31 October 2024
What is digital sequence information (DSI)?
As the biodiversity COP16 unfolds in Colombia, a hot discussion is taking place on the fair use of ‘digital sequence information’ – but what is it really?
Easy access to DNA is one of the 21st century’s most significant leaps forward. It promises solutions to huge global challenges and enormous power for scientific and economic innovations.
Scientists at Kew have used DNA to identify parts of the ash tree genome (all of the DNA inside a living ash tree, Fraxinus excelsior) that might make a tree more resistant to the devastating disease, ash dieback. In the commercial sector, DNA use has given us life-saving vaccines and treatments, such as that for Covid-19.
DNA sequences are often stored in huge publicly accessible databases, as a form of digital sequence information (DSI). While DSI is revolutionising research and development, it has also become a hot topic in international biodiversity conversations.
So what exactly is DSI, and why is it so important?
What is digital sequence information (DSI)?
There isn’t currently an agreed definition of DSI. It’s just a placeholder for any digital information that comes from genetic resources – for example, DNA that has been sequenced from the natural world, and the DNA code made freely available online for use in research.
The term is interpreted differently by different people, with some including any digital information about a cell’s proteins and its metabolites – the substances created by cells as they break down their food – in the definition as well as DNA.
DSI is used for biodiversity research – including our work on enset (Ensete ventricosum), a wild banana relative from Ethiopia, where it helps us predict which varieties might survive in a warming climate. Our scientists have also used DSI to identify wood used in household furniture, ensuring it comes from sustainable sources and is not impacting threatened species, as well as figuring out the best places to reintroduce endangered orchids in the UK.
DSI is also used commercially to develop treatments and vaccines from the flora, fauna and funga of our natural world.
The current discussion over DSI is around the question: how will the benefits from this research and related products make it back to the local people and places where they are needed the most?
Ensuring that benefits reach the communities that have long been the stewards of biodiversity will provide both resources and further incentive to preserve this biodiversity and use it sustainably.
What is access and benefit sharing?
One of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is that any innovation from research based on something taken from the natural world should give a fair share of the benefits back to the country and the local communities that it came from. This is known as fair and equitable access and benefit sharing (ABS).
In the past, if a scientist (or a company) wanted to make a substance produced by a plant, they would have to go and find the plant in question and extract whatever they wanted. This requires access to the physical genetic resource.
However, with new technologies, it is much easier to take advantage of genetic information without needing access to the physical material.
How does ABS work?
The Nagoya Protocol outlines how countries can introduce national legislation around ABS for physical genetic resources. This is often through bilateral agreements - mutually agreed terms between the receiver and supplier about how the resource is used, what benefits will be shared, and how.
Benefits can vary from monetary compensation to non-monetary benefits such as the transfer of technology, and training and collaboration in research and conservation.
Kew has many bilateral agreements of this kind with over 400 partners worldwide, with differing terms around the use and access to genetic resources in each.
What about DSI?
The digital nature of DSI makes a system based on two-way agreement almost impossible to implement globally. Because one innovation can involve comparing thousands of digital sequences from many different species, tracing them all back to their points of origin and setting up mutual agreements with every country and community would be an administrative nightmare.
Such an approach would slow the scientific research and innovation that is desperately needed to solve the current climate and biodiversity crises.
It is clear, though, that the world still needs some method of benefit-sharing around DSI.
This is why DSI is a big topic of discussion at COP16 – the Parties are trying to agree on a multilateral mechanism which ensures that the natural world and the communities that live with it see the benefits of digital genetic resources. This mechanism will likely be primarily monetary – a global fund that will be contributed to and distributed via some to-be-agreed mechanism.
What is being discussed at COP16?
Discussions in Cali are focusing on three main questions. How big should a global fund be and who will manage it? Who needs to contribute? And how and to whom should the funds be distributed?
Answering these questions comes with many trade-offs and considerations.
What are the considerations?
Contributions to the fund
Since the creation of a global fund was agreed as part of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework at COP15, much thought has gone into who should contribute and how much.
So far, drafted options include:
- A percentage of profits generated from commercial products.
- A percentage of turnover or sales from sectors heavily reliant on DSI.
- A 1% levy on the retail value of all DSI-reliant products.
- An encouragement for all users to contribute a percentage of their revenue.
At the moment, even what it means to be ‘reliant on DSI’ is up in the air. Discussions in Cali must balance the need to generate much-needed funds for nature against the risk of creating barriers to innovation. Stakeholders are exploring how to raise the money and how the mechanism would work with other international policies.
Distributing the benefits
It is likely that funds will be distributed using some formula, the criteria for which may be determined by an expert group - but this is all yet to be agreed.
Considerations on where, for what and to whom funds are allocated will likely consider several factors, including biodiversity richness, conservation needs, biodiversity threat levels, and capacity needs. Parties must also consider how to distribute non-monetary benefits.
It is crucial for all benefits to be shared with the Indigenous Peoples and local communities who act as stewards of much of the world’s biodiversity.
Maintaining trust and protecting research
Without the agreement of a mechanism that builds and maintains trust, user and provider countries may restrict access to DSI and look to obtain benefits outside of a universal mechanism. This would reduce access to DSI for non-commercial researchers worldwide, add administrative burdens to commercial users, and likely limit the benefits available to share.
Parties are considering how any agreements made can preserve and promote the research that is needed to help enhance food security and halt biodiversity loss.
What does Kew want to see?
It is vital to establish agreements which inspire the trust of all parties at COP16. This is necessary to generate much-needed funds towards preserving and restoring biodiversity. Any multilateral agreement should ensure that benefits are shared with Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and that these communities are full participants in policy discussions.
There needs to be a fair contribution from industry sectors that rely most on DSI, while at the same time not inhibiting commercial research.
Any resolution must also preserve open access for research. Clarity is still needed on the role of research institutions like Kew, who work with and generate DSI as part of our research.
With a multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism in place that successfully balances these different factors, all members of the global community will benefit from our planet’s wonderful biodiversity, and ensure that our flora, fauna and funga can be protected for generations to come.
