Loren Rieseberg is a Professor in the Department of Botany at the University of British Columbia (UBC), and serves as Chief Editor of Molecular Ecology. Loren also founded Molecular Ecology Resources jointly with Wiley close to two decades ago.
At present, there is little awareness that scientific researchers regularly incorporate benefit-sharing into their research. We believe that identification of benefits generated will help the general public, policymakers, and influencers better understand current practices in the research community, as well as the value of such research for biodiversity conservation and capacity building. We also suspect that asking researchers to report on benefit-sharing will encourage them to evaluate their own research practices to ensure that they are fully aligned with the CBD and Nagoya Protocol agreements.
Can you tell us about Molecular Ecology and Molecular Ecology Resources?
These are two of the top basic science journals in ecology and evolution. Molecular Ecology was established in 1992 and publishes circa 350 articles annually, which makes it one of the largest journals in ecology or evolution. Molecular Ecology Resources was launched in 2001 and publishes about half as many papers (We also have an accompanying blog for Molecular Ecology).
What types of research, articles or papers do Molecular Ecology and Molecular Ecology Resources publish and who is the targeted audience?
The two journals mainly publish primary research articles, although we also publish reviews, perspectives and comments. Contributions to Molecular Ecology are expected to use molecular genetic techniques to address consequential questions in ecology, evolution, behaviour, and conservation. Molecular Ecology Resources focuses more on the development of broad resources for the molecular ecology community, including computer programs, statistical and molecular advances, and extensive molecular tools.
How did the editors of Molecular Ecology and Molecular Ecology Resources first learn about the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS)?
We have been aware of the Nagoya Protocol and its implications for biodiversity research for more than a decade. I first learned about it through discussions with a colleague at UBC, Emily Marden, who is an expert on Protocol and its implementation. She also is the first author of our editorial in support of the Protocol (see below).
Molecular Ecology and Molecular Ecology Resources published a joint editorial in the Wiley Online Library in October 2020 in support of the Protocol and ABS. Can you tell us more about this editorial?
Our editorial was intended to express our support for the Nagoya Protocol and the principle of benefit-sharing, as well as to educate our authors and readers about their responsibilities under the Protocol. We introduced a requirement that research published in the journal be compliant with the CBD and Nagoya Protocol agreements. In addition, we revised our Data Accessibility Statement (now Data Accessibility and Benefit-Sharing Statement) to encourage authors to disclose benefits generated by their research under the Nagoya Protocol (see our author guidelines).
What is the importance of including the Benefit-Sharing and Data Accessibility statements by authors who publish their research through these two journals?
At present, there is little awareness that scientific researchers regularly incorporate benefit-sharing into their research. We believe that identification of benefits generated will help the general public, policymakers, and influencers better understand current practices in the research community, as well as the value of such research for biodiversity conservation and capacity building. We also suspect that asking researchers to report on benefit-sharing will encourage them to evaluate their own research practices to ensure that they are fully aligned with the CBD and Nagoya Protocol agreements.
How many benefit-sharing statements are included in papers submitted and/or what are the percentage of authors who include them?
I did not have an automated way of getting this information, but I was able to get information on our question about whether papers were compliant with the Nagoya Protocol (see table below). About two thirds of papers claim to be compliant and one third claim that the Protocol is not applicable to their research.
Form/types of benefit-sharing contained in those paragraphs/most common or interesting benefits shared:
I did pull out 23 benefit-sharing statements from papers published in 2022.
Most Frequent: Benefits from this research accrue from the sharing of our data and results on public databases (all statements, although the wording varied).
Also Common: Research will inform conservation efforts (6 statements)
Also Common: A research collaboration was developed with scientists from the countries providing genetic samples, and all collaborators were included as coauthors (4 statements).
Other: Results shared with provider community (3 statements). 21 of the 23 papers I looked at included authors from country of origin.
What led you to the decision to ask authors to comply with the Protocol?
We felt that scientific journals publishing research on biodiversity could play an important role in implementing the Nagoya Protocol and in reporting on benefits generated from such research. Thus, we decided to take the lead in doing so, with the hope that other journals will follow suit.
How was this decision received by your publisher Wiley-Blackwell and authors?
Both Wiley and our authors have been very supportive.
Have you got any feedback from contributors or others?
Feedback has been uniformly positive so far. An example is a published comment by Liggins et al. (2021, Molecular Ecology 30: 2477-2482) who write:
“Such acknowledgement and advocacy of Indigenous rights and interests in biodiversity and genetic resources once again affirms Molecular Ecology and Molecular Ecology Resources as leaders seeking the improvement of research ethics and best practice in the fields of ecology and evolution.”
Liggins et al. went on to invite the molecular ecology research community to use Biocultural Labels and Notices with the goal of extending indigenous interests into our research programs and data repositories. Such Labels and Notices support the Nagoya Protocol requirement to disclose the origin/source of genetic resources, which the journals’ back.
What have been the main challenges in making this transition and do you think it has been achieved?
The proportion of papers reporting on benefit-sharing is slowly increasing, but it is not where we want it to be. We have been reluctant to make such reporting mandatory, but it is something we will discuss at our Editorial Board meeting this summer.
How do you deal with a paper submitted to your journal that may not respect the principles of the Nagoya Protocol?
If a paper was not compliant with the Nagoya Protocol, we likely would decline to publish it.
What are some of the challenges that authors have in reporting benefits or complying with the Protocol?
Studies often include populations and data from a variety of sources, and it can be challenging to ascertain whether all such collections and data are compliant with the Protocol. Another confusing issue concerns the use of historical collections and data from them. Also, many studies include organisms from several different countries, which may have different rules and which may or may not be parties to the Nagoya Protocol.
In the editorial, the editors state that reporting on biodiversity research and benefit-sharing from research could support the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Can you elaborate on this view?
We believe that providing information about benefit-sharing in a transparent and consistent manner may be important in demonstrating the broad value of such research to the country providing the biodiversity resources, as well as in promoting biodiversity conservation. Such reporting may also promote further research and research support, setting into motion a “virtuous circle” between scientists and policy makers that further enhances biodiversity research and conservation.
What advice do you have for other journals or publishers who are interested in supporting compliance with the Nagoya Protocol?
You will need to educate your authors about non-monetary benefits under the Nagoya Protocol. Thus, be sure to include a link to the Nagoya Protocol Annex that lists such benefits in your instructions to authors. Also, I recommend including several sample statements so authors have a better idea of what kinds of information should be included in their Benefit-Sharing Statement.
Have you found your work on this has helped to raise-awareness for the Nagoya Protocol and ABS?
Yes, many of our editors and authors were unfamiliar with the Nagoya Protocol prior to our editorial and unaware that the Protocol and ABS might apply to their research.
Do you have any advice to give policy makers attending the 2022 UN Biodiversity Conference in China to take decisions on policy related to ABS and the Nagoya Protocol? Alternatively, do you know of or have published papers or are aware of academic researchers being organized to lobby the CBD at the 2022 UN Biodiversity Conference?
I would advise that scientific journals offer a useful venue for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol and the reporting of benefits. I envision something similar to what we have done in Molecular Ecology and Molecular Ecology Resources, where compliance with the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol is required for publication, and authors are asked to report on benefits from their research in a benefit-sharing statement. This could offer a standardized way of tracking implementation and/or benefit-sharing across national boundaries and would ensure that the principles of the Nagoya Protocol are followed, even when researchers/biodiversity are from countries that are not parties to the Protocol.