Dear colleagues,
Aiming to address the guiding questions, I would like to share pertinent information on the topic of Inequity in the participation of developing countries in the context of synthetic biology.
The advancements in synthetic biology can result in both direct and indirect impacts on biodiversity, leading to either positive or negative outcomes (McFarlane et al., 2022). However, the limited access to this technology in developing countries hinders their ability to benefit from potential positive impacts and to adequately evaluate potential negative consequences. The high rate of biodiversity loss, as highlighted in the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, is primarily driven by land use changes, pollution, direct exploitation, and climate change manifestations (Brondizio et al., 2019).
Changes in land use impact different regions disproportionately, while afforestation and cropland abandonment are common in the Global North, deforestation and agricultural expansion happen in the Global South (Winkler et al., 2021). Consequently, agriculture, one of the focal areas for synthetic biology research in developed countries, is a key contributor to biodiversity loss in developing countries. The application of synthetic biology in agriculture addresses critical challenges like climate change, soil fertility, plant microbiomes, photosynthesis, and nutrient content in crops (Abberton et al., 2016; Bender et al., 2016; Borel, 2017; Bourzac, 2017; De Steur et al., 2017). The potential positive impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity in developing countries lie in its ability to address agricultural challenges more sustainably. By creating crops that are more resilient to climate change, enhancing soil fertility through bioengineered solutions, or even developing pest-resistant plants, synthetic biology has the potential to reduce the ecological impact of traditional farming practices.
Moreover, direct exploitation of natural resources is one of the main sources of income in developing countries. Although degraded ecosystems may be slow to recover or may not recover naturally even after their exploitation stops (Moreno-Mateos et al., 2017), a transition to knowledge-based industries is needed for a sustainable economic growth (Nathaniel et al., 2021). According to Precedence Research (2023), the current market value of synthetic biology is 16.35 billion U.S. dollars and will reach 72 billion by 2030. This report shows that the collective global market share contributed by Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa is only 7%, emphasizing an opportunity for these regions to tap into and contribute significantly to the synthetic biology industry. Increasing participation of developing countries in synthetic biology not only aligns with the imperative for sustainable economic practices but also positions these regions to harness the benefits of a growing and transformative market.
Article 401 of the Ecuadorian constitution from 2008 asserts the nation's status as free from transgenic crops. This law prohibits farmers from cultivating transgenic crops but permits the consumption of products derived from transgenics. Despite the explicit prohibition on the use of transgenic crops being in effect for 15 years, there is still a lack of adequate facilities and resources for their detection (Intriago-Barreno, & Bravo-Velásquez, 2016). This limitation is likely to extend to products of synthetic biology as well.
In an era of high throughput sequencing and rapid DNA synthesis, genetic resources can easily trespass frontiers as digital sequences. Although including the use of digital sequences under the CBD is contested (Lyal, 2022), access to sequencing technologies is fundamental for developing countries seeking to catalog their genetic resources and aspire to fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from them. In compliance with the Convention on Biological Diversity, Ecuador implemented a framework contract to access genetic resources, aiming to promote the sustainable use of biological and genetic resources within its national borders (Gobierno del Ecuador, 2011). This contract, along with an export permit, is a prerequisite for scientists sending genetic material abroad for sequencing. However, the bureaucratic process involved in obtaining the contract is cumbersome, often taking more than a year. This delay hampers the potential discovery of genetic resources that could be used sustainably, given the lack of local sequencing facilities. It is important to learn from this experience, recognizing that constraining the progress of synthetic biology in developing countries is likely to impede the achievement of the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The ethical, regulatory, and socio-economic dimensions of deploying synthetic biology in developing countries need careful consideration. While there are environmental risks, which may parallel those associated with living modified organisms, leaving the countries behind would perpetuate their dependency on developed nations for technology and widen the economic gap between them. The limited access to synthetic biology technology in developing countries also prevents their active participation in discussions on the subject. Closing this technological gap is crucial for fostering global collaboration and ensuring a more inclusive approach to biodiversity conservation.
In an era of high throughput sequencing and rapid DNA synthesis, genetic resources can easily trespass frontiers as digital sequences. Although including the use of digital sequences under the CBD is contested (Lyal, 2022), access to sequencing technologies is fundamental for developing countries seeking to catalog their genetic resources and aspire to fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from them. In compliance with the Convention on Biological Diversity, Ecuador implemented a framework contract to access genetic resources, aiming to promote the sustainable use of biological and genetic resources within its national borders (Gobierno del Ecuador, 2011). This contract, along with an export permit, is a prerequisite for scientists sending genetic material abroad for sequencing. However, the bureaucratic process involved in obtaining the contract is cumbersome, often taking more than a year. This delay hampers the potential discovery of genetic resources that could be used sustainably, given the lack of local sequencing facilities. It is important to learn from this experience, recognizing that constraining the progress of synthetic biology in developing countries is likely to impede the achievement of the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Abberton, M., Batley, J., Bentley, A., Bryant, J., Cai, H., Cockram, J., ... & Yano, M. (2016). Global agricultural intensification during climate change: a role for genomics. Plant biotechnology journal, 14(4), 1095-1098.
Bender, S. F., Wagg, C., & van der Heijden, M. G. (2016). An underground revolution: biodiversity and soil ecological engineering for agricultural sustainability. Trends in ecology & evolution, 31(6), 440-452.
Borel, B. (2017). CRISPR, microbes and more are joining the war against crop killers. Nature, 543(7645).
Bourzac, K. (2017). Bioengineering: solar upgrade. Nature, 544(7651), S11-S13.
Brondizio, E. S., Settele, J., Diaz, S., & Ngo, H. T. (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
De Steur, H., Mehta, S., Gellynck, X., & Finkelstein, J. L. (2017). GM biofortified crops: potential effects on targeting the micronutrient intake gap in human populations. Current opinion in Biotechnology, 44, 181-188.
Gobierno del Ecuador (2011). Reglamento al Régimen Común Sobre Acceso a los Recursos Genéticos. Decreto Ejecutivo 905.
Intriago-Barreno, R., & Bravo-Velásquez, E. (2016). Primera detección de Soya transgénica (Glycinemax) cultivada en la Costa ecuatoriana usando métodos de monitoreo participativo. Cienciamérica, 5(1), 75-82.
Lyal, C. H. (2022). Digital sequence information on genetic resources and the convention on biological diversity. In Global Transformations in the Use of Biodiversity for Research and Development: Post Nagoya Protocol Implementation Amid Unresolved and Arising Issues (pp. 589-619). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Macfarlane, N. B., Adams, J., Bennett, E. L., Brooks, T. M., Delborne, J. A., Eggermont, H., ... & Redford, K. H. (2022). Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation. Iscience.
Moreno-Mateos, D., Barbier, E. B., Jones, P. C., Jones, H. P., Aronson, J., López-López, J. A., ... & Rey Benayas, J. M. (2017). Anthropogenic ecosystem disturbance and the recovery debt. Nature communications, 8(1), 14163.
Nathaniel, S. P., Nwulu, N., & Bekun, F. (2021). Natural resource, globalization, urbanization, human capital, and environmental degradation in Latin American and Caribbean countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 6207-6221.
Precedence Research. (2023). Synthetic Biology Market. Retrieved from
https://www.precedenceresearch.com/synthetic-biology-market. Accessed November 10, 2023.
Winkler, K., Fuchs, R., Rounsevell, M., & Herold, M. (2021). Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated. Nature communications, 12(1), 2501.