Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Apr 9:8:310.
doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00310. eCollection 2020.

Regulation of Synthetic Biology: Developments Under the Convention on Biological Diversity and Its Protocols

Felicity Keiper  1 , Ana Atanassova  2
Affiliations
Review

Regulation of Synthetic Biology: Developments Under the Convention on Biological Diversity and Its Protocols

Felicity Keiper et al. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. .

Abstract

The primary international forum deliberating the regulation of "synthetic biology" is the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), along with its subsidiary agreements concerned with the biosafety of living modified organisms (LMOs; Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the CBD), and access and benefit sharing in relation to genetic resources (Nagoya Protocol to the CBD). This discussion has been underway for almost 10 years under the CBD agenda items of "synthetic biology" and "new and emerging issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity," and more recently within the scope of Cartagena Protocol topics including risk assessment and risk management, and "digital sequence information" jointly with the Nagoya Protocol. There is no internationally accepted definition of "synthetic biology," with it used as an umbrella term in this forum to capture "new" biotechnologies and "new" applications of established biotechnologies, whether actual or conceptual. The CBD debates are characterized by polarized views on the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms for "new" types of LMOs, including the scope of the current regulatory frameworks, and procedures and tools for risk assessment and risk mitigation and/or management. This paper provides an overview of international developments in biotechnology regulation, including the application of the Cartagena Protocol and relevant policy developments, and reviews the development of the synthetic biology debate under the CBD and its Protocols, including the major issues expected in the lead up to and during the 2020 Biodiversity Conference.

Keywords: Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety; Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing; biotechnology regulation; digital sequence information; gene drives; living modified organisms; risk assessment; synthetic biology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
The objectives of the CBD and its subsidiary treaties.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Key provisions of the CBD and the Cartagena Protocol.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Sub-fields of biotechnology that may be referred to as synthetic biology in the scientific literature.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Timeline and highlights of synthetic biology and related NEI COP decisions.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
The NEI criteria from COP9 Decision IX/29.
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Summary of issues addressed by the AHTEG on Synthetic Biology in 2015, 2017 and 2019.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Atanassova A., Keiper F. (2018). Plant breeding innovation: a global regulatory perspective. Cereal Chemistry 95 8–16. 10.3389/fpls.2018.01323 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Australian Academy of Science [AAS] (2017). Discussion Paper: Synthetic Gene Drives in Australia – Implications of Emerging Technologies. Canberra: AAS.
    1. Barrett L. G., Legros M., Kumaran N., Glassop D., Raghu S., Gardiner D. M. (2019). Gene drives in plants: opportunities and challenges for weed control and engineered resilience. Proc. R. Soc. B 286:20191515. 10.1098/rspb.2019.1515 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Berg P. (2008). Meetings that changed the world: Asilomar 1975: DNA modification secured. Nature 455 290–291. 10.1038/455290a - DOI - PubMed
    1. Berg P., Baltimore D., Boyer H. W., Cohen S. N., Davis R. W., Hogness D. S., et al. (1974). Potential biohazards of recombinant DNA molecules. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 71 2593–2594. 10.1073/pnas.71.7.2593 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources