Prism Webcast News

NBICS and the Convention on Biological diversity (CBD)

Sunday, July 1, 2007
Posted in Dr. Wolbring Genetic Engineering Science Technology | Tagged Dr. Wolbring, Genetic Engineering, Science, Technology

Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity , recently gave a presentation with the title “Biological diversity and cultural diversity or the components of life on Earth” at the 2007 47th Annual General Meeting of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO which I attended as a board member of that organization. The presentation linked biological and cultural diversity to the CBD and the preservation of biological and cultural diversity to the survival of the human race.

Ahmed Djoghlaf stated in the presentation that the “Millennium Ecosystem Assessment”, a study carried out by 1,395 experts from 95 countries, has shown that, since their appearance on earth, human beings have never destroyed the foundations of their life as much as during the last fifty years. The pressures exerted on the planet’s natural functions by human activity have reached such a level that the ability of ecosystems to meet the needs of future generations is now seriously, and perhaps irretrievably, compromised. Changes in the earth’s natural functions caused by human activity have never been as destructive as during the past fifty years, leading to an unequalled extinction of biodiversity.

But what are the solutions to the above indicated destructive human activity?

What is the relationship between NBICS (nano-bio-info-cogno-synbio) and cultural and biological diversity?

What is the relationship between the CBD and NBICS? Which impacts of NBICS on what type of cultural and biological diversities are covered and not covered by the CBD?

Which NBICS’s and what types of biological and cultural diversities are covered and not covered by the CBD?

How these questions are answered determines the usefulness of the CBD with regard to existing, new and emerging NBICS issues, the intersection of biological and cultural diversity and NBICS, and the attached challenges and possibilities.

Biological Diversity:

According to Article 2 Terms of the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD) “Biological diversity” means the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.

Many NBICS developments impact on biological diversity on many levels. I will only cover a few in this column.

Nanotechnology:

Nanotechnology as a term and as a discipline was not an issue when the CBD and the Cartagena protocol on biosafety were negotiated. However it is clear just by reading my different �nano’-columns that nanotechnology, in its narrow sense of molecular manufacturing and its broader sense of nanoscale sciences for example as employed in Nanowater, Nanofood� and Nanoforestry , has a significant impact on biological diversity.� So far no guidance is given by the parties involved in the CBD�with regard to nanotechnology.

The question is, if the parties involved in the CBD wish to facilitate action regarding the impact of different nanotechnologies, as well as other new and emerging technologies, on biological diversity, can they do so on the basis of language existing within the CBD or do they have to generate new language?

I believe that the CBD definition of biotechnology opens the door for the coverage of other sciences and technologies.

Article 2 Terms of the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD) states:

“Biotechnology” means any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use.”

Whether intentional or not, I believe that this wording gives the mandate to act on any technology which uses biological systems. That means actions related to nano and other science and technology manipulations of trees, water, food, animals and the biosphere in general is sanctioned under that definition.�

If the players involved in the CBD and the Cartagena Protocol do not agree with my interpretation of this language, then it might be prudent that they design language which explicitly covers other technologies which modify biological organisms and systems, and rephrase the language in such a way that the scientific and techno influence on biological systems in general can be covered so that the CBD stays relevant even within changing science and technology landscapes.

Design and generation of biological diversity

Article 1� of the Convention for Biological Diversity, (CBD) states:
The objectives of this Convention, to be pursued in accordance with its relevant provisions, are the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding.

However, as I read it, the CBD provides no guidelines for the practice of generating biological diversity through the modification, enhancement and design of new life.

�

Synthetic Biology:

Synthetic biology is described on the synthetic biology community webpage to mean: (a) the design and construction of new biological parts, devices, and systems; and (b) the re-design of existing, natural biological systems for useful purposes. (See my synthetic biology 2.0 column and my synthetic biology 3.0 column which will be published on July 15, 2007, and a variety of reports such as Extreme Genetic Engineering, Rathenau Institute report, Genome Synthesis and Design Futures, Synthetic Biology, HSE, SYNBIOLOGY.)

The question in the case of synthetic biology is not whether it is covered under the CBD. Synthetic biology is covered as it uses genetic material and methods. The challenge for the CBD relates to the vision of synthetic biology products and applications. Synthetic Biology is about generating biological diversity within an organism and by generating whole new biological systems according to the above definition.

Area b of the definition above I would say is covered by Article 1. Indeed this is what genetics has been doing� all along. Advances in the methodology just allow for increasingly more complex changes and redesigns. If one changes the genetic make up of an organism so it produces ethanol or a malaria drug or other products, I interpret Article 1 (sustainable use, benefit sharing) to give the mandate for action on the level of the marketing of the product and a variety of article including article 1 (sustainable use) give the mandate for action on the level of the design of the organism.

I think it would be good if the parties in the CBD would engage themselves in the discourse around synthetic biology as its process and products impact so many facets of the CBD. It also might be prudent for the parties involved in the CBD to look at the patenting culture of the synthetic biology field (patenting of synthetic organisms and the patenting and usage one can expect related to processes and products of the synthetic biology endeavor).

I think this would be an essential contribution to a process which would ensure that genetic research and commercialization is not increasing inequity –especially between low and high income countries. It also fits with the move of the World Health Organization to change the patenting and product generation and distribution system in regards to neglected diseases (another of my columns)

However synthetic biology highlights another issue the CBD should address.

Part a of the above description of synthetic biology raises the issue of what generation of biological diversity if any at all is acceptable. Synthetic biology research is involved in the generation of genetic diversity involving the traditional genetic code but also in work which uses artificial not in nature existing bases the building blocks of the genetic code leading to a genetic code and genes and gene products such as amino acids and proteins which do not exist in nature. Some envision projects where non genetic material would be incorporated as part of the genetic redesign of the organisms. And work on the redesign of mammalian cells also is under way (see here). �I think it would be timely if the parties involved in the CBD would give guidance related to the issues generated by the synbio field. Science and technology have been used all along to generate biological diversity. However the question is whether there is a limit to the generation of biological diversity. Many new science and technology applications in that regard are appearing such as the enhancement of animals, in vitro meat, synthetic biology, animal/human hybrids and so forth.�

One can expect for example that the enhancement-of-animals-field will grow rapidly for a number of reasons:

• many procedures that might lead to performance enhancement in humans are tried and tested first on animals (for� example, the brain machine interface and the artificial hippocampus);
• with cognitive modification, or human-animal hybrids (the subject of a future column), one can envision an increase in the debate around speciesism and the boundary between humans and animals (non-human animals and human animals);
• one can envision the emergence of a market for �value-added animals’ with many �enhancements appearing in animals �long before they are widespread in humans or are used in humans at all;
• the market �for animal care products increases in value year after year making animal enhancement a lucrative market with less ethical and regulatory hindrance than the human counterpart.

I think it is essential that the parties involved in the CBD give guidance as to the what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in regards to the generation of biological diversity taking into account emerging science and technology possibilities.

On a technical level the biotechnology definition of Article 2 of the CBD provides a mandate to generate some guidelines with regard to synthetic biology, in vitro meat, enhancement of animals, animal/human hybrids and other biological diversity generating new and emerging sciences and technologies. However I think the parties involved in the CBD have to go beyond technicalities to deal with the philosophy of generating biological diversity.

Human Biological Diversity:

Many of my columns, such as the following, cover human biological diversity:� Anti Genetic Discrimination Laws: As Simple As it Sounds?; Neurodiversity, Neuroenhancement, Neurodisease, and Neurobusiness; NBICS, Other Convergences,� Ableism and the Culture of Peace; Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Sentient Rights,
Speciesism, and Uploading the Mind; Kyoto Style Disease Intervention Credit Trading
and Neglected Diseases; Transhumanism , NBICS and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; and Therapy Versus Enhancement .

Intellectually, the language of the CBD document (Article 2) allows for the inclusion of human biological diversity. Clearly, humans are “living organisms”.� The CBD definition of the term “Domesticated or cultivated species” makes even a stronger case. “Domesticated or cultivated species” is defined as

“species in which the evolutionary process has been influenced by humans to meet their needs.”

This seems to increasingly describe how members of the human species act.

Human beings have interfered throughout history with the evolution of their own species in order to meet the ends of some of them. And this desire to manipulate increases the more science and technology provides the necessary tools.� The above columns cover different facets of that area of activity. The philosophy of Transhumanism justifies the intensification of this process. The FAQ of the World Transhumanist Association gives the following answers to the question: What is transhumanism?

“Transhumanism is a way of thinking about the future that is based on the premise that the human species in its current form does not represent the end of our development but rather a comparatively early phase. We formally define it as follows:

(1) The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate ageing and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.”

�

However the people, groups, and stakeholders involved actively in the CBD rejected the inclusion of human biological diversity and human genetic resources as being within the scope of the document indigenous people.�

�

Not dealing with human biological diversity also has consequences. We increasingly commodify the human body. More and more people are seen as �impaired’. New and emerging technologies support the sustainability of philosophies such as the transhumanization of ableism where the �improvement’ of human body abilities beyond species typical Homo sapiens boundaries� is seen as essential, where the human body is perceived as limited, defective, in need of constant improvement, and as being in a diminished state of being human if not enhanced beyond Homo sapiens typical abilities �and vice versa. Transhumanism and the transhumanization of ableism will lead to a decrease in focus on the social determinants of health and disease, to the acceptance of human enhancement as a part of human biological diversity, and to� the move of the gauge curve to higher abilities as the new norm. This philosophical perspective will also lead to an ability divide between affluent and non-affluent countries, and between affluent and non-affluent groups within all countries.� This philosophical perspective supports the already evident sentiment to focus on� �techno fixes.’ It� might lead to the transhumanization of Ableism-driven-Anti-Environmentalism �

We might see the appearance of a climate change-driven appeal for a transhumanized version of ableism, where transhumanization of humans is seen as a solution for coping with climate change. This could become especially popular if we reach a so-called �point of no return,’ where severe climate change consequences can no longer be prevented (from my column).

The shaping of the concept of human biological diversity has an impact on the concept of non-human biological diversity both of which have an impact on cultural diversities (outlined in my to come 30 July 2007 column).

�

��The Choice is yours:

The accelerating growth of new and emerging technologies, developments, processes and products and the new philosophies that support this growth (e.g. transhumanism), put a strain on the scope, implementation and utility of the CBD.

It might be time to expand the provision of guidelines under the Cartagena Protocol and the CBD so that they go beyond biotechnologies, to explicitly cover other sciences and technologies which modify biological organisms and systems. It might also be prudent to develop guidelines with regard to the increase of biological diversities through the enhancement of existing biological organisms and the generation and de novo design of biological organisms. It might be prudent to address whether the digital preservation of biological diversity is an appropriate alternative to living biological diversity preservation.� Finally, it might be prudent to include human biological diversity and human biological material, and with that also cover the issues of disabled people as they relate to genetic material, benefit sharing and other issues covered in this column.��

Not taking these steps leaves the door wide open for others to develop policies around biological diversity (human and otherwise) at innovationwatch.
Gregor Wolbring is a biochemist, bioethicist, disability/vari-ability/ability studies scholar, and health policy and science and technology governance researcher at the University of Calgary. He is a member of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University; Part Time Professor at Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Canada; Member CAC/ISO - Canadian Advisory Committees for the International Organization for Standardization section TC229 Nanotechnologies; Member of the editorial team for the Nanotechnology for Development portal of the Development Gateway Foundation; Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People’s International; and former Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO (2003-2007 maximum terms served). He publishes the Bioethics, Culture and Disability website and authors a weblog on NBICS and its social implications.

A Choice is Yours biweekly column by Gregor Wolbring

June 30^th 2007http://politicsofhealth.org/wol/2007-06-30.htm