Biology is in the middle of a transformation. Over the past five years new sequencing techniques have made it much easier and cheaper to read long strands of dna, allowing scientists to record gapless genomes with much less uncertainty than before. Scientists are keen to put these capabilities to good use. One ambitious proposal is the Earth Biogenome Project, a moonshot idea to sequence all the planet’s eukaryotic life—that is, all plants, animals, fungi and so forth . This would help scientists uncover the hidden handiwork of evolution, monitor how endangered species respond to global warming, and mine genomes for useful biological compounds, such as new antibiotics.
Unfortunately, the project faces big obstacles. One is the Nagoya protocol, which was supposed to make the biosciences fairer and more efficient. In force since 2014, the protocol asserts countries’ sovereign right to negotiate access to genetic resources on their land. Although well-intentioned, it has made sharing biological samples across borders harder, and has not generated benefits for biodiverse countries, many of them poor. It should be scrapped, and replaced with something better.
Sequencing is not the only work being hampered by the protocol’s red tape. Microbiological research, especially on pathogenic bacteria and viral strains, has often been obstructed, too. Brazilian researchers working under Nagoya-like rules were prevented from sharing samples of the Zika virus during an outbreak in 2016. Likewise with the MERS virus in Saudi Arabia in 2013 (when some Nagoya principles were already in place, under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), of which the protocol is an offshoot). This has slowed vital research, including on vaccines.
The idea behind the protocol is a noble one. It sought to enable countries to share in the benefits generated from their genetic resources, and to ensure that stewards of biodiversity would not be relied upon for their work and knowledge without proper compensation. The intent was to protect poor countries, in particular, from being exploited by researchers and businesses from the rich world. But the protocol has not only failed to achieve its aims, it has been counterproductive.
Rather than helping biodiverse countries get their due, it is more often imposing a burden on them. As of 2023, more than 80% of countries that have ratified the protocol had yet to issue a single permit, meaning that those countries have received no benefit, monetary or otherwise. Many have no adequate processes in place to facilitate permits; in other places, local scientists seeking permits describe needing to know people if they are to find their way around countries’ systems.
As a consequence, foreign researchers have at times pulled back from collaborating with colleagues in poor countries. After years of delay, the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Britain has had to reallocate funds from some projects with scientists in countries that have ratified the protocol to projects in countries that have not.
Countries are entitled to make their own laws, but the current framework is complex and unworkable. That is not just a bad deal for countries providing samples. The world at large is forgoing the benefits of research when biodiversity is under huge pressure, the threat of pandemics looms large and biology at last has the tools to make important progress.
That is why the protocol needs to make way for a better system. One might draw inspiration from another offshoot of the CBD, called the Cali Fund. This will create a financial mechanism for companies to pay for genomic sequences (rather than samples). Like copyright collection societies, it will allow data to be shared easily through online databases, in exchange for payment into a central fund responsible for compensating sequence-providing countries.
A similar system for sharing physical samples could lessen the administrative burden on the poorest countries by removing the need for permits and enabling collaboration. If some of the money that was generated went towards building technical capacity in poor countries, they could more easily take part in international research on an equal footing. That would create value not just for the planet’s myriad creatures, but for fledgling scientific communities everywhere.
Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.