Analysis of Options for Implementing Disclosure of Origin Requirements in Intellectual Property Applications - A Contribution to UNCTAD's Response to the Invitation of the Seventh Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity

Stronger patent rights will help innovators to protect their inventions in domestic and export markets, however stronger patent right exporting decisions depend on market expansion and market power effects. Although it is quite late to promulgate patent law, Vietnam began to record patent applications and granted them for both domestic and foreign firms from 1981 (patent law was enacted in 2005). However the number of foreign patent applications is different among Vietnam trade partners. I use a number of patent applications of Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France to analyze the relationship between trade inflow from those countries and patent rights, I find that Japan applied for the greatest number of patents, which have increased over time. Japanese exports to Vietnam are dominated by market power effects, while other countries’ patent application numbers tend to fluctuate or increases insignificantly over time, with exports being dominated by market expansion effects.
 Keywords
 Patent right, market power effects, market expansion effects, Vietnamese importation
 References
 [1] Keller, W., “International technology diffusion,” Journal of Economic Literature, 42 (2004), 752-82.[2] Falvey, R., N. Foster and D. Greenaway, “Trade, imitative ability and intellectual property rights," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), 145 (2009), 373-404.[3] Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. and Lichtenberg, F., “Does foreign direct investment transfer technology across borders?”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 83 (2001), 490-97.[4] Maskus, K. E. and M. Penubarti, “How trade-related are intellectual property rights,” Journal of International Economics, 39 (1995), 227-48.[5] Smith, P. J., “Are weak patent rights a barrier to U.S. exports,” Journal of International Economics, 48 (1999), 151-77.[6] Plasmans, J. E. J., and Tan, J., “Intellectual property rights and international trade with China,” Working Paper, Department of Economics and CESIT, University of Antwerp, Belgium, 2004.[7] Liu, W. H., and Y. C. Lin, “Foreign patent rights and high-tech exports: evidence from Taiwan,” Applied Economics, 37 (2005), 1543-55.[8] Foster, N., “Intellectual Property rights and the margins of international trade”, Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 23 (2014), 2014.[9] Boring, A., “The impact of patent protection on US pharmaceutical exports to developing countries”, Applied Economics, 47 (2015) 13, 1314-1330.[10] Fink, C., & Primo-Braga, C. A., “How stronger protection of intellectual property rights affects international trade flows”, 1999. [11] Annual Report of National Office of Intellectual Property of Vietnam (2007-2015).[12] Hu, A., and A. Jaffe, “Patent citations and International knowledge flow: The cases of Korea and Taiwan,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21 (2003), 849-80.[13] Park, Walter G., “International patent protection: 1960-2005,” Research Policy, 37 (2008), 761-766.[14] Smith, P. J., “How do foreign patent right affect U.S. exports, affiliate sales, and licenses,” Journal of International Economics, 55 (2001), 411-39.

One of the core requirements of patentability is that patent applicants provide background and contextual information about their invention to the patent office. This disclosure is expected to allow a patent examiner to ensure that the application meets patentability standards. However, because of the information asymmetry between expert patent applicants and generalist patent examiners, applicants can withhold useful information while still receiving the benefits of exclusive patent rights. While this is a problem in the patent system in general, the challenge is even worse in a subset of inventions. The information asymmetry is more pronounced in cases of inventions that rely on the genetic resource or traditional knowledge (TK) of indigenous peoples and local communities in their research. A good example is the practice of using traditional medicinal knowledge as research leads to develop modern drugs. Aspirin is one of the drugs developed out of traditional practices. A core question in these situations is whether patent applicants that rely on TK to develop their invention are required to disclose such information to the patent examiner. Reports of multiple instances show that patent applicants usually withhold information about their reliance on TK in their inventive process. As a result, they may claim exclusive property rights over what source communities have been practicing for generations. In reaction to the lack of recognition of their contribution, source communities are adopting a protectionist trend by creating restrictions on access to their resources. This Article argues that the introduction of an explicit requirement in U.S. patent law, compelling patent applicants to disclose their use of TK, can create an efficient patent system and sustainable relationships in the relevant industries. It provides two justifications for the amendment of U.S. patent law. First, the Article makes a normative case for conceiving the disclosure of origin requirement as an information-forcing rule. Imposing an obligation to disclose the source of TK would elicit socially beneficial information about the validity and scope of a claimed application from the low-cost providers—patent applicants—thereby creating a more efficient patent system. Second, the Article argues that an explicit and enforceable disclosure requirement would reverse the inefficient and troubling protectionist trend by facilitating the tracking and enforcement of obligations that researchers may have in contracts with source communities or domestic laws of source countries. The requirement will create confidence in the patent system and encourage source communities to facilitate access to TK. The Article uses efficiency and social-welfare perspectives in contrast to the equity and distributive justice justifications dominating the literature. The focus of this Article on domestic U.S. law is another point of contrast to the focus of the literature on international law.

Global biological data poses particular challenges for organizing and managing intellectual property. Issues concerning the industrial property branch, such as patent protection, have generally not been the librarian's concern. However, for the librarian and information management professional specializing in the organization of biological knowledge, the knowledge domain includes intellectual resources eligible for industrial property rights protection. An intellectual resource can be deemed industrial property eligible for rights protection if the resource is a patentable invention and has an industrial application. Traditionally, libraries and natural history museums have been concerned primarily with the copyright branch of intellectual property as it pertains to access to intellectual resources. It is primarily the first sale doctrine and the fair use of copyrighted resources that enable libraries and museums to meet the educational and information organization and dissemination goals of their charter. With respect to the organization of biological knowledge, the intellectual property issues include the traditional issues surrounding the copyright branch as well as issues pertaining to industrial property protection. Access for current and future biological knowledge management has become more complicated. This is not to say that the intellectual property questions on the immediate horizon for biological knowledge management are necessarily new questions or are necessarily unique to the library and information science discipline. But the following issues concerning access to intellectual resources are new questions for library and information management practitioners and are of particular concern for those specializing in the organization of biological knowledge. The definition of biological objects is important for whether an intellectual resource falls under copyright protection or is eligible for industrial property protection. In other words, is the biological object a discovery or an invention? This definitional distinction is important because it affects whether the biological object is patentable and thus eligible for industrial property protection. That is, if the biological object is considered a discovery, then the biological object is not the scientist's creation. The creation of the scientist is the publication disclosing the discovery. Hence, copyright applies to the published findings and the protection of intellectual property rights is protection of the copyright. This protection is particularly important in biology where a person's name is associated as the authority for the first published treatment of a new species. On the other hand, if the biological object itself is considered a creation of the scientist, then the biological object is an invention and is a potentially patentable object. Whereas the scientist's publication disclosing the invention would fall under copyright protection, the issuance and protection of patents fall under the industrial property branch of intellectual property rights: the protection of intellectual property rights is protection of the industrial property, the invention. The classification of the biological object is not simply a matter of differing epistemological positions. A May 2002 Science article, "DuPont Ups the Ante on Use of Harvard's OncoMouse," details a recent intellectual property debate between private enterprise and academic scientific research where the biological object itself is a patented "mouse engineered to develop cancers." Another Science article, "Patents, Secrecy, and DNA," published in 2001, indicates "more than 25,000 DNA-based patents were issued by the end of 2000" on various genomics inventions, including patents for gene fragments and sequences. It is, as it were, a matter of the relations between publicly supported scientific research and commercial for-profit ventures in free-market capitalist economies. For the library and information management practitioner, the disposition of the biological object — whether it be discovery or invention — affects the approach to and management of access. For management of access to copyrighted creations, the first sale doctrine and fair use principle would certainly seem applicable guidelines. Although access to copyrighted creations becomes more complex when it involves property rights for physical objects in natural history museums. Museums may "own" (with caveats discussed below) the specimens in their collections but if these objects are digitized, the museums must claim copyright protection for the digital representations. Some museums may fear that even with the copyright protection regime, they may lose control over the value of their collections. In contrast, the organization of information to support patent protection of inventions would entail denying unauthorized access, as denial of access for unauthorized parties is the underlying assumption that makes patent protection possible. The Convention on Biological Diversity's "Report on the Role of Intellectual Property Rights in the Implementation of Access and Benefit-Sharing" (www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/abs/abswg-01/official/abswg-01-04-en.doc) is exclusively concerned with the industrial property branch of intellectual property protection. The 2001 report makes plain that for international biological information networks, the most pressing intellectual property issues revolve around patents and patent procedures, adjudicatingcontesting claims for rights and protection, and trade agreements. All factor into decisions about the organization and management of biological knowledge, and all pertain to the commercial potential of biological resources. In addition, the Convention on Biological Diversity specifically focuses their attention on and makes recommendations for addressing the often-conflicting interests between developed and developing countries with respect to commercialization of biological resources. Natural history museums hold many specimens of species from around the world, as collectors from industrialized countries have aggressively gathered specimens from developing countries over the past 300 years. The potential financial consequences are enormous as many of these materials, such as botanical pharmaceuticals, are patentable. The Convention's Panel of Experts on Access and Benefit-Sharing identified four key intellectual property issues under their auspices: prior informed consent; traditional knowledge related to genetic resources; access and benefit-sharing agreements; and scope, prior art and monitoring. Library and information management practitioners would likely be concerned with all four, as each involves questions of information and knowledge organization and management. Prior informed consent pertains to incorporating patent application procedures for documenting "identification of the source of genetic material used in the development of subject matter which is to be protected by intellectual property rights" and "proof of the prior informed consent of the competent national authority of the provider country." Essentially, the panel maintained that holders of traditional knowledge and of the rights to innovations based on traditional knowledge must give informed consent prior to granting access to genetic resources, and that such consent must be documented. The panel's report on traditional knowledge related to genetic resources defines "traditional knowledge," discusses the limits of property protection for traditional knowledge and proposes the sui generis model for protection of traditional knowledge. Traditional knowledge related to genetic resources is defined as "manifestations of knowledge and innovation" evidenced in indigenous creative practices, classifications systems, empirical observations and environmental management practices. Because of the collective nature of and lack of systematic documentation about traditional knowledge, the panel considered whether intellectual property rights are applicable to traditional knowledge; as argued by pharmaceutical industry interests, the panel recognized that intellectual property rights, in particular patents, could be viewed as and used toward protection of traditional knowledge. The panel recommended implementation of sui generis systems for protection of traditional knowledge rights. Among their proposals for legislation were the recognition of ancestral community rights; recognition that intellectual property rights can be collective; and the "distinction between the rights over genetic resources (where vested in the State) and rights over knowledge associated with such resources (vested in local and indigenous customs)." Components of sui generis systems for protection could include systematic documentation of traditional knowledge, traditional knowledge registries and various patent and innovation systems, all of which present opportunities for library and information science management. The panel discusses various access and benefit-sharing agreements at length, highlighting various possible arrangements between countries, industries, ministries and legal apparatuses. Access, for the Convention's purposes, tends to mean access to the actual genetic or biological resources for cultivation, harvesting and exploitation, and benefit-sharing means the protection of and compensation for the holders of intellectual property rights to such genetic or biological resources. In other words, access and benefit-sharing agreements pertain primarily to legal and binding financial arrangements between interested parties across the globe. How such legal and financial agreements affect library and information management practitioners seems to depend upon the particular situations as determined by employers, be they governmental, non-profit or for-profit organizations. Related to, but different than, prior informed consent is prior art. The Convention's panel and the World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO) Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore are both exploring and advocating recognition that traditional knowledge be viewed as prior art. The categorization of traditional knowledge as prior art affords opportunities for library and information management practitioners to compile existing traditional knowledge literature; create registries for and repositories of traditional knowledge; and examine ways to improve search and access to traditional knowledge documents, collections and databases. This information could be organized around the species descriptions used in western taxonomy or in the taxonomy assigned by the holders of traditional knowledge about the species in the native environment. One of the most interesting intellectual property problems facing current and future biodiversity knowledge management concerns relations between developed and developing countries and involves repatriation of biological intellectual resources. While international and national policy decisions regarding repatriation are beyond the scope of the individual library and information management practitioner, the practitioner should be aware that repatriation law, agreements and treaties will have ramifications for organizing and providing access to biological resources. The global mission of many biodiversity projects to identify, name and classify the world's species certainly warrants attention to repatriation issues. The emphasis Global Biodiversity Information Facility ( www.gbif.org/GBIF_org/what_is_gbif) places on data repatriation suggests the issue is crucial for the successful organization and management of a global biodiversity information network. The repatriation of biological intellectual resources differs from the repatriation of refugees, of human remains and of cultural heritage objects typically housed in developed countries' museums and libraries. Whereas the actual persons, actual remains or actual cultural heritage objects are returned to their respective countries of origin, the actual biological specimens are not. Rather, as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) working group on biological informatics points out, with respect to biodiversity resources, repatriation concerns the repatriation of data generated about the specimen. In other words, a data surrogate replaces the original biological specimen as the object repatriated. The original biological specimen is held and maintained by the natural history museum, organization or institution that generated the specimen data. In this manner, the natural history museum seems to serve a custodial role, as opposed to explicitly claiming ownership of the specimen, although claims for ownership seem implied through maintaining possession of the original biological specimen. Data repatriation poses an intriguing problem not only for governors, ministers and administrators of state, but also for scholars interested in globalization, the world economy, geopolitics and post-colonialism as data repatriation makes evident the historical, political milieu in which the present state of biological knowledge is immersed, and perhaps, from whence it originates. For data repatriation to be successful, the data repatriated must conform to internationally recognized standards and exist in formats of demonstrable value to the country of origin. Moreover, the replacement of the original specimen with its data surrogate must be satisfactory to all international parties involved. This question will probably be asked of natural history museums in developed countries: if the data surrogate be the virtual equivalent of the specimen, why not repatriate the specimen to the country of origin, generally a developing country, and maintain the surrogate in the developed country? In principle, unlike cultural artifacts, it would be possible to gather another specimen of the same species from its native environment. It is probably an understatement to remark that identifying, naming and classifying all of the world's species is a gargantuan, utopian goal. But that is the goal toward which many in the biological sciences devote their working lives. Achieving progress toward that goal necessitates significant contributions from many allied disciplines and practitioners, including those that organize and manage access to all of the actual current and possible future intellectual manifestations of biological knowledge. While much work remains to be done and many unknowns have yet to unfold, one thing is certain: where there are intellectual resources to organize and manage, there are intellectual property issues that affect how the work of library and information management practitioners proceed. We need to be aware of the intellectual property issues debated, the many parties and varied interests involved, and the organizational and managerial possibilities for enabling the desired type of access. This is part of our contribution toward knowledge of our vast world. Gwen L. Williams is currently enrolled in the Master's program at the Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

ABSTRACTThere are legal and moral imperatives to protect biological resources and the ‘traditional knowledge’ associated with them. These imperatives derive from complex legal geographies: international law (such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol), State and federal laws, Indigenous customary law, codes of ethics and research protocols. This paper reports on a ‘patent landscape’ analysis of patents that refer to Australian plant species for which there is Indigenous Australian knowledge. We have identified several patents of potential new biopiracy concern. The paper highlights the way in which actors can gain private property monopolies over biological resources and associated traditional knowledge, even though there are overlapping sovereign rights and Indigenous rights claims. Regulatory gaps need to be closed nationally to fully govern the diverse human–plant bio-geographies in Australia. Further, Indigenous laws and governance have largely been ignored by these actors. We suggest that the introduction of ‘disclosure of origin’ requirements in patent applications, sui generis Indigenous knowledge protections, the development of biocultural protocols, and a more nationally consistent system for ‘access and benefit-sharing’ are required to ensure more ‘fair and equitable’ use of plants and Indigenous knowledge in/from Australia, and to ensure the recognition of Indigenous rights to knowledge.

The patenting of biotechnological inventions potentially affects human rights in a number of ways. Human rights to identity and the practice of religion may be affected by the availability of patents on genetically modified human beings (or elements of the human body). Patents as mechanisms for market exclusion affect access to new medicines, including those based on biotechnological innovation. Access to medicines and health care are part of the panoply of human rights.During the past decade, the international community has focused significant attention on the protection of biological diversity and the potential impact of patents and other intellectual property rights on that protection. All of mankind benefits from the preservation of biological diversity. Genetic resource stocks likely will be the source of future agricultural, medicinal and other innovations. The preservation of plant and animal species is important to the functioning and continuing evolution of the Earth’s ecosystem, and therefore to the preservation of human life. While the maintenance of biological diversity is not part of the traditional catalogue of protectable human rights, a generalized human interest in the preservation of such diversity might be considered part of the common human interest in the wellbeing of future generations.Differentiated biological resources are concentrated in a group of megadiverse countries, almost all of which are developing countries. The geographic territories in which such resources are located are often populated by poor indigenous peoples. The exploitation of biological resources from territories inhabited by these individuals has the potential substantially to affect their economic well being. The maintenance of basic human rights, including rights to security, food and shelter, are dependent on a minimum level of economic welfare. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recognizes sovereign rights over biological resources located within national territories, in part with a view towards assuring that individuals benefit financially from biotechnological inventions derived from such resources. The potential for conflict between the objectives and terms of the CBD and the rules governing the international patent system has been debated since the conclusion of negotiations on the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) in late 1993. In 2006 this subject is on the active agenda of the WTO TRIPS Council, and it is being considered at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).This chapter analyses the relationship between the CBD and the rules governing the international patent system with a view to making a recommendation regarding whether a multilaterally agreed mandatory requirement for disclosure of the source and origin of genetic resources in patent applications would aid in achieving greater complementarity. The chapter concludes that adoption of such a requirement would be useful. This chapter does not expressly address information referred to as ‘traditional knowledge’ except to the extent that such information is relevant to evaluating applications for patents on inventions under the generally applied criteria of patentability. Traditional knowledge may itself be protected as intellectual property distinct from patentable invention.

Different types of intellectual property rights have an impact on various points along the food chain. Patent laws and laws for the protection of new plant varieties affect not just innovation but also access to seeds by farmers. Trademarks influence the packaging and sale of various food products consumed in society. There are also debates regarding the extent to which copyright law can be used to protect recipes, dishes, and artistic culinary creations. Other forms of intellectual property rights equally intersect with food chains in various ways. Geographical indications can be used to enhance the commercial value of food products that possess certain characteristics, qualities, or reputation because they are produced in a particular geographical location or region of the world. Trade secrets can be used to protect the technical know-how or undisclosed information relating to the production of certain food products and beverages. Utility model laws can also be used to protect some plant-related innovation. Laws relating to access and benefit-sharing from the use of genetic resources can also affect the conservation and commercialization of plant genetic resources (including those associated with traditional knowledge). Crucially, international intellectual property law also affects the relationship between food chains and national intellectual property laws. While the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (WTO’s TRIPS Agreement) does not mandate the protection of plants and animals via patent laws, it does require WTO members to protect plant varieties either through patent rights or effective sui generis laws or by any combination thereof. A number of states are also parties to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention), which mandates the protection of new plant varieties. In addition, the TRIPS Agreement requires WTO members to protect geographical indications (without mandating any specific form of protection). A number of treaties also contain provisions on access to and benefit-sharing from the use of genetic resources. These treaties include the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Nagoya Protocol to the CBD, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), and the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. The impact of intellectual property rights on food chains also intersects with debates regarding the interface between intellectual property rights and human rights. The right to food is implicated when intellectual property rights, especially patents and plant variety protection laws, affects the ability of small-scale farmers to access, save, and exchange seeds. Furthermore, relying on the need to protect public health, some states have implemented measures to regulate the packaging of food products (including the use of trademarks on products) that contribute to non-communicable diseases such as cancer and obesity.

Use and exchange of aquatic genetic resources in aquaculture: information relevant to access and benefit sharing

This article critically examines the role of Provisional Patent Applications (PPAs) as strategic tools within the intellectual property framework, particularly highlighting their significance in safeguarding early-stage inventions. By allowing inventors to secure a priority date while still developing their inventions, PPAs provide a time frame when additional funding can be sought and further development can be pursued without losing the claim to the original invention date. This is especially important in industries like information and communication technology and the life sciences, where development timelines are lengthy and investment-intensive. PPAs serve not only as a cost-effective initial step in patent filing but also as a protective mechanism against premature disclosure, safeguarding the novelty of the invention. PPAs do not undergo formal examination and do not result in a granted patent unless followed by a standard patent application. However, they establish a legal placeholder that can be crucial for securing further patent rights. This study explores the legal framework of PPAs across various jurisdictions. The analysis also delves into the specific benefits and strategic considerations associated with drafting and filing PPAs, including their role in facilitating additional research and refinement of the invention. In addition, it presents novel empirical evidence on the growth of PPAs in the United States and their use as priorities in regular USPTO and EPO patent applications. Despite their advantages, PPAs come with limitations, such as the limited time available to convert them into standard patent applications (typically one year) to benefit from their priority date and the precise requirements for subsequent standard patent applications, which this article addresses. Through a detailed exploration of both the theoretical framework and practical applications of PPAs, the article contributes to a deeper understanding of their role in broader patent strategies, advocating for their careful and informed use in the innovation process.

This report provides analysis and factual data on ways forward for the successful introduction of a practical system for monitoring the utilisation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in patent applications. It suggests a resolution to a key issue blocking the creation of such a system. This resolution is based on 4 elements: 1. Acknowledging and analysing the current impasse between the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) on the disclosure of certain biodiversity information in patent applications (Section 1). 2. Analysing a useful precedent for a functional disclosure requirement using the Bayh-Dole provisions of the US Patent Act (Section 2). 3. Interrogating the patent system to see to what extent disclosure of countries of origin already takes place (Section 3). 4. Interrogating the patent system to explore disclosure issues with respect to indigenous and local communities and traditional knowledge (Section 4).

The relationships between international intellectual property treaties, the United Nations international environmental treaties (first and foremost the Convention on Biological Diversity), the relevant customary norms and soft law form a complex network of obligations that sometimes conflict with each other. The first set of treaties creates private rights while the latter affirms the sovereignty rights of States over genetic resources and related knowledge and creates international regimes of exploitation of the same. Jonathan Curci proposes solutions to the conflicts between treaties through the concept of 'mutual supportiveness', including the construction of a national-access and benefit-sharing regime, mandatory contractual provisions in relevant international contracts, a defensive protection when genetic resource-related traditional knowledge is unjustly patented through the analysis of the concepts of 'ordre public and morality', 'certificate of origin' in the patent application and 'novelty-destroying prior art' and positive protection through existing and sui generis intellectual property rights and misappropriation regimes.

A comprehensive analysis of the process of formation and development of the ecosystem approach in international environmental law under the Convention on Biological Diversity has been undertaken. Based on a study of the provisions of the Convention and a review of decisions of the meetings of its governing body – the Conference of the Parties – the conclusion is made about the current state of development of the ecosystem approach. In particular, under the Convention on Biological Diversity, general framework of the ecosystem approach have been developed, including its description, principles and practical guidelines for its application, and its leading role in the conservation of biodiversity has been determined. Undoubtedly, the ecosystem approach generally and its principles particularly require thorough discussion at future meetings of the Conference of the Parties and implementation in appropriate decisions. At the same time, it is quite obvious that the effectiveness of this approach in the issue of biodiversity conservation will depend primarily on its implementation in the state environmental policy and legislation of all countries-participants of the Convention and its practical realization, which, according to the author, should become one of the priority and strategic directions in the field of legal regulation of environmental relations in Ukraine.

Karim-Aly S. Kassam: Biocultural Diversity and Indigenous Ways of Knowing: Human Ecology in the Arctic

Societal Impact StatementThe Fourth Industrial Revolution is underway. Controversy surrounds the choice of modality for access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization, as established in the third objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The modality chosen by the Conference of the Parties should promote conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources, which are the first and second objectives of the convention. “Bounded openness over natural information” achieves all three objectives by aligning incentives between users and Providers. With philanthropic support, the modality can also be applied to unpublished traditional knowledge, which would enhance food security.SummarySeveral international agreements have provisions for “access to genetic resources” and “fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from [their] utilization” (ABS). The optimal modality has proven elusive for the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Nagoya Protocol (NP). Such failure need not be so. We embrace reductionism and partition genetic resources into tangible and intangible attributes and classify the latter as natural or artificial information. The economics of information justifies “rents,” which is the difference between what is paid and what would have been paid in a competitive market. Fairness and equity imply protection for natural information equal to that of artificial information. Bilateralism eliminates rents through competition and renders royalties infinitesimal, thus defeating ABS. The proposed Global Multilateral Benefit‐Sharing Mechanism (GMBSM) could capture rents and distribute royalty income proportional to habitat for terrestrial species, and to CO2reductions for marine species and wild relatives of crops. Alignment of incentives for conservation would facilitate transition to half‐Earth. Domesticated species require stronger incentives for conservation than do nondomesticated species. The Multilateral System (MLS) of The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) should be expanded. Enclosure of traditional knowledge not yet in public domain through a benefit‐sharing mechanism could incentivize communities to deposit samples into the CGIAR Genebanks and resume seed exchange, which is essential for food security. A robust modality of ABS for the CBD, NP, ITPGRFA and other agreements is “bounded openness.”

Translational medicine and the National Institutes of Health road map: Steep grades and tortuous curves

Societal Impact StatementThe international conservation of biological diversity is addressed under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and goals for the next decade will be discussed at the next Conference of the Parties. One issue under negotiation in the CBD is Digital Sequence Information (DSI), which has created tension between parties calling for preserving open access to DSI who also note its importance in addressing biodiversity and the UN Sustainable Development Goals and those parties calling for fair and equitable benefit sharing from DSI. This article introduces scientists to the current debate and political process on DSI within the CBD.SummaryMost biologists take open access to sequence data for granted. This open system, while a hallmark of innovation and collaboration for the scientific community, is being called into question as some parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) assert that this access undermines their sovereign rights over their genetic resources and corresponding benefit sharing. The governance of sequence data and potentially other types of biological data, known in international policy circles as “Digital Sequence Information” (DSI), a placeholder term invented by negotiators, could be dramatically altered and ultimately change the way scientific research and publishing on sequence data is conducted. Many sequence‐using scientists are unfamiliar with the international political processes around DSI even though it could lead to irreversible decisions that might have significant impacts on research. This paper bridges that gap by providing an overview of the ongoing political process with a focus on the most recent studies on DSI commissioned by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD) and what these studies forecast about the political debate. With this information in hand, the scientific community can hopefully better engage with the political process and proactively promote evidence‐based decisions or even solutions that can bridge the demand for benefit sharing with the scientific need for open access to DSI.