The classic paradigm of the biologist combing the unforgiving rainforest with the aid of an indigenous native, in search of the magic medicinal plant for curing cancer, and then making millions through private sector support, has shifted to a much more complex picture, where science and technology are dramatically re-shaping the way research and development of natural products is undertaken and even how biodiversity is accessed and obtained.

Powerful tools
Today, extremely powerful tools such as bioinformatics and new technologies such as genomics, proteomics, synthetic and systems biology and nanotechnology, imply novel approaches to research and development in the field of genetic resources and biodiversity components in general, whether it be whole specimens, raw extracts or isolated compounds.

Ultra sophisticated hardware and software are the main allies of the scientific community, in the search for new breakthroughs in the quest for useful products for humanity. Often, tangible materials give way to virtual constructions, molecule design, active compound identification and testing for effectiveness against diseases or as potential products.

Business involvement
In parallel, growing involvement of the private sector in intricate partnerships with public institutions (mainly research departments in universities), and increased use of intellectual property instruments to protect innovation in terms of products or processes, also affect who, how and even whether new research can be undertaken. Most importantly, it affects the direction research takes and who ultimately controls its results.

Tensions between common and public good advocates and those who are directly or indirectly striving to exercise control and market advantages over competitors through intellectual property rights, are mounting also — in detriment of collaboration, interaction and relatively free exchange of these results, the core of scientific progress over time.

This situation — described in very general terms — is especially relevant nowadays. Analysts and policy makers should reassess the practical usefulness and impacts of ABS frameworks and contents as they are currently being developed and designed. For example, the International Regime on ABS which is currently being negotiated in the context of the CBD, seems far from having fully recognized (much the less internalized) the implications of new scientific shifts in genetics and new ways in which goods and services are being produced in the area of genetic resources.

Consequently, the gap between policies and science is becoming wider and wider, particularly in regards to these discussions. It is no surprise that policy and science move at different paces. However, in the context of the ABS debate, this gap is larger than it should be.

Tangible vs. informational nature
One possible reason for this situation, is that there has been a strong focus on generating policies on and regulating the flows and movements in tangible materials (the sample, the specimen, the extract) as such, following what national processes have been doing — with limited success — since 1994. ABS regimes and regulations have been constructed around the classical features of these movements (access to in situ specimens or ex situ samples, transboundary movements of materials, academic collaboration between national and foreign institutions, etc.).

But the informational nature of genetic resources, something widely accepted by the scientific community and admitted by policy makers, opens new avenues for economic, policy, legal and social analysis, at present sidelined in debates within the CBD. Bioresearch and development in pharmaceuticals, crop improvement, bioremediation and industrial sectors, seems like a parallel, scarcely regulated world. And maybe it should be.

Nevertheless, leaving this specific informational variable of genetic resources out of the discussions, will ultimately limit the possibilities of achieving the CBD equity and fairness objectives and, furthermore, will affect the interests of megadiverse countries.

The key question is then: how to regulate without unnecessarily affecting the scientific process or at least, causing the least of impacts? This will require, firstly, a full technical understanding of these issues but also progressive thinking in terms of how policy and law may support and even create incentives for science, and at the same time balance the interests of the least developed, biodiversity rich countries of origin and diversification of participating in benefit sharing schemes. There may still be time to streamline some of these issues and ensure their appropriate discussion within the CBD forum and, especially, in the context of the negotiation of the International Regime on ABS.

Manuel Ruiz Muller is Programme Director, International Affairs and Biodiversity, Peruvian Society for Environmental Law (SPDA).