IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0195885.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How ownership rights over microorganisms affect infectious disease control and innovation: A root-cause analysis of barriers to data sharing as experienced by key stakeholders

Author

Listed:
  • Carolina dos S Ribeiro
  • Martine Y van Roode
  • George B Haringhuizen
  • Marion P Koopmans
  • Eric Claassen
  • Linda H M van de Burgwal

Abstract

Background: Genetic information of pathogens is an essential input for infectious disease control, public health and for research. Efficiency in preventing and responding to global outbreaks relies on timely access to such information. Still, ownership barriers stand in the way of timely sharing of genetic data from pathogens, frustrating efficient public health responses and ultimately the potential use of such resources in innovations. Under a One Health approach, stakeholders, their interests and ownership issues are manifold and need to be investigated. We interviewed key actors from governmental and non-governmental bodies to identify overlapping and conflicting interests, and the overall challenges for sharing pathogen data, to provide essential inputs to the further development of political and practical strategies for improved data sharing practices. Methods & findings: To identify and prioritize barriers, 52 Key Opinion Leaders were interviewed. A root-cause analysis was performed to identify causal relations between barriers. Finally, barriers were mapped to the innovation cycle reflecting how they affect the range of surveillance, innovation, and sharing activities. Four main barrier categories were found: compliance to regulations, negative consequences, self-interest, and insufficient incentives for compliance. When grouped in sectors (research institutes, public health organizations, supra-national organizations and industry) stakeholders appear to have similar interests, more than when grouped in domains (human, veterinary and food). Considering the innovation process, most of barriers could be mapped to the initial stages of the innovation cycle as sampling and sequencing phases. These are stages of primary importance to outbreak control and public health response. A minority of barriers applied to later stages in the innovation cycle, which are of more importance to product development. Conclusion: Overall, barriers are complex and entangled, due to the diversity of causal factors and their crosscutting features. Therefore, barriers must be addressed in a comprehensive and integrated manner. Stakeholders have different interests highlighting the diversity in motivations for sharing pathogen data: prioritization of public health, basic research, economic welfare and/or innovative capacity. Broad inter-sectorial discussions should start with the alignment of these interests within sectors. The improved sharing of pathogen data, especially in upstream phases of the innovation process, will generate substantial public health benefits through increased availability of data to inform surveillance systems, as well as to allow the (re-)use of data for the development of medical countermeasures to control infectious diseases.

Suggested Citation

  • Carolina dos S Ribeiro & Martine Y van Roode & George B Haringhuizen & Marion P Koopmans & Eric Claassen & Linda H M van de Burgwal, 2018. "How ownership rights over microorganisms affect infectious disease control and innovation: A root-cause analysis of barriers to data sharing as experienced by key stakeholders," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0195885
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195885
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0195885
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0195885&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0195885?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dedeurwaerdere, Tom & Melindi-Ghidi, Paolo & Broggiato, Arianna, 2016. "Global scientific research commons under the Nagoya Protocol: Towards a collaborative economy model for the sharing of basic research assets," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P1), pages 1-10.
    2. Swanson, Timothy & Goschl, Timo, 2000. "Property rights issues involving plant genetic resources: implications of ownership for economic efficiency," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 75-92, January.
    3. Michael W Carroll, 2015. "Sharing Research Data and Intellectual Property Law: A Primer," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-11, August.
    4. Nathan L. Yozwiak & Stephen F. Schaffner & Pardis C. Sabeti, 2015. "Data sharing: Make outbreak research open access," Nature, Nature, vol. 518(7540), pages 477-479, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Susanne Droege & Birgit Soete, 2001. "Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights, North-South Trade, and Biological Diversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 149-163, June.
    2. Ramesh Govindaraj & Gnanaraj Chellaraj, 2002. "The Indian Pharmaceutical Sector : Issues and Options for Health Sector Reform," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 15231, December.
    3. Pascual, Unai & Narloch, Ulf & Nordhagen, Stella & Drucker, Adam G., 2011. "The economics of agrobiodiversity conservation for food security under climate change," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 11(01), pages 1-30, November.
    4. Gerzaín Avilés-Polanco & David J. Jefferson & Marco Antonio Almendarez-Hernández & Luis Felipe Beltrán-Morales, 2019. "Factors That Explain the Utilization of the Nagoya Protocol Framework for Access and Benefit Sharing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    5. Federica Scaffidi, 2019. "Soft power in recycling spaces: Exploring spatial impacts of regeneration and youth entrepreneurship in Southern Italy," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 34(7), pages 632-656, November.
    6. Dedeurwaerdere, Tom, 2005. "From bioprospecting to reflexive governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 473-491, June.
    7. Meisam Ranjbari & Gustavo Morales-Alonso & Ruth Carrasco-Gallego, 2018. "Conceptualizing the Sharing Economy through Presenting a Comprehensive Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-24, July.
    8. Douglas Gollin, 2020. "Conserving genetic resources for agriculture: economic implications of emerging science," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(5), pages 919-927, October.
    9. Baumgartner, Stefan & Becker, Christian & Faber, Malte & Manstetten, Reiner, 2006. "Relative and absolute scarcity of nature. Assessing the roles of economics and ecology for biodiversity conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 487-498, October.
    10. Wenjuan Cheng & Alessio D’Amato & Giacomo Pallante, 2020. "Benefit sharing mechanisms for agricultural genetic diversity use and on-farm conservation," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 37(1), pages 337-355, April.
    11. Kremer, Michael & Zwane, Alix Peterson, 2005. "Encouraging Private Sector Research for Tropical Agriculture," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 87-105, January.
    12. Padmanabhan, Martina Aruna, 2006. "Collective action in plant genetic resources management: gendered rules of reputation, trust and reciprocity in Kerala, India," CAPRi working papers 56, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Christopher Allen & David M A Mehler, 2019. "Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-14, May.
    14. Dedeurwaerdere, Tom & Krishna, Vijesh V. & Pascual, Unai, 2005. "Biodiscovery And Intellectual Property Rights: A Dynamic Approach To Economic Efficiency," Environmental Economy and Policy Research Discussion Papers 31928, University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economy.
    15. Changhee Lee & Yulseong Kim & Youngran Shin, 2021. "Data Usage and the Legal Stability of Transactions for the Commercial Operation of Autonomous Vessels Based on Digital Ownership in Korean Civil Law," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-18, July.
    16. Bradley Voytek, 2016. "The Virtuous Cycle of a Data Ecosystem," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-6, August.
    17. Yang-Ming Chang & Kyle Ross, 2009. "Biodiversity, intellectual property rights and north-south trade," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(2), pages 992-1002.
    18. Pei-Ying Kobres & Jean-Paul Chretien & Michael A Johansson & Jeffrey J Morgan & Pai-Yei Whung & Harshini Mukundan & Sara Y Del Valle & Brett M Forshey & Talia M Quandelacy & Matthew Biggerstaff & Ceci, 2019. "A systematic review and evaluation of Zika virus forecasting and prediction research during a public health emergency of international concern," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-21, October.
    19. Tisdell, Clement A., 2006. "Global Property Rights in Genetic Resources: An Economic Assessment," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 55095, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    20. Richerzhagen, Carmen & Holm-Mueller, Karin, 2005. "The effectiveness of access and benefit sharing in Costa Rica: implications for national and international regimes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 445-460, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0195885. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.