Institutional Drift in International Biotechnology Regulation

Abstract

Digitalization, genome editing and synthetic biology are presently leading to fundamental changes in the field of biotechnology. At the same time, international regulatory institutions have largely failed to adapt to those changes. This text evaluates the role of interests, knowledge and institutional factors for explaining nonadaptation, or ‘institutional drift’. Focusing on the domains of biosafety, biosecurity and genetic resources, the analysis highlights the explanatory power of knowledge and, to a lesser extent, interests, with institutional factors playing only a minor role. With global governance having to cope with profound changes in various technological fields, the text thus shows the broader importance of understanding the conditions under which international institutions do, or do not, adapt.

Enabling Trade in Gene-Edited Produce in Asia and Australasia: The Developing Regulatory Landscape and Future Perspectives

“…There is a real need to include current scientific knowledge on GEd products in the context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which deals with the environmental release of biotech crops. Without clarity on the regulatory status of GE crops in the international treaty process, efforts to harmonize regulations will be more difficult and can lead to institutional drift [ 50 ]. The benefits of international GEd policy harmonization may be achieved more rapidly through negotiation simulations, science policy/diplomacy education [ 51 ], policy advocacy platforms [ 52 ], and grant structures [ 53 ].…”

The Interaction of Biotechnology and Institution: A Stakeholder Perspective

“…Particularly, the discoveries, invention, and application of biotechnologies are leading to the emergence of the bioeconomy [3][4][5]. Nevertheless, recent biotechnologies have increasingly generated practical issues and regulatory challenges [6][7][8]. The misuse of biotechnology could be harmful to the environment or biodiversity, and concerns have been raised concerning the uncertainty of people's health, ethical issues, biosecurity, etc.…”

“…In addition to practice, the development of biotechnology has received broad interest among researchers [6,9,14,15]. Prior studies have noted the importance of biotechnologyrelated institutions in various aspects [9,[16][17][18][19], particularly in promoting the development of biotechnology [20].…”