Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New rules for access and benefit sharing (ABS) of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge have been established by the Nagoya Protocol but have not kept up with rapid scientific and technological advances in biodiscovery. This suggests the need for innovative, transdisciplinary approaches to regulate ABS and emerging technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns about ecological sustainability and inequality are driving increased formalization of the natural product trade, including both biotrade of bulk, raw materials (or nontimber forest products [NTFPs]) and bioprospecting for genetic resources. However, there has been little interrogation as to whether the policy tools used to achieve sustainability and equity goals are appropriate and effective. This article addresses this gap by examining efforts to formalize biotrade, including the blurred regulatory lines that increasingly exist between biotrade and bioprospecting. Two case studies are explored from southern Africa—baobab andPelargonium. Findings emphasize the unintended consequences that can arise from overregulation and poorly formulated laws, including the further marginalization of women and/or poor communities; elite capture; weakening small businesses; and leakage across political boundaries. Conclusions underpin the need to pursue solutions that are better informed and more respectful of local knowledge and needs, and that draw upon both customary and statutory laws and institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]