ramon Carreno (racarren@owu.edu), Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware, Ohio, USA.
M. R. de Carvalho, (gogolia99@gmail.com), American Museum of Natural History, Central
Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY, 10024, U.S.A.
Santiago Castroviejo-Fisher (castroviejo.fisher@gmail.com), Lab. de Sistemática
de Vertebrados, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do, Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Av. Ipiranga,
6681, Prédio 40, sala 110, 90619-900, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Hideyuki Chiba (chiba.zootaxa@gmail.com), Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawai‘i, USA
Fedor Čiampor (f.ciampor@savba.sk), Plant Science and Biodiversity Centre, Slovak Academy of
Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia
Dave J. Clarke (djclarke@memphis.edu), Department of Biological Sciences, The University of
Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
Allen G. Collins (tesserazoa4zt@gmail.com), Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural
History, Washington, DC, USA
Reginaldo Constantino (termites.zootaxa@gmail.com), Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade de
Brasília, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil
Francisco A. Crespo (crespo.zootaxa@gmail.com), Centro Nacional de Diagnóstico e Investigación en
Endemo-epidemias, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Marymegan Daly (daly.66@osu.edu) Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio USA
Patrycja Dominiak (heliocopris@gmail.com), Department of Invertebrate Zoology and Parasitology,
University of Gdańsk, 80-308 Gdańsk, Poland
Norm Dronen (n-dronen@tamu.edu), Laboratory of Parasitology, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
Alain Dubois (adubois@mnhn.fr), Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France
Thomas F. Duda, Jr. (tfduda@umich.edu), University of Michigan Museum of Zoology
& Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, USA
Marc Eléaume (marc.eleaume@mnhn.fr), Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Département Origine et
Évolution, CP 51, 57 rue Cuvier, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
Sven Erlacher (erlacher@naturkunde-chemnitz.de), Museum of Natural History, Chemnitz, Germany
Pedro Cordeiro Estrela (pedrocometa@gmail.com), Universidade Federal da Paraíba, João Pessoa,
Paraíba, Brazil
Neal Evenhuis (neale@bishopmuseum.org), Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawai‘i, USA
Karin Hoch Fehlauer-Ale (fehlauer.ale@gmail.com), Lab. de Bentos, Centro de Estudos do
Mar, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Pontal do Paraná, Paraná, Brazil
Hans Fery (hanfry@aol.com), Zoologische Staatssammlung München, München, Germany
Uwe Fritz (Uwe.Fritz@senckenberg.de), Senckenberg Natural History Collections, Dresden, Germany
Stephen D. Gaimari (stephen.gaimari@cdfa.ca.gov), Plant Pest Diagnostics Center, California
Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, California, USA
Rosser Garrison (rgarrison@cdfa.ca.gov), Plant Pest Diagnostics Center, California Department of Food
and Agriculture, Sacramento, California, USA.
Philippe Gaubert (philippe.gaubert@umontpellier.fr), Institut de Recherche pour le Développement /
Institut des Sciences de l’Evolution de Montpellier, Université de Montpellier, 34095 Montpellier, France
Daniel L. Geiger (geiger@vetigastropoda.com), Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa
Barbara, California, USA
Anthony C. Gill (gill.anthony@gmail.com), Macleay Museum and School of Life and
Environmental Sciences, A12 - Macleay Building, The University of Sydney, New South Wales
2006, Australia
Matthew L. Gimmel (mgimmel@sbnature2.org), Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa
Barbara, California, USA
Tom Goldschmidt (tomgoldschmidt@web.de), Zoologische Staatssammlung München, München,
Germany
Rajkamal Goswami (rajkamalgoswami@gmail.com), Center For Research in Ecology, Development
and Research (CEDAR), House No. 201, Phase 1, Vasant Vihar, Dehradun-248006, Uttarakhand, India
Abel Pérez González (abelaracno@gmail.com), Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales, Buenos Aires,
Argentina
Victor H. Gonzalez (vhgonza@ku.edu), University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 66045, USA
Dennis Gordon (Dennis.Gordon@niwa.co.nz), National Institute of Water & Atmospheric
Research, Private Bag, 14901, Kilbirnie, Wellington, New Zealand
David J. Gower (d.gower@nhm.ac.uk), Natural History Museum, London, UK
Penelope Greenslade (p.greenslade@federation.edu.au), Faculty of Science, Federation
University, Ballarat, Victoria 3353, Australia
Vladimir I. Gusarov (vladimir.gusarov@nhm.uio.no), Natural History Museum, University of Oslo,
Oslo, Norway
Eduardo Hajdu (eduardo.hajdu@gmail.com), Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro,
Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
Danilo Harms (danilo.harms@uni-hamburg.de), Dept. of Arachnology, Centrum für
Naturkunde (CeNak) - Center of Natural History, Universität Hamburg - Zoological Museum,
Martin-Luther-King-Platz 3, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
Matthew P. Heinicke (heinicke@umich.edu), University of Michigan-Dearborn, Dearborn, Michigan,
USA
Eric J. Hilton (ehilton@vims.edu), Department of Fisheries Science, Virginia Institute of Marine
Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia, USA
C.J. Hodgson (HodgsonCJ@cardiff.ac.uk), The National Museum of Wales, Cardiff, CF10 3NP, UK
Gustavo Hormiga (hormiga@gwu.edu), George Washington University, Washington, D.C., USA
Lauren E. Hughes (l.hughes@nhm.ac.uk), Natural History Museum, London, UK
Pat Hutchings (pat.hutchings@austmus.gov.au), Australian Museum, Sydney, New South Wales,
Australia
Peter Jäger (Peter.jaeger@senckenberg.de), Senckenberg Research Institute,
Senckenberganlage 25, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany
John T. Jennings (J_JENNINGS@onaustralia.com.au), University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South
Australia, Australia
Marcin Kadej (marcin.kadej@uwr.edu.pl), Department of Invertebrate Biology, Evolution and
Conservation, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland
Lauri Kaila (Lauri.Kaila@Helsinki.fi), Zoology Unit, Finnish Museum of Natural History, University of
Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Marcin Jan Kamiński (mkaminski@miiz.waw.pl), Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy
of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
G.S. Karaman (karaman@t-com.me), Academy of Science and Arts of Montenegro, Podgorica,
Montenegro
Tom Karanovic (tomislav.karanovic@gmail.com), University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Jeyaraney Kathirithamby (jeyaraney.kathirithamby@zoo.ox.ac.uk), Department of Zoology, University
of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Peter H. Kerr (peter.kerr@cdfa.ca.gov), Plant Pest Diagnostics Center, California Department of Food
and Agriculture, Sacramento, California, USA
Lawrence R. Kirkendall (lawrence.kirkendall@uib.no), University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Marcelo Visentini Kitahara (mvkitahara@unifesp.br), Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Campus
Baixada Santista, Santos, São Paulo, Brazil
Michelle Klautau (mklautau@gmail.com), Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de
Biologia - Departamento de Zoologia, Laboratório de Biologia de Porifera
Av. Carlos Chagas Filho 373 - CCS - Bloco A - Sala A0-100, Ilha do Fundão - Rio de Janeiro
RJ, Brazil
Boris C. Kondratieff (Boris.Kondratieff@Colostate.edu), Colorado State University, Dept. of
Bioagricultural Sciences & Pest Management, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Andreas Kroh (andreas.kroh@nhm-wien.ac.at), Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria
Facundo M. Labarque (facundo.labarque@gmail.com), Laboratório Especial Colecões
Zoológicas, Instituto Butantan, São Paulo, Brazil
John M. Leavengood, Jr. (johnshorrorcorner@gmail.com), Florida State Collection of Arthropods,
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville, Florida, USA
Agostino Letardi (agostino.letardi@enea.it), ENEA, Italian National Agency for New Technologies,
Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Rome, Italy
Ai-Ping Liang (liangap@ioz.ac.cn), Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Flávio C.T. Lima (fctlima@gmail.com), Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Biologia,
Museu de História Natural Prof. Adão José Cardoso, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil
Zhiwei Liu (zliu@eiu.edu), Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, USA
Ivan Löbl (ivan.lobl@bluewin.ch), Muséum d'histoire naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland
Volker Lohrmann (v.lohrmann@uebersee-museum.de), Übersee-Museum Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Nikolaus Malchus (Bivalvia.Zootaxa@gmx.net), Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont,
Catalunya, Spain
M. B. Malipatil (Mallik.Malipatil@ecodev.vic.gov.au), La Trobe University / Agriculture Victoria,
AgriBio, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
Antonio C. Marques (marques@ib.usp.br), Instituto de Biociências e Centro de Biologia Marinha,
Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
R. Matzke-Karasz (r.matzke@lrz.uni-muenchen.de), Ludwig-Maximilians-University, München,,
Germany
Georg Mayer (gmayer@onychophora.com), Department of Zoology, University of Kassel, 34132
Kassel, Germany
Jaime G. Mayoral (mayoralj@fiu.edu), Department of Biological Sciences. Florida International
University, Miami, Florida, USA
S. J. McInnes (s.mcinnes@bas.ac.uk), British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, CB3 0ET, UK
Alessandro Minelli (alessandro.minelli@unipd.it), University of Padova, Padova, Italy
Melinda L. Moir (Melinda.Moir@dpird.wa.gov.au), Agriculture and Food, Department of
Primary Industries and Regional Development, South Perth, Western Australia, 6151, Australia
Scott Monks (monks.scott@gmail.com), Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Pachuca,
Hidalgo, México
Juan J. Morrone (juanmorrone2001@yahoo.com.mx), Museo de Zoología, Facultad de Ciencias,
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México, México
C. Muster (muster@rz.uni-leipzig.de), 18581 Putbus, Germany
Zoltán Tamás Nagy (zoltan-tamas.nagy@naturalsciences.be), Royal Belgian Institute of Natural
Sciences, Brussels, Belgium
K. Seena Narayanan (seena.narayanan@atree.org), Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the
Environment (ATREE), Bangalore 560064, India
Eugenio H. Nearns (gino@nearns.com), Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA
Jeff Nekola (jnekola@unm.edu), University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Silvio S. Nihei (silvionihei@gmail.com), Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo,
Brazil
Alexander Nützel (a.nuetzel@lrz.uni-muenchen.de), SNSB-Bayerische Staatssammlung für
Paläontologie und Geologie, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Palaeontology &
Geobiology, GeoBio-Center LMU, Richard-Wagner-Str. 10, 80333 Munich, Germany.
Annemarie Ohler (annemarie.ohler@gmail.com), Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris,
France
Victor Goyannes Dill Orrico (zootaxa.hylids@gmail.com), Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz,
Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil
Jose M. Padial (jpadial@amnh.org), American Museum of Natural History, New York, New
York, USA
Lawrence M. Page (lpage1@ufl.edu), Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida, USA
Paulo Passos (ppassos@mn.ufrj.br), Departamento de Vertebrados, Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil
Dennis Paulson (dpaulson@pugetsound.edu), Slater Museum of Natural History, Tacoma, Washington,
USA
Philip D. Perkins (perkins@oeb.harvard.edu), Department of Entomology, Museum of
Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, USA
Tobias Pfingstl (dr.tobias.pfingstl@gmail.com), Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Graz, Austria
Carlos Prieto (prieto.zootaxa@gmail.com), Universidad del Atlántico, Facultad de Ciencias Básicas,
Departamento de Biología, Barranquilla, Colombia
Lívia Rodrigues Pinheiro (lrpinheiro@gmail.com), Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo,
São Paulo, Brazil
Ricardo Pinto-da-Rocha (ricrocha@usp.br), Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, São
Paulo, Brazil
Lorenzo Prendini (lorenzo@amnh.org), Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of
Natural History, New York, New York, USA
Benjamin Price (neuropterida@gmail.com), Natural History Museum, London, UK
Jurate De Prins (jurate.deprins@gmail.com), Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels,
Belgium
Martin Ramirez (ramirez@macn.gov.ar), Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales, Buenos Aires,
Argentina
Claus Rasmussen (claus.rasmussen@bios.au.dk), Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
P. Rasmussen (rasmus39@msu.edu), Michigan State University Museum, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
David Redei (david.redei@gmail.com), Nankai University, Tianjin, China
Ignacio Ribera (ignacio.ribera@ibe.upf-csic.es), Institut de Biologia Evolutiva, Barcelona, Spain
Antonio Ricarte (ricarte24@gmail.com), Centro Iberoamericano de la Biodiversidad (CIBIO),
Universidad de Alicante, San Vicente del Raspeig, Alicante, Spain
Julio Rivera (julio.riverac@usil.pe), Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Lima, Peru
Michael G. Rix (michael.rix@qm.qld.gov.au), Biodiversity and Geosciences Program, Queensland
Museum, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Bruno Rossaro (bruno.rossaro@unimi.it), Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy
Aniruddha Datta Roy (datta.roy82@gmail.com), Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore, India
Gustavo R.S. Ruiz (gustavoruiz86@hotmail.com), Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém, Pará, Brazil
Frederico F. Salles (ffsalles@gmail.com), Laboratório de Sistemática e Ecologia de Insetos,
Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, São Mateus, Espírito Santo, Brazil
Allen F. Sanborn (asanborn@barry.edu), Barry University, Miami Shores, Florida, USA
Michel Sartori (michel.sartori@vd.ch), Musée cantonal de zoologie, Lausanne, Switzerland
Matthias Schöller (schoeller@tricho.b.shuttle.de), Biologische Beratung, Berlin, Germany
Rüdiger M. Schmelz (rmschmelz@gmail.com), University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain
Michael Schrödl (Michael.Schroedl@zsm.mwn.de), Zoologische Staatssammlung München, München,
Germany
Gabriel Hoinsoude Segniagbeto (h_segniagbeto@yahoo.fr) University of Lome, Lome, Togo
J. Serrano (jserrano@um.es), Universidad de Murcia, Murcia, Spain
Satoshi Shimano (sim@hosei.ac.jp), Hosei University, Fujimi, Chiyoda,
Tokyo, Japan
Mann Kyoon Shin (mkshin@ulsan.ac.kr), University of Ulsan, Ulsan, Korea (South)
Ekaterina Sidorchuk (e.a.sidorchuk@gmail.com), Arthropoda Laboratory, Paleontological Institute,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia.
Cameron D. Siler (camsiler@ou.edu), Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History and
Department of Biology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA
Boris Sket (Boris.Sket@BF.uni-lj.si), Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Aaron D. Smith (aaron.smith@nau.edu), Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
Andrew B.T. Smith (asmith@unl.edu), Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Robin Smith (smith@lbm.go.jp), Lake Biwa Museum, Kusatsu, Shiga, Japan
Allan H. Smith-Pardo (Allan.H.Smith-Pardo@aphis.usda.gov), 389 Oyster Point Blvd. Suite
2, South San Francisco, CA. 94080, USA
John Sparks (otophysic@gmail.com), Department of Ichthyology, American Museum of Natural
History, New York, New York, USA
W. E. Sterrer (westerrer@gov.bm), Bermuda Natural History Museum, Flatts, Bermuda
Adam Stroiński (adam@miiz.waw.pl), Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences,
Warsaw, Poland
Jörundur Svavarsson (jorundur@hi.is), University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland
Mario Toledo (toledo.pinguicula.mario3@gmail.com), Brescia, Italy
Evan Twomey (evan.twomey@gmail.com), Pontifica Universidade Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul,
Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Karthikeyan Vasudevan (karthik@ccmb.res.in), Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology, Telangana,
India
Miguel Vences (m.vences@tu-braunschweig.de), Technical University of Braunschweig, Braunschweig,
Germany
Nicole de Voogd (nicole.devoogd@naturalis.nl), Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Qiao Wang (Q.Wang@massey.ac.nz), Institute of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University,
Palmerston North, New Zealand
Gillian W. Watson (gillian.watson@cdfa.ca.gov), Plant Pest Diagnostics Center, California Department
of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, California, USA
Wanda M. Weiner (weiner@isez.pan.krakow.pl), Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals,
Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland
Marcelo Weksler (mweksler@mn.ufrj.br), Departamento de Vertebrados, Museu Nacional, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil
Thomas Wesener (t.wesener@leibniz-zfmk.de), Zoological Research Museum A. Koenig, Leibniz
Institute for Terrestrial Biodiversity, Bonn, Germany
Daniel Whitmore (d.whitmore@nhm.ac.uk), Natural History Museum, London, UK
Helena Wiklund (h.wiklund@nhm.ac.uk), Natural History Museum, London, UK
Paul H. Williams (P.Williams@nhm.ac.uk), Natural History Museum, London, UK
Shaun L. Winterton (wintertonshaun@gmail.com), Plant Pest Diagnostics Center, California
Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, California, USA
Timothy S. Wood (tim.wood@wright.edu), Department of Biological Sciences, Wright State University,
Dayton, Ohio, USA
Shen-Horn Yen (shenhornyen@gmail.com), National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Hussam Zaher (hussam.zaher@gmail.com), Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo, São
Paulo, Brazil
Z.-Q. Zhang (zhangz@landcareresearch.co.nz), New Zealand Arthropod Collection, Landcare Research,
Auckland 1072, New Zealand
Hong-zhang Zhou (zhouhz@ioz.ac.cn), Key Laboratory of Zoological Systematics and Evolution
Institute of Zoology, Beijing, China

Supplementary resources (4)

... Further, the EU's Farm to Fork Strategy aims "to facilitate the registration of seed varieties, including for organic farming, and to ensure easier market access for traditional and locally-adapted varieties." (European Commission, 2020, p. 8) (v) Adopting regulations for sharing digital sequence information Both the seed treaty and the CBD have failed to adequately trace exchanged PGRs (Martins et al., 2020;Kamau et al., 2015) and to integrate rules for sharing digital sequence information (Tsioumani, 2019;Prathapan et al., 2018). The creation of robust, fair and transparent digital marketplaces for agrobiodiversity and associated know-how can help overcome current regulatory loopholes. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This paper describes progress towards an integrated data framework that supports the sharing of data from the Designing Future Wheat (DFW) strategic research programme funded by the UK BBSRC. DFW is a 5 year project ( https://designingfuturewheat.org.uk/ ) that spans eight research institutes and universities, and aims to deliver pre-breeding germplasm to breeders to improve and increase the genetic diversity of their breeding programs. DFW is committed to making its data open to the wider research community by adopting FAIR data sharing approaches. It is also a good example of a data-intensive strategic research programme which follows a cyclical Field-to-Lab-to-Field approach that is representative of much contemporary and multidisciplinary crop science research. However, even with dedicated funding to develop crop data research infrastructures within DFW, we found that there are many challenges that require pragmatic and flexible ways to enable them to interoperate. We present key DFW data resources as a case study to assess progress and discuss these challenges with a view to developing infrastructure that exposes metadata-rich datasets and that meets FAIR principles.
... Further, the EU's Farm to Fork Strategy aims "to facilitate the registration of seed varieties, including for organic farming, and to ensure easier market access for traditional and locally-adapted varieties." (European Commission, 2020, p. 8) (v) Adopting regulations for sharing digital sequence information Both the seed treaty and the CBD have failed to adequately trace exchanged PGRs (Martins et al., 2020;Kamau et al., 2015) and to integrate rules for sharing digital sequence information (Tsioumani, 2019;Prathapan et al., 2018). The creation of robust, fair and transparent digital marketplaces for agrobiodiversity and associated know-how can help overcome current regulatory loopholes. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Establishing linkage among data of diverse domains (e.g. biological, environmental, socio-economical, and geographical) is critical to address complex multidimensional issues such as food security or sustainable agriculture. The complexity of this challenge increases with the level of heterogeneity of the data but also with the social context of production of datasets, a dimension usually less considered. Building on the experience of a transdisciplinary project on the diversity of crop diversity management systems in West Africa (CoEx), this chapter reflects on the importance to better account for agency for more meaningful, responsible and efficient plant data linkage. The chapter addresses sequentially the cognitive and political challenges related to data work and the way they could be addressed simultaneously within the same social unit. To do this, we rely on the concept of community of practice (CoP) which gained enormous popularity in relation to data and knowledge management. More than simply a social mechanism for community knowledge management, we show in this contribution that CoP needs to be approached as a social experiment and a terrain of collective situated learning in order to address each challenge and their linkages with respect to data work.
... Further, the EU's Farm to Fork Strategy aims "to facilitate the registration of seed varieties, including for organic farming, and to ensure easier market access for traditional and locally-adapted varieties." (European Commission, 2020, p. 8) (v) Adopting regulations for sharing digital sequence information Both the seed treaty and the CBD have failed to adequately trace exchanged PGRs (Martins et al., 2020;Kamau et al., 2015) and to integrate rules for sharing digital sequence information (Tsioumani, 2019;Prathapan et al., 2018). The creation of robust, fair and transparent digital marketplaces for agrobiodiversity and associated know-how can help overcome current regulatory loopholes. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Long-term agricultural experiments are used to test the effects of different farm management practices on agricultural systems over time. The time-series data from these experiments is well suited to understanding factors affecting soil health and sustainable crop production and can play an important role for addressing the food security and environmental challenges facing society from climate change. The data from these experiments is unique and irreplaceable. We know from the Rothamsted experience that the datasets available are valued assets that can be used to address multiple scientific questions, and the reuse and impact of the data can be increased by making the data accessible to the wider community. However, to do this requires active data stewardship. Long-term experiments are also available as research infrastructures, meaning external researchers can generate new datasets, additional to the routine data collected for an experiment. The publication of the FAIR data principles has provided an opportunity for us to re-evaluate what active data stewardship means for realising the potential of the data from our long-term experiments. In this paper we discuss our approach to FAIR data adoption, and the challenges for refactoring and describing existing legacy data and defining meaningful linkages between datasets.
... Further, the EU's Farm to Fork Strategy aims "to facilitate the registration of seed varieties, including for organic farming, and to ensure easier market access for traditional and locally-adapted varieties." (European Commission, 2020, p. 8) (v) Adopting regulations for sharing digital sequence information Both the seed treaty and the CBD have failed to adequately trace exchanged PGRs (Martins et al., 2020;Kamau et al., 2015) and to integrate rules for sharing digital sequence information (Tsioumani, 2019;Prathapan et al., 2018). The creation of robust, fair and transparent digital marketplaces for agrobiodiversity and associated know-how can help overcome current regulatory loopholes. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
The biomedical domain has shown that in silico analyses over vast data pools enhances the speed and scale of scientific innovation. This can hold true in agricultural research and guide similar multi-stakeholder action in service of global food security as well (Streich et al. Curr Opin Biotechnol 61:217–225. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2020.01.010 , 2020). However, entrenched research culture and data and standards governance issues to enable data interoperability and ease of reuse continue to be roadblocks in the agricultural research for development sector. Effective operationalization of the FAIR Data Principles towards Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable data requires that agricultural researchers accept that their responsibilities in a digital age include the stewardship of data assets to assure long-term preservation, access and reuse. The development and adoption of common agricultural data standards are key to assuring good stewardship, but face several challenges, including limited awareness about standards compliance; lagging data science capacity; emphasis on data collection rather than reuse; and limited fund allocation for data and standards management. Community-based hurdles around the development and governance of standards and fostering their adoption also abound. This chapter discusses challenges and possible solutions to making FAIR agricultural data assets the norm rather than the exception to catalyze a much-needed revolution towards “translational agriculture”.
... Further, the EU's Farm to Fork Strategy aims "to facilitate the registration of seed varieties, including for organic farming, and to ensure easier market access for traditional and locally-adapted varieties." (European Commission, 2020, p. 8) (v) Adopting regulations for sharing digital sequence information Both the seed treaty and the CBD have failed to adequately trace exchanged PGRs (Martins et al., 2020;Kamau et al., 2015) and to integrate rules for sharing digital sequence information (Tsioumani, 2019;Prathapan et al., 2018). The creation of robust, fair and transparent digital marketplaces for agrobiodiversity and associated know-how can help overcome current regulatory loopholes. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
In the 1970s, the number of accessions held in national and international seed and gene banks increased steadily. This growth, initially a source of pride, was recognised as a liability by the 1980s. Too many accessions lacked the basic information necessary for researchers to access and use samples knowledgably. Many gene banks came under scrutiny for poor management practices and several found themselves accused of mishandling a ‘global patrimony’ entrusted to their care. In this paper, I explore one response to these concerns that attracted attention from many in the germplasm conservation community: creating linked, standardised databases of collections. Calls for more and better data about accessions often emphasised that these data would make collections easier to use and therefore more valued. Here I take a close look at the early history of data collation and standardisation as a means of ‘rationalising’ collections, a motivation that was not advertised as prominently. This historical example shows the infrastructures developed to facilitate data exchange in the context of seed and gene banking to have been tied up with both mundane imperatives to cut costs and lofty goals of building political bridges—in addition to the often-repeated ambition of making plant breeding more efficient.
... Further, the EU's Farm to Fork Strategy aims "to facilitate the registration of seed varieties, including for organic farming, and to ensure easier market access for traditional and locally-adapted varieties." (European Commission, 2020, p. 8) (v) Adopting regulations for sharing digital sequence information Both the seed treaty and the CBD have failed to adequately trace exchanged PGRs (Martins et al., 2020;Kamau et al., 2015) and to integrate rules for sharing digital sequence information (Tsioumani, 2019;Prathapan et al., 2018). The creation of robust, fair and transparent digital marketplaces for agrobiodiversity and associated know-how can help overcome current regulatory loopholes. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Following the rediscovery of Mendelian genetics, food supply pressures and the rapid expansion of crop varieties with defined performance characteristics, international systems were set up throughout the 20 C to regulate the trade of seed, the protection of intellectual property and the sale of productive varieties of key agricultural crops. These systems are a highly connected but largely linear set of processes. System changes are slow to be adopted due to the cascade of effects that structural alteration would have globally. Multi-omic technologies and the subsequent proliferation of data types used within modern breeding, offer the possibility to gain deeper insights into the performance characteristics of varieties. Current integration of data, standards and ownership structures limit their applications for wider purposes, both private and public. We explore how data within and between breeding programmes and the varietal approval and monitoring processes could be made FAIR. We examine what role expanded or aligned programmes of data collection and expanded trait evaluation at the point of varietal registration and evaluation, as well as on farm could have in ensuring the best linkage of public and private data to address some of the challenges society faces over the next 30 years with the required, rapid transition to sustainable agricultural systems.
... Further, the EU's Farm to Fork Strategy aims "to facilitate the registration of seed varieties, including for organic farming, and to ensure easier market access for traditional and locally-adapted varieties." (European Commission, 2020, p. 8) (v) Adopting regulations for sharing digital sequence information Both the seed treaty and the CBD have failed to adequately trace exchanged PGRs (Martins et al., 2020;Kamau et al., 2015) and to integrate rules for sharing digital sequence information (Tsioumani, 2019;Prathapan et al., 2018). The creation of robust, fair and transparent digital marketplaces for agrobiodiversity and associated know-how can help overcome current regulatory loopholes. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This essay argues that shortcomings in our approaches to global agriculture and its data infrastructures are attributable in part to a constricted application of population concepts derived from biological sciences in the context of international development. Using Palestine as a case study, this chapter examines the category of baladi seeds as a community-generated characterization of population, and one which arguably defies reduction to data. Drawing on quantitative research on farmer participation in informal seed production for wheat in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) and oral histories of farmers in the West Bank, this chapter analyzes the relation between participatory plant breeding initiatives, heritage narratives, and international agricultural research in rendering baladi seeds legible for archiving. It considers the multiple technological practices through which these institutions characterize and manage access to cultivated seeds, and how they differently approach problems of standardization, scalability, and variability. Through case studies of national and local seed saving initiatives, it asks, in turn, whether baladi seeds can be reduced to data, how they might be reduced to data, and whether they should be reduced to data.
... Further, the EU's Farm to Fork Strategy aims "to facilitate the registration of seed varieties, including for organic farming, and to ensure easier market access for traditional and locally-adapted varieties." (European Commission, 2020, p. 8) (v) Adopting regulations for sharing digital sequence information Both the seed treaty and the CBD have failed to adequately trace exchanged PGRs (Martins et al., 2020;Kamau et al., 2015) and to integrate rules for sharing digital sequence information (Tsioumani, 2019;Prathapan et al., 2018). The creation of robust, fair and transparent digital marketplaces for agrobiodiversity and associated know-how can help overcome current regulatory loopholes. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Quality phenotype and genotype data are important for the success of a breeding program. Like most programs, African breeding programs generate large multi-disciplinary phenotypic and genotypic datasets from several locations, that must be carefully managed through the use of an appropriate database management system (DBMS) in order to generate reliable and accurate information for breeding-decisions. A DBMS is essential in data collection, storage, retrieval, validation, curation and analysis in plant breeding programs to enhance the ultimate goal of increasing genetic gain. The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), working on the roots, tubers and banana (RTB) crops like cassava, yam, banana and plantain has deployed a FAIR-compliant (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) database; BREEDBASE. The functionalities of this database in data management and analysis have been instrumental in achieving breeding goals. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for each breeding process have been developed to allow a cognitive walkthrough for users. This has further helped to increase the usage and enhance the acceptability of the system. The wide acceptability gained among breeders in global cassava research programs has resulted in improvements in the precision and quality of genotype and phenotype data, and subsequent improvement in achievement of breeding program goals. Several innovative gender responsive approaches and initiatives have identified users and their preferences which have informed improved customer and product profiles. A remaining bottleneck is the effective linking of data on preferences and social information of crop users with technical breeding data to make this process more effective.
Chapter
Full-text available
The EU regulation on ‘Organic Production and Labelling of Organic Products’ opens the door for the creation of an EU-wide marketplace for agrobiodiversity contained in so-called “heterogeneous materials”. However, the creation of such a marketplace presupposes the existence of optimal demand and supply of agrobiodiversity, linked plant genetic sequence data and local/traditional knowledge on how best to use agrobiodiversity. Farmers’ tendency to prefer genetically uniform “high yielding” seeds and the adoption of chemical intensive farming have compromised the supply of agrobiodiversity. At the same time, regulatory regimes have disincentivized the use of agrobiodiversity in research and breeding programs, resulting in a lack of demand for agrobiodiversity. This chapter argues that these trends result from (inadvertent) inequities in existing regulatory frameworks that primarily support uni-directional data/knowledge flows from the formal sector (academia, industry) to the informal sector (farmers). We propose ways in which rapidly evolving technologies like blockchain/DLTs and AI/Machine Learning can (and should) diversify the direction of scientific research as well as of data/knowledge flows in the agricultural sector. The chapter thus provides food for thought for developing novel regulatory frameworks and ethical business models for robust digital marketplaces for agrobiodiversity for the benefit of farmers, researchers, and the environment.
Book
In this authoritative and comprehensive volume the authors explain the provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on access and benefit-sharing, the effect of national laws to implement these, and aspects of typical contracts for the transfer of materials. They provide a unique sector-by-sector analysis of how genetic resources are used, the scientific, technological and regulatory trends and the different markets for products using biotechnology.
  • D Neumann
D. Neumann et al., Org. Divers. Evol. 18, 1 (2018).
  • N Pauchard
N. Pauchard, Resources 6, 11 (2017).
  • K D Prathapan
K. D. Prathapan et al., Curr. Sci. 94, 170 (2008).
  • K D Prathapan
  • P D Rajan
K. D. Prathapan, P. D. Rajan, Curr. Sci. 97, 626 (2009).
  • F A Bockmann
F. A. Bockmann et al., Science 360, 865 (2018).
The Multilateral system of the international treaty on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture: Lessons and room for further development
  • E C Kamau
E. C. Kamau, "The Multilateral system of the international treaty on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture: Lessons and room for further development," in Common Pools of Genetic Resources: Equity and Innovation in International Biodiversity Law, E. C. Kamau, G. Winter, Eds. (Routledge, 2013).
Research and Development on Genetic Resources: Public Domain Approaches in Implementing the Nagoya Protocol
  • E C Kamau
E. C. Kamau et al., Eds., Research and Development on Genetic Resources: Public Domain Approaches in Implementing the Nagoya Protocol (Routledge, 2015).