Proposal for a microbial semi-commons: Perspectives from the International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups

Flora Katz, Ph.D.Fogarty International CenterNational Institutes of Health

National Academy of SciencesOctober 9, 2009

Potential of microbesfor bioenergy- why look abroad?

The ICBG Model

Challenges and considerations

Discussion points formicrobial semi-commons

Is access to collections from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) important?

• >99% of global microbial diversity unknown and “unculturable”

• Micro-organisms are not uniformly distributed• Developing countries among most bio-diverse

on macroscopic level- likely to translate to micro-organisms

• Have already discovered many new micro-organisms, including new genera and species of actinomycetes, and many promising drug leads from these countries

• Biodiversity threatened and culture collections are not secure in most of these countries

Patagonian tree fungus,Gliocladium roseum, expels hydrocarbon gas which could be used as fuel

Thai scientists discover newspecies of algae that can be used to produce biodiesel

Biomass-degrading fungus from Solomon Islands(genome sequence, DOE)

Swamp forestIn Borneocleared to plant oilpalms forbiofuel

Leads and challenges in LMICs

Two relevant models at NIH for microbe collections from LMIC’s

• National Cancer Institute: Letter of Collection– Contract collections for cancer and HIV

screening– Materials managed by USG– Standard MOU and MTA with

commercialization trigger

• International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups– Investigator-initiated grants for collections and

research– Materials managed by grantees– Unique MOUs and MTAs

International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups (ICBG): A Systems Approach

Benefits

Biodiversity Conservation

BioDiscovery

ICBG Sponsors: DiverseMissions

Benefits (USAID)

Biodiversity Conservation (NSF;

USDA; NOAA)

BioDiscoveryNIH: DrugsUSDA: AgrochemicalsDOE:BioenergyNOAA: All

NIH: National Institutes of HealthUSDA: US Dept. of AgricultureDOE: Dept. of EnergyNOAA: National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

USAID: US Agency forInternational DevelopmentNSF: National Science Foundation

Rationale

• Cost-effective• Mitigate risk for

sponsors• Increase probability of

discovery• Increase impact• Protect the resource

for future discovery

Photo by Mark Hay

ICBG Teams: public-private partnerships

Academic Institutions in US and LMIC

Pharmaceutical, Biotechnology, and Agrochemical Companies

Government entities

Non-governmentalorganizations

Local communities Photo by Don Hahn

Microbial Collections:

Costa Rica*PanamaFiji*UzbekistanTajikistanKyrgystanMadagascarPhilippines*Indonesia*Papua New Guinea

Plant-basedCollections:

ChileArgentinaMexicoVietnamLaosNigeriaCameroonPeru

* Bioenergy collections

ICBG: Source Organisms

Considerations in Agreements

• Guidance consistent with CBD for– Prior informed consent– Access and Benefit sharing (ABS) agreements– Permits, MTAs, and other government documents

• Each country has unique laws or none• Shifting regulations and political landscape• Easiest to negotiate as academic research with

“commercialization trigger”• Average 1-2 years to negotiate• ICBGs have set precedents, allowed on-the-

ground experiments in ABS, and contributed to national policy in multiple countries

Terms of access to microbial resources: two models

• Microbes cannot leave the provider country or they can leave only if accompanied by a country of origin scientist

• Isolated and identified microbial cultures can leave the country under the terms negotiated, for the specific purposes described, and to the parties designated; no third party access without written agreement; all information confidential except with written agreement. Chain of custody documentation. Time limit to destroy, return, or re-negotiate possession of materials.

Benefits

High Risk and Long-term Milestone payments and royalties from a commercialized product/Trust FundsProtection of biodiversityProducts that increase the public health or provide benefits to Society

Low Risk and Near-term Scientific capacity: training, technology transfer, infrastructureResearch collaboration (leverage)Local economic benefits (jobs, micro-enterprise)

Discussion points for a semi-commons I

• Whose Benefit?– Unequal playing field– If LMICs see themselves mainly as providers and not

users of the commons, then open access premise of mutual benefit moot. Act of provision must be balanced by a non-equivalent benefit.

– Suggest include both near-term (e.g. culture collection capacity such as Global Biological Resource Centre Network demonstration project) and long-term (commercialization-triggered) benefits

– Contribute to global good by protecting the resource

Discussion points for a semi-commons II

• Who should benefit? Who owns biodiversity?– Who has authority to provide cultures? May ultimately

be only governments or their agents– Who should receive the benefits? If near term, could

go into building national resource center (like Trust Fund model). For long term, more problematic to identify the appropriate stakeholders

– Ramped IPR: derivatives; rich associated datasets; etc. Is one standard benefit enough?

Discussion points for a semi-commons III

• Documented chain of custody critical– To use benefit as incentive, necessary to track and

acknowledge origin of materials– Community of trust tenuous- all users need to be

documented and give formal consent to terms and conditions

– No informal third party transfers of materials or derivatives

Discussion points for a semi-commons IV

• Progress towards a commons may need to be incremental for these countries to gain experience with the concept and develop trust

• Need to weigh transaction costs against need to protect the resource- transaction costs may serve as an incentive for conservation and stewardship

Panama ICBG

New World Heritage Site

JACS (2008) 130, 6324

Photo by Marcy Balunas

For further information on the ICBG program see:http://www.fic.nih.gov/programs/research_grants/icbg/index.htm