COP16 Dispatch: Day 2 Engaging with Synthetic Biology and DSI Discussions

By David Baldwin, Florida Atlantic University, and Zohra Zahir, University of Regina

Our second day at COP16 began with participation in the contact group on synthetic biology. The session focused on Decision 15/31, which established the Multidisciplinary Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (mAHTEG). This expert-driven group was tasked with developing methodologies, conducting initial assessments, and identifying key topics for deeper exploration in a future round. Over 2023-2024, mAHTEG assessed the rapid advancements in synthetic biology, prioritizing issues that the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) must address moving forward.

ESA student delegates David Baldwin and Zohra Zahir attending a conference during COP16 on October 22, 2024.

Since the CBD was first negotiated in the early 1990s, modern biotechnology has made remarkable progress. Today, artificial intelligence models trained on digital sequence information can design entirely new organisms and proteins, while engineered viruses and gene drives are being developed to spread independently in the wild.

During the discussion, many developing countries (largely of the African regional bloc) raised concerns about the need for capacity building and specialized expertise in synthetic biology. Parties emphasized that these technologies often impact their regions first, making it essential to have local experts capable of assessing the associated risks. However, other countries (largely parties in WEOG and notably the member-state of Argentina) argued that existing risk assessments are sufficient and that it’s time to focus on the potential benefits of synthetic biology. Moreover, these same countries are of the position that further monitoring will unnecessarily drain the resources of the Convention, and that since synthetic biology does not meet the criteria of an emerging issue set forth by the CBD, any further action should be to halt existing monitoring. 

In the afternoon, we visited several pavilions and booths, engaging with various organizations and private companies. Emerging technologies are on full display here at COP16, and we engaged with the scientific minds behind these innovations. These technologies such as an automated eDNA collection, or using satellite imagery, allegedly, monitor gene flow. The latter is a program still in its pilot phase, so it was wonderful to be a scientist on the ground troubleshooting and brainstorming practical methods to improve this project. 

Conference at the Colombian Pavilion during COP16 on October 22, 2024.

Later, at the Colombia pavilion, the heart of the Side Events, we attended a panel titled “Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) of Digital Sequence Information (DSI).” The conversation highlighted the ongoing debate about how DSI should be managed. You may be more familiar with DSI by a different name. The panel was attended by the COP President, the Governor of the Valle de Cauca, and the Ministerminister of the Environment. When talking about access to knowledge and benefit sharing, a diverse range of perspectives must be heard—and that is just what we had leading this panel: an Indigenous leader, a patent lawyer, two academics (one a policy sociologist and one a biologist, and a leader of the IUCN, moderated by a former Party negotiator).

Yolanda Teron from the Kichwa community in Ecuador, emphasized in her presentation how the genetic resources (in this context defined as the genetic information of an organism) are sacred to her community. They are her family “whether they have 2 legs or four legs or no legs” and the use of their genes ought to have benefits for their respective communities. This point reminded me of the case of Henrietta Lacks, a bioethics case study that your introductory biology courses covered. In 1951, Lacks, a black woman, succumbed to her battle with cancer. Her cancer cells were biopsied, and her cells and genetic information established the first immortal cell line (HeLa). HeLa has been invaluable invaluable in medical research. However, the Lacks family did not know Henreitta’s cells were used in this way, not only for research but also for commercial purposes. This has raised concerns about patient rights, privacy rights, and prior and informed consent. The same concept regarding how the genetic information of biodiversity, is sacred to the indigenous people of the biodiversity’s respective communities. How can we approach Indigenous prior and informed consent?  How will the monetary and other benefits of genetic resources be directed toward their communities of origin? How will that channel be upheld? What is protected in the Biosafety Cartegena Protocol regarding this and how can the text be more equitable? These are the questions and conversations that ought to be had and ought to be answered in the final text of this COP.

Dr. Silvia Restrepo from the Boyce Thompson Institute, presented a scientific perspective on the complexities of DSI. She noted that DSI is not a widely recognized term in academic circles, illustrating the gap between scientific research and policy discussions. Dr. Restrepo called for the redefinition of DSI, arguing that the current definitions under the CBD—such as “genetic resources” and “genetic material”—are too vague and outdated.

She proposed new definitions: 

“Genetic material: Any material from living organisms, including microorganisms, containing DNA, RNA, and all digital data derived from these molecules.”

“DSI: All digital data contained in or derived from DNA or RNA molecules.”

She also stressed the importance of scientists’ involvement in shaping policies and underscored the need to integrate the FAIR (F

David Baldwin and Zohra Zahir at COP16 on October 22, 2024.

indable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) and CARE (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, Ethics) principles into DSI-related discussions.

Michael Halewood of the Alliance of Biodiversity/CIAT has dedicated his career to the policy of genetic resources, specifically to the benefit sharing of plant resources. Currently, negotiations on the Plant Treaty are looking to understand how new developments and innovations in plant breeding are commercialized, and how corporations will pay their fair share to the genebanks where innovation’s genetic resources are stored. As opposed to the current plan of paying a percentage of profits, negotiations are moving toward the use of genetic resources through a subscription-based network. More information can be found here: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adj1331

Looking forward to more insightful conversations as the conference progresses!

Disclaimer: Opinions are solely those of the guest contributor and not an official ESA policy or position.