The ocean genome and future prospects for conservation and equity

Blasiak, Robert; Grorud-Colvert, Kirsten; Thambisetty, Sivaramjani; Bandarra, Narcisa M.; Canário, Adelino V.M.; Silva, Jessica M. da; Duarte, Carlos M.; Jaspars, Marcel; Rogers, AD; Sink, Kerry; Wabnitz, Colette C.C.

doi:10.1038/s41893-020-0522-9

Cited by 52 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 102 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Future work should focus on both the individual trajectories of countries that have already developed their capacity to bioprospect marine resources and the global patterns of cooperation in marine natural products research. For instance, long-term studies focusing on international collaborations, access to biological material, funding, and technology transfer will be able to evaluate whether norms of inclusive innovation and those of responsible research and innovation are being followed ( 16 , 20 ). Ultimately, such information can be used to address how effectively international protocols, such as the Nagoya Protocol, are being implemented and resulting in improved capacity-building and fair and equitable benefit-sharing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…geographic origin) countries, along with training, technology transfer, coauthorship in scientific journal articles, and other activities that improve the capacity of Provider countries to exploit and sustainably manage their biological diversity ( 12 – 14 ). Although the CBD advocates a sustainable use of biological diversity and promotes benefit-sharing and scientific cooperation, its effect on biodiversity and bioprospecting research remains unclear, with potentially negative effects on conservation and collaborative efforts between developed and developing biodiversity-rich countries ( 8 , 15 , 16 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fifty years of capacity building in the search for new marine natural products

Leal¹,

Anaya‐Rojas²,

Munro³

et al. 2020

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Nagoya Protocol in particular, provide a framework for the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of biological resources and traditional knowledge, and ultimately aim to promote capacity-building in the developing world. However, measuring capacity-building is a challenging task due to its intangible nature. By compiling and analyzing a database of scientific peer-reviewed publications over a period of 50 y (1965 to 2015), we investigated capacity-building in global marine natural product discovery. We used publication and authorship metrics to assess how the capacity to become scientifically proficient, prolific, and independent has changed in bioprospecting countries. Our results show that marine bioprospecting is a dynamically growing field of research with continuously increasing numbers of participating countries, publications, and scientists. Yet despite longstanding efforts to promote equitability and scientific independence, not all countries have similarly increased their capacity to explore marine biodiversity within their national jurisdiction areas. Although developing countries show an increasing trend in the number of publications, a few developed countries still account for almost one-half of all publications in the field. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that economic capacity affects how well countries with species-rich marine ecosystems can scientifically explore those resources. Overall, the capacity-building data analyzed here provides a timely contribution to the ongoing international debate about access to and benefit-sharing of biological resources for countries exploring biodiversity within and outside their national jurisdiction areas.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fifty years of capacity building in the search for new marine natural products

Leal¹,

Anaya‐Rojas²,

Munro³

et al. 2020

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over the past century, the development of technologies to locate, extract, and store marine resources has led to large-scale pollution and habitat damage, serial overexploitation of marine species, and devastating fishery collapses (10), as well as the consolidation of catch from distant-water industrial fisheries among a small number of countries (11). Equity gaps continue to widen when developed nations are enriched at the expense of developing nations, particularly where preexisting disparities exist in the capacity to undertake, access, and use scientific research and innovation to collect and expropriate marine resources and absent appropriate mechanisms for equitable sharing of their commercial benefits (12).…”

Section: Science Sustainability and Equitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Will understanding the ocean lead to “the ocean we want”?

Singh

Harden‐Davies

Allison

et al. 2021

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We also worked with a larger group of scientists and policy or legal experts, totalling more than 250 people from 48 countries or regions, to produce syntheses of knowledge and options for action on topics identified by the Ocean Panel (go.nature.com/3nnowty and go.nature.com/2j8c51b). The 19 syntheses ranged from food 5 , energy and mineral production (go.nature.com/3m9jdod),genetic resources 6 and conservation 6 (go.nature.com/376dapp) to climate change (go.nature.com/3m52poz), technology 7 , equity (go.nature.com/378hjjy), illegal fishing 8 , crime 9 and ocean accounting 10 (go.nature.com/39gpims).…”

Section: Hidden Crisismentioning

confidence: 99%