dc.contributor.author | Rourke, Michelle | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-12-20T03:37:47Z | |
dc.date.available | 2021-12-20T03:37:47Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2017 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10072/411064 | |
dc.description.abstract | The purpose of this Opinion article is to inform scientists of the access and benefit-sharing (ABS) laws that could
encroach on their ability to obtain pathogen samples for research purposes. The United Nations’ Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) reaffirms the sovereign right of states over their genetic resources and recommends that
access to such resources occur on mutually agreed terms and with the prior informed consent of eligible providers.
This creates the conditions for a quid pro quo on genetic resources, essentially transforming them into articles of
trade. The CBD cedes the authority to determine the terms of access to genetic resources, including pathogens, to
national governments and this has created a patchwork of domestic ABS regulations around the globe. This article
posits that the current ABS regime creates unacceptable incentives to avoid benefit-sharing obligations that could
irreparably skew the scientific record. Scientists may restrict their research to samples collected from countries with
lax ABS policies, or might even be tempted to misrepresent the provenance of pathogen samples to avoid entering
into protracted and potentially expensive benefit-sharing negotiations. The article concludes that one solution might
be to use Material Transfer Agreements as a chain-of-custody tool until such time as policymakers can reconcile
the ambiguities and inconsistencies of international pathogen sharing regulations. | en_US |
dc.language | English | en_US |
dc.publisher.uri | https://www.jscilaw.org/index.php/archives | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartofissue | 2 | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartofjournal | The Journal of Science and Law | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartofvolume | 3 | en_US |
dc.subject.fieldofresearch | Sociology and social studies of science and technology | en_US |
dc.subject.fieldofresearch | Public health | en_US |
dc.subject.fieldofresearch | Environmental and resources law | en_US |
dc.subject.fieldofresearch | International and comparative law | en_US |
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode | 441007 | en_US |
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode | 4206 | en_US |
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode | 4802 | en_US |
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode | 4803 | en_US |
dc.subject.keywords | Convention on Biological Diversity | en_US |
dc.subject.keywords | Nagoya Protocol | en_US |
dc.subject.keywords | Access and Benefit-Sharing | en_US |
dc.subject.keywords | Genetic Resources | en_US |
dc.subject.keywords | Sovereignty | en_US |
dc.title | On the Origin of Samples: Pathogen Provenance and the Rise of the Material Transfer Agreement | en_US |
dc.type | Journal article | en_US |
dc.type.description | C2 - Articles (Other) | en_US |
dcterms.bibliographicCitation | Rourke, M, On the Origin of Samples: Pathogen Provenance and the Rise of the Material Transfer Agreement, The Journal of Science and Law, 2017, 3 (2) | en_US |
dc.date.updated | 2021-12-20T03:34:09Z | |
gro.hasfulltext | No Full Text | |
gro.griffith.author | Rourke, Michelle F. | |