Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35935539›Full record

ArticleThird world quarterly2022

Digitising biopiracy? The global governance of plant genetic resources in the age of digital sequencing information.

Ryan Nehring

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Third world quarterly, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. International agreements and the plant genetics research community: A guide to practice.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ryan NehringDepartment of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0867-7820

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Historical concerns over the exploitation of the Global South's genetic biodiversity framed the importance of creating global governance mechanisms to ensure fair access to and benefit-sharing of genetic resources worldwide. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (Plant Treaty) came into existence over the past three decades to redress the centuries of genetic exploitation of the Global South. Both of the treaties explicitly regulate and facilitate the exchange of physical genetic material. The recent emergence of relevant digital technologies, such as digital sequencing information (DSI), could make both treaties irrelevant. This article analyses the current state of the CBD and Plant Treaty as it relates to global agricultural research in light of DSI. I argue that DSI presents less of a threat to exacerbating historical gene flows than it does to the further displacement of public sector research by the private sector. The article then suggests looking at the lessons from open-source approaches to counter the privatisation of DSI and related gene flows. I draw on 11 key informant interviews with country negotiators involved with the CBD and Plant Treaty as well as a review of official reports from both frameworks.

Indexed as

Agricultural researchagriculture and food securitybiotechnologyCBDopen sourceplant treaty

Identifiers

PMID35935539
PMCPMC9344932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.