|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Feb22/01) Questions swirl over Earth Biogenome Project The Earth BioGenome Project (EBP) is an ambitious effort to sequence every eukaryotic species on earth and upload those sequences to open access databases. Its operations are therefore relevant to discussions on digital sequence information on genetic resources (DSI) and implications for fair and equitable benefit-sharing. Recent Freedom of Information (FOI) requests have made many EBP records public. This first Note from Prickly Research explores the differences between how EBP characterizes itself to the public, and what it says to potential funders. While the EBP emphasizes conservation and biodiversity stewardship in public, this is not the way that it tries to sell itself to potential funders. The FOI reveals several troubling aspects of EBP behind the scenes, including an overtly financial focus emphasizing how the EBP will promote US economic dominance and the development of proprietary products in medicine, agriculture, conservation, and technology. Headed by three American professors, the EBP is also making a pitch for US national security funds, creating awkward ambiguities in its relationships with non-US partners. The EBP is further considering sharing a vast collection of biodiversity samples from the Smithsonian Institution, among other ex-situ collections, with a private US company, and giving the company first right of refusal on interesting discoveries. With
best wishes, Prickly
Research Research
Note A Peek Inside the EarthBiogenome Project (Part 1) A Fishy Funding Brief If you follow biodiversity and digital sequence information (DSI) discussions, you’ve probably heard of the Earth BioGenome Project (EBP), an ambitious effort to sequence every eukaryotic species on earth and upload those sequences to open access databases. Based at the University of California at Davis, the EBP is long on ambition but so far short on actual genome sequencing. But that may be changing. The Project is gaining momentum and recently landed a special issue of the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (PNAS) where it dubbed itself a “moonshot” for science. A press release claims that it has moved from planning to operational phase, though the number of genomes actually sequenced by its affiliates remains relatively low. A recent Freedom of Information effort on the EBP has yielded many records. The most interesting relate to development of EBP’s policies on the Nagoya Protocol and DSI. Questions around these policies, especially on responsibility and implementability, are quite complex however, and will take some time to digest and present. So instead of leaping straight into DSI and Nagoya, this first Research Note on EPB will consider some EPB fundraising records and how they reflect on the organization. It’s always more interesting to read how a science project describes itself in private communications, especially those intended for potential funders, rather than trying to discern hard reality through the burnished and made-for-public-consumption materials on websites. I have received a copy of a one page promo that EBP is distributing to potential funders along with some related e-mail and other records. EBP is seeking support from the US National Science Foundation as well as a number of private funders. The latter, EBP hopes, may come to it via the Palo Alto-based Science Philanthropy Alliance, a group linking a number of big shot science funding administrators that is led by France Córdova, the former Director of the US National Science Foundation. The Alliance “is advising new, emerging and current philanthropists on how to most effectively support basic research” and recently scored the Gates Foundation as a new member. EBP’s leaders are also seeking to capitalize on connections with the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation (Facebook) and Jeff Bezos (Amazon). So how does EBP describe itself to the deepest pockets of the science funding world? You can read their pitch yourself in the attached document. Here are a few things that stood out to me: Economic emphasis The EPB plays an academic, fairly “pure” science tune to the broader public, for example, tweeting pretty pictures on “Fun Fact Friday” and emphasizing a biodiversity conservation mission. Yet its private pitch to potential funders rather much more emphasizes economic impact. In its promo, EPB says that it will “drive economic development” and “lay the scientific foundation for a new bioeconomy”, by uploading 2m species sequences. The project claims its goals are “imperative to drive progress in synthetic biology” and “maintain our [US] global leadership in genomics and biotechnology”. According to the promo, the EPB uploaded genomes will “provide a vital new resource for innovation in medicine, agriculture, conservation, and technology”. (If we give “conservation” a pass, 3 out of 4 of those generally end with proprietary, commercial products.) EPB says that it will “drive economic development in the health, biotechnology, energy, and agricultural sectors” by finding genes for crop improvement, pest control, climate resilience, new human therapeutics, diagnostics, and “biomedical materials and technologies”. National Security Pitch The EarthBiogenome Project says it is an international effort, but its funding document makes a play for US national security money. EBP’s one pager claims that the Project will “defend national security”, “anticipate, identify, and respond to biological threats”, and promote pandemic preparedness, evoking a preemptive biodefense strategy like that of Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance. Appealing to the Pentagon and its friends is a strange thing to do for a project that claims to be a “global network of communities”. EBP’s international partners – in Brazil, Colombia, China, Africa, Europe, and elsewhere – might feel left in an awkward place. Are the Project’s international collaborators naive sock puppets helping to prop up US national security (and economic hegemony) by handing over genomes of over 2 million species? It could be read that way. EBP’s leadership probably isn’t quite that cynical but what does it say that about the (three American) leaders of this “global network of communities” that they apparently don’t see a conflict between seeking US defense dollars and being a truly international project. Shovels, miners, and the ex-situ problem I did a double take when I read the line in EBP’s funding brief about “hundreds of thousands of samples, maintained with the latest genome-preservation technology, ‘shovel-ready’ for this project.” The analogy is to mining, that is, that the hundreds of thousands of samples are ready to be dug up, as with a miner using a shovel. This is jarring on more than one level. First, I know from EBP e-mails that Project leaders have an offer from the company Ginkgo Bioworks to sequence samples for free, “in exchange for rights of first refusal”. And that EBP’s leaders might endorse sending thousands of the ‘shovel-ready’ samples from the Smithsonian to that company. As one of the millions of taxpayers that support the quasi-governmental Smithsonian Institution in Washington, I’m offended at the notion that those in charge of the National Museum of Natural History may feel that they can fork over the right to commercially exploit the Museum’s collections to a private company, for free. Second, and perhaps more importantly, is that this is not just an American issue. I’m not familiar with the full scope of the Smithsonian’s natural history collections, but I have to assume that a large proportion of them originate overseas and, further, a large proportion of them (both US and foreign in origin) come from the territories of indigenous peoples and are linked to their traditional knowledge. Followers of the CBD will recognize this – the ex situ collection problem- but here amplified and made worse by sequencing technologies that enable commercial exploitation not just of living samples, but of archival biodiversity materials. I hope that distributing this note and the attached funding pitch will bring greater clarity to many about what the Earth BioGenome Project is, and what it would like to do. Based on what I know now, and the FOIA results are still rolling in, I find little reason to be optimistic that the EBP will help create the sort of fairness and equity sought in the Convention on Biological Diversity, despite a great quantity of correcting-sounding verbiage and (optional) policy statements that will shortly emanate from the Project’s directors. As I noted at the beginning, it’s all about responsibility and sound policies, as opposed to performative but unimplementable (by design?) pronouncements. More on that in future installments
|
||
