*** Posted on behalf of the moderator, Mr. Martin Batič (Slovenia)***

Dear Participants,

Welcome to the Open-Ended Online Forum on Synthetic Biology!

My name is Martin Batič. I am Head of the Biotechnology Section at the Ministry of Environment, Climate and Energy of the Republic of Slovenia and the national focal point for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. I am also Secretary General of the Slovenian Scientific Committee for the deliberate release of LMOs into the environment. I hold a PhD in Biotechnology. I have previously been a member of the AHTEGs on synthetic biology.

Under this thread, we will be discussing the current benefits of synthetic biology in relation to the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Diversity Framework (KMGBF). Thus, this discussion is focused on identifying and understanding the concrete benefits that are currently being obtained from synthetic biology.

To start the discussions, I would like to ask you the following:
What are the current benefits of synthetic biology in relation to the Convention and the KMGBF? Which targets are impacted and how?
What has been reported benefits of synthetic biology in relation to the Convention and the KMGBF?

Under this item, it will be important to provide examples and references. Thus, in sharing information, I kindly ask you to provide DOI links (or URLs where DOIs are unavailable).

I look forward to the fruitful discussions,

Martin Batič

Dear Participants,

The Open-Ended Online Forum is now open.

Kind regards,

The Secretariat

Dear Forum,
The role of synthetic biology products in conserving biodiversity seems more clearer in the food industry. Through the development of plant-based meat substitutes and the use of microorganisms such as yeast to produce additives, sweeteners, and probiotics developed by companies like Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat. These companies have demonstrated how engineered biological systems can replicate animal-based products with significantly lower land requirements, thus indirectly helping to preserve local habitats.
In the Medical field synthetic biology has been used to develop mRNA vaccines, the impact of this on biodiversity conservation though is up for discussion.

https://hudsonlabautomation.com/what-products-are-the-result-of-synthetic-biology/#:~:text=Synthetic%20biology%20products%20in%20the,(attenuating)%20a%20live%20virus.

Thanks
Dr. V. Samukange

Today, synthetic biology can play a leading role in environmental bioremediation focused on decontaminating soils and water polluted by hydrocarbons and pesticides. By utilizing genetically modified microorganisms (GMs), this initiative embodies an innovative approach to environmental biotechnology, aiming to sustainably restore ecosystems affected by industrial and agricultural activities while reducing the health risks associated with prolonged exposure to contaminants. These microorganisms will accelerate the degradation of persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals, rehabilitate degraded natural environments, and promote safer management of contaminated sites.
Pr Harouna Issa Amadou, Universiy Abdou Moumouni; Niger

Dear Colleagues,
In the context of the repeated mention of environmental bioremediation by microbes in this forum and in related topics:
• #3504 — Harouna Issa Amadou (Niger): GMMs for decontaminating soils/water (hydrocarbons, pesticides)
• #3545 — Aqwin Polosoro (Indonesia): Engineered microbial systems for pollutant degradation
• #3557 — Ediner Fuentes-Campos (Panama): Bioremediation linked to Targets 2 & 7
• #3598 — Nancy Serrano Silva (Mexico): Bioremediation applications, T7 & T17
• #3602 — Lorrie Boisvert (Canada): Bioremediation as strategic pathway
• #3620 — Lúcia de Souza (Brazil): Biosensors & bioremediation for T7
I would like to raise the importance of biosecurity training, particularly in the context of capacity building efforts of the CBD. Many bioremediation approaches — though certainly not all — rely on what has been termed broad-spectrum horizontal gene transfer. There are numerous documents addressing the biosecurity risks associated with broad-spectrum horizontal gene transfer, among the most notable being:
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018). Biodefense in the Age of Synthetic Biology. https://doi.org/10.17226/24890
While not directly addressed in the main aims of the CBD treaty, the following products — one already commercially available in Brazil — exploit broad-spectrum horizontal gene transfer via conjugal plasmids:
BiomElixONE (Folium Science) Escherichia coli provided as part of an animal feed supplement, containing two plasmids, one of which is conjugative to Salmonella enterica, killing this pathogenic bacterium in meat animals. https://foliumscience.com/products/
flourish.bio Re-designs the innate bacterial immune system (CRISPR) to specifically control disease-causing pathogens in crops via foliar or soil application, or seed treatment. https://flourish.bio/#innovation
These approaches can be traced back to the following foundational 2014 publications:
• Bikard, D., et al. (2014). Exploiting CRISPR-Cas nucleases to produce sequence-specific antimicrobials. Nature Biotechnology, 32, 1146–1150. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3043
• Citorik, R. J., et al. (2014). Sequence-specific antimicrobials using efficiently delivered RNA-guided nucleases. Nature Biotechnology, 32, 1141–1145. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3011
I think it is important to understand how — or whether — the various risks associated with these techniques (see NAS report above)  are being mitigated through effective regulation, and to ensure that any enthusiasm for and knowledge transfer relating to these techniques is accompanied by appropriate biosecurity awareness training.

Best regards,
Guy Reeves

Dear Forum,

I am Slavomir Rakousky, member of the Czech Committee for GMOs and Products, which is an advisory body of the Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic. I graduated from Faculty of Science, Charles University in biology and specialized in plant genetics. My professional activities (science and university teaching) were related mainly to genetic modification of plants and their safety. Especially safety aspects brought me to participate in numerous international events, including also CBD.
Thank you very much for your interesting and stimulating discussions on current benefits of synthetic biology (SB). Already one of the first messages [#3503] posted in the Section The current benefits   (Topic 1), points to the role of SB in conserving biodiversity in relation to the food industry., e.g. on an example of plant-based meat substitutes development. It mentions also that companies have demonstrated positive effect of engineered biological systems to the lowering of land requirements needed for a product equivalent. On the other hand, contribution [#3510] turns our attention to a more realistic view of SB, declaring that many SB applications still remain at a proof-of-concept or pilot scale. Another fact is, that the actual data about energy consumption, land requirements, carbon trace, etc. of SB systems are not so frequent yet.
Due to the current knowledge boom, accelerated technological progress and use of AI, the situation could change soon. On of such examples is Czech biotechnology startup, BeneMeat Technologies (BMT), which in collaboration with scientists from the Czech Technical University in Prague, presented the first comprehensive life cycle assessment (LCA) study focused on the industrial cultivation of meat.

LCA study (2024) data on cultivated meat: [1]
• Land use only 3.1 m2/year per kilogram of meat (expected improvement to 2.0 m2/year)
• Greenhouse gas emissions 5.28 kg CO2 eq. per 1 kg of meat (potential gradually to reduce to 3.29 CO2 eq.); for comparison, producing 1 kg of beef generates 20  ̶ 100 kg CO2 eq., depending on type of farming [2]
=> cultivated meat has significantly lower environmental impacts than conventional livestock farming

This study has been peer-reviewed by an LCA expert from the University of Nottingham and following its conclusions provides the most accurate insight to date into the environmental impacts of cultivated meat production at an industrial scale.
Most of technologies used so far to produce meat substitutes is based on plant resources [3-5]. Instead of plant biomass Bene Meat has successfully applied animal cell cultivation in bioreactors, what enables safer and scalable production. Company has introduced numerous innovations including also composition of Its cultivation medium, which does not contain foetal bovine serum or any other animal-derived components. Cultivated meat thus offers safer, and more sustainable way to meet global demand for high-quality protein without doing concessions in safety, efficiency, or ethics. Company has already registered the production of cultivated meat as an ingredient for pet food, and its raw material is listed in the EU Feed Materials Register. Bene Meat aims to have a pet food product using its cultivated meat biomass in the market this year 2026. [6]

Regards to all,
Slavomir Rakousky

KMGBF Targets
Target 8: Minimize the Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity
Target 10: Enhance Biodiversity and Sustainability in Agriculture
Target 16  Sustainable Consumption Choices

References & URL:
1) https://www.benemeat.com/feeds2/peer-reviewed-lca-study/
2) Ritchie, H. The carbon footprint of foods: are differences explained by the impacts of methane? Our World in Data, 2020.https://archive.ourworldindata.org/20251125-173858/carbon-footprint-food-methane.html
3) Voigt, C.A. Synthetic biology 2020-2030: six commercially-available products that are changing our world. Nat Commun., 2020, 11(1): 6379.  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7733420/
4) Andrade, T. N., et al. Exploring new plant-based products: Acceptance of sunflower meal as a protein source in meat alternative products. Food Research International, 2025; 209: 116158. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2025.116158
5) van Vliet, S., et al.  A metabolomics comparison of plant-based meat and grass-fed meat indicates large nutritional differences despite comparable Nutrition Facts panels. Scientific Reports, 2021; 11 (1), 13828.  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-93100-3
6) https://www.benemeat.com/

Synthetic biology offers Niger significant opportunities to strengthen food security. By using synthetic biology tools such as CRISPR and genome editing, it is possible to increase the productivity of staple crops like millet, sorghum, and cowpeas. INRAN, in collaboration with universities, uses integrated approaches combining genetic selection, bioengineering, and molecular biology to develop varieties adapted to Sahelian conditions by introducing genes for tolerance to drought, heat, and pests into improved varieties to boost their yields.
Harouna Issa Amadou, Niger

My name is Semia Gharbi from AEEFG from Tunisia
The Synthetic biology refers to the design and construction of new biological parts, organisms, or systems or the redesign of existing ones using engineering principles. The negative impacts can be creating new food chaine which will disturb the natural one. Also creating e.g microroganisms to degradate plastics can be subject of forms of resistance for microbes. We know that the evolution science takes a long time to develop new organisms but the time of millenum to millions of years is very important to adapt. This new evolution can harm the natural ecosystems as the time is squeezed

*** Posted on behalf of Ms. Angela Makuvise, Zimbabwe ***

My name is Angela Makuvise from the National University  of Science and Technology, Zimbabwe.  Synthetic biology has a lot of benefits in our settings. Currently we are developing diagnostic protocols for screening several arboviruses such CCHFV in low resource settings using recombinant antigens. I am also currently involved in  an enzyme production project, where we are bioprospecting for enzymes that we can use in research and school set-ups. This project aim to relief us on importation  hurdles and we intend to engineer this enzymes to meet some industrial demands.

Dear all,

I would like to share three examples from China that illustrate current benefits of synthetic biology and related biotechnologies in relation to the KMGBF targets.

Professor Sen Wu at China Agricultural University has made significant advances in genome-edited pigs. Their Verispr multiplex editing technology, published in Genome Research in 2025, enables homozygous editing of seven or more genes in pigs within five months, dramatically accelerating the production of donor pigs for xenotransplantation [1]. The team has also developed a Type I-C CRISPR system from Desulfovibrio vulgaris for efficient mammalian genome editing [2].

Importantly, this research capacity has translated into current infrastructure benefits. In January 2026, the team established a joint laboratory with Dongguan People's Hospital in the Greater Bay Area, creating the region's first xenotransplantation research center. According to Professor Wu, the laboratory has access to "the world's largest self-supplied pig herd" for xenotransplantation research. This represents a current capacity-building benefit under Target 20 (capacity building and technology transfer).

At the Baoji Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Shaanxi Province, researchers have been using molecular breeding, gene editing, and shoot tip detoxification to develop higher-yielding, disease-resistant crops. The locally developed soybean variety "Baodou No 10" contains 43% protein and has significantly increased farmers' incomes, with one farmer reporting: "I earn tens of thousands of yuan more each year. It's all thanks to the new varieties" [3]. Another variety, "Baodou 1519", has achieved a record yield of 302 kg per mu (approximately 4.5 tons per hectare) [3]. Sweet potato varieties developed through virus-free seedling technology can yield up to 6,000 kg per mu [3]. These varieties are now planted across multiple provinces, representing a current, widespread benefit to agricultural productivity under Target 10 (sustainable agriculture).

I hope these contributions are useful for the AHTEG's discussions.
Best regards,
Zhaoqi

References

[1] Duan X, Chen C, Du C, et al. Homozygous editing of multiple genes for accelerated generation of xenotransplantation pigs. Genome Research. 2025;35(5):1167-1178. DOI: 10.1101/gr.279709.124

[2] Li P, Dong D, Gao F, et al. Versatile and efficient mammalian genome editing with Type I-C CRISPR System. Science China Life Sciences. 2024;67(11):2489-2501. DOI: 10.1007/s11427-024-2682-1

[3] China Daily. Science fuels farm yields in Shaanxi. January 7, 2026. Available at: https://www.ecns.cn/m/news/economy/2026-01-07/detail-iheyrzrv3837344.shtml

Dear colleagues,

I’m Danilo Fernández Ríos from Paraguay, i’m a research professor at the National University of Asunción.

Synthetic biology can be considered a platform technology that spans sectors, including energy, chemicals, biomedicine, biodiversity, the environment, and agriculture. It holds significant promise and potential for diverse applications, with the greatest benefits anticipated in developing nations.

Several examples of synthetic biology in the production of industrial materials, such as antibiotics, enzymes, coenzymes, and catalysts, highlight the significant contributions that synthetic biology has already made in this field (Amer & Baidoo, 2021; Chai et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2017; Pan et al., 2022; Zhang & Wang, 2022). Synthetic biology can also play a significant role in the development of environmental biosensors, as microbial DNA often encodes resistance to heavy metals. These sequences can be paired with suitable reporters to measure these contaminants in soil and water (Hui et al., 2024; Olaya‐Abril et al., 2024; Roy et al., 2024).

Paraguay recognizes that synthetic biology can significantly advance the goals of the CBD and the KMGBF Targets. Our domestic policies have already addressed several targets, particularly Target 8, which focuses on mitigation and adaptation, enhancing carbon efficiency, and developing alternatives to carbon-intensive materials. Additionally, Target 10, which involves sustainable agriculture and applications such as biocontrol, biofertilization, and bioestimulation to alleviate environmental stress, has been subject to technical analysis. We are also actively engaged in discussions about Target 20, which emphasizes capacity building, technology transfer, and cooperation, as our nation invests in resources and human talent with expertise in biotechnology governance and environmental protection goals.

The governance framework for biotechnology in Paraguay has accumulated significant experience since 1997 (Benitez Candia et al., 2024). Consequently, regulatory frameworks should not pose a barrier; rather, they should serve as a catalyst for the responsible development of products derived from synthetic biology. Nearly all products are encompassed by the existing regulatory system for LMOs. The principles that guide the risk assessment of LMOs are fully applicable to most synthetic biology products, which are already within the scope of the CPB.

References cited
Amer, B., & Baidoo, E. E. K. (2021). Omics-Driven Biotechnology for Industrial Applications. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 9, 613307. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.613307

Benitez Candia, N., Ulke, G., Sotelo Torres, P. H., Nara, E. M., Arrúa Alvarenga, A., & Fernández Ríos, D. (2024). Paraguay’s approach to biotechnology governance: A comprehensive guide. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1373473

Chai, M., Deng, C., Chen, Q., Lu, W., Liu, Y., Li, J., Du, G., Lv, X., & Liu, L. (2021). Synthetic Biology Toolkits and Metabolic Engineering Applied in Corynebacterium glutamicum for Biomanufacturing. ACS Synthetic Biology, 10(12), 3237–3250. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.1c00355

Hui, C., Liu, M., & Guo, Y. (2024). Synthetic bacteria designed using ars operons: A promising solution for arsenic biosensing and bioremediation. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 40(6), 192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-024-04001-2

Lee, S. Q. E., Tan, T. S., Kawamukai, M., & Chen, E. S. (2017). Cellular factories for coenzyme Q10 production. Microbial Cell Factories, 16(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-017-0646-4

Olaya‐Abril, A., Biełło, K., Rodríguez‐Caballero, G., Cabello, P., Sáez, L. P., Moreno‐Vivián, C., Luque‐Almagro, V. M., & Roldán, M. D. (2024). Bacterial tolerance and detoxification of cyanide, arsenic and heavy metals: Holistic approaches applied to bioremediation of industrial complex wastes. Microbial Biotechnology, 17(1), e14399. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.14399

Pan, X., Xu, L., Li, Y., Wu, S., Wu, Y., & Wei, W. (2022). Strategies to Improve the Biosynthesis of β-Lactam Antibiotics by Penicillin G Acylase: Progress and Prospects. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 10, 936487. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.936487

Roy, R., Samanta, S., Pandit, S., Naaz, T., Banerjee, S., Rawat, J. M., Chaubey, K. K., & Saha, R. P. (2024). An Overview of Bacteria-Mediated Heavy Metal Bioremediation Strategies. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 196(3), 1712–1751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-023-04614-7

Zhang, L., & Wang, Q. (2022). Harnessing P450 Enzyme for Biotechnology and Synthetic Biology. ChemBioChem, 23(3), e202100439. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbic.202100439

Hi everyone. I am Pat Thomas, Director of Beyond GM and A Bigger Conversation, two linked UK-based civil society initiatives engaged in cross-sectoral analysis, dialogue, and policy engagement on genetic and synthetic biotechnologies. I think in considering the current and potential benefits of synthetic biology, it may be helpful to distinguish between technical capability and demonstrated societal/environmental benefit. Many applications remain at proof-of-concept or pilot scale. The transition from laboratory success to equitable, environmentally sustainable, and socially beneficial outcomes is far from automatic. It seems to me important to assess not only whether synthetic biology can produce a desired trait or compound, but whether doing so enhances resilience, biodiversity, farmer autonomy, and food sovereignty – or whether it increases technological lock-in and intellectual property concentration. Far too many claims of benefits are built on promises of what might, possibly, eventually happen, but has not yet happened and is not yet proven.

*** Posted on behalf of the moderator, Mr. Martin Batič ***

Dear Participants, 
 
Thank you for providing the examples of plant-based meat substitutes, mRNA vaccines and the recombinant Factor C. 
 
I would like to remind participants that under the discussions on current benefits, it would be insightful for the AHTEG to continue to share examples with references to demonstrate if there are current benefits being obtained from the synthetic biology. It would be interesting to hear how these address the targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
 
For more general examples of the potential to use synthetic biology to obtain a benefit in the context of the KMGBF, kindly use the other thread on potential benefits of synthetic biology under Topic 1. 
 
I look forward to your continued engagement,
 
Martin

Thank you for the prod Martin.

In relation to current benefits and the KMGBF, one example often cited is recombinant Factor C as an alternative to harvesting horseshoe crab blood for endotoxin testing. This application may relate most directly to Target 9 (sustainable use of wild species), provided there is evidence that substitution has measurably reduced harvesting pressure on wild populations.

It may be helpful, as the discussion progresses, to distinguish between:
(i) contained industrial applications where biodiversity benefits depend on demonstrated displacement of extractive practices, and
(ii) open-environment applications, where large-scale ecological deployment, and therefore evaluation, remains limited.

Many cited current benefits are strongest in industrial contained substitution systems; claims of biodiversity benefit under the KMGBF – above what it might have occurred without the intervention – become persuasive when they show measurable ecological indicators (e.g. reduced harvesting pressure, reduced pollution loads, reduced habitat conversion) attributable to real-world deployment.

• Voigt CA. Synthetic biology 2020-2030: six commercially-available products that are changing our world. Nat Commun. 2020 Dec 11;11(1):6379. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7733420/
• ETC Group, Synthetic Biology, Biodiversity & Farmers, ETC 2016 https://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/etc_synbiocasestudies_2016.pdf
• Kandemir B et al. A Systematic Review of Synthetic Biology - A New Era in Biopharmaceutical Drug Development. BioMed J Sci Tech Res. 2020 Jul 24. https://biomedres.us/fulltexts/BJSTR.MS.ID.004753.php

Dear Moderator and Participants,

To support the discussion on current benefits, I would like to share the experience of the Crop Biotechnology Center, Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice), Philippines. Here, synthetic biology (specifically Synthetic Genomics) is currently serving as a critical enabling technology for national research infrastructure and biosafety capacity-building (Target 17 & 20).

We are utilizing synthetic biology for vector construction using synthesized Rice Tungro Virus (RTV) genomes. While this project is in the laboratory stage, the benefit is already "current": it allows our national program to develop standardized, high-precision tools for resistance screening that do not rely on the unpredictable collection of field isolates. This strengthens our national capacity to manage plant pathogens in a controlled and biosecure manner.

Furthermore, our on-going work using synthesized gene fragments for submergence-tolerant rice, high beta carotene rice, and pest-resistant corn gene editing (knock-in) is conducted under a robust national regulatory framework. Specifically, the Philippines’ DA Memorandum Circular No. 08 (Series of 2022) provides a clear, science-based pathway for evaluating products of Plant Breeding Innovations (PBIs).

By developing these technologies within a national center (DA-CBC), we are ensuring that the benefits of synthetic biology contribute directly to Target 10 (Sustainable Agriculture) and Target 7 (Pollution Reduction) while maintaining national technological sovereignty and strict adherence to the Cartagena Protocol.

References:

Department of Agriculture (2022). Memorandum Circular No. 08: Rules and Procedures to Evaluate and Determine When Products of PBIs are Genetically Engineered.

Ordonio, R. L., et al. (2021). Improving Popular Released Rice Varieties Through Gene Editing. PhilRice R&D Highlights.

Kind regards,

Dr. Reynante Ordonio
DA-Crop Biotechnology Center (DA-CBC), PhilRice

*** Posted on behalf of Annah Takombwa, Zimbabwe***

My name is Annah Takombwa, I work for the National Biotechnology Authority in Zimbabwe.

Synthetic biology offers exciting opportunities for biodiversity conservation. Engineering microorganisms to make valuable compounds commonly extracted from threatened species, reduces the need to harvest the species. This contributes towards halting biodiversity loss and biodiversity conservation. To fully benefit from the synthetic biology, its applications should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Socio-economic concerns posed by a specific synthetic biology application must be thoroughly assessed. Royalties must be shared with the owners of the genetic resources as enunciated under Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization. In addition, there is need for technology transfer to developing countries who are usually the biodiversity custodians to reduce global inequality. In conclusion fair benefit sharing and good governance of synthetic biology can result in sustainable biodiversity conservation.

Dear Moderator and Colleagues,

From Indonesia’s perspective as a megadiverse country and Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity, current benefits of synthetic biology are most evident in contained agricultural, environmental, and industrial applications aligned with specific targets of the KMGBF.

In agriculture, CRISPR/Cas genome editing has demonstrated improvements in stress tolerance and crop performance (Li et al., 2022, Frontiers in Genome Editing, DOI: 10.3389/fgeed.2022.987817). In climate-vulnerable regions, strengthening resilience of staple crops within existing agricultural land may contribute to Target 10 (sustainable agriculture) and indirectly reduce land-use expansion pressures.

In environmental contexts, engineered microbial systems for pollutant degradation have been developed for hydrocarbons and heavy metals (Jaiswal & Shukla, 2020, Frontiers in Microbiology, DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00808; Aminian-Dehkordi et al., 2023, Biotechnology Advances, DOI: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2023.108239). Under appropriate biosafety oversight, such applications may support Targets 7 and 2 concerning pollution reduction and ecosystem restoration.

Industrial biosynthesis platforms that substitute extractive supply chains—such as semi-synthetic artemisinin production (Paddon & Keasling, 2014, Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature13267)—illustrate how synthetic biology can align with Target 9 when ecological displacement is demonstrated (Voigt, 2020, Nature Communications, DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-20122-2).

For megabiodiverse countries, realization of these benefits must remain consistent with equitable Access and Benefit Sharing, particularly regarding Digital Sequence Information (Laird & Wynberg, 2018, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-018-2209-9; Bagley et al., 2021, DOI: 10.1111/reel.12380), alongside continued strengthening of national capacity under Targets 17 and 20.

Thank you.

Aqwin Polosoro
BRIN, Indonesia

Good day everyone. Thank you so much to the moderators and Secretariat for this important discussion. My name is Eva Sirinathsinghji, and I am a biosafety researcher with Third World Network. I have been a member of the last three risk assessment AHTEGs as well as a member of the last multidisciplinary AHTEG on synthetic biology.

I would like to echo comments [#3510 and #3500 in ‘potential benefits’ section] on the lack of current benefits of synthetic biology with regard to addressing the Objectives of the Convention and the Targets of the KM-GBF.

Thank you also to those raising the Voigt (2020) paper. I think it provides an illustrative example of the lack of current benefits derived from synthetic biology. Voigt (2020) provides a description of six ‘commercially available’ products that are ‘changing our world’. However, a closer look at the paper, with 6 years to reflect on the publication, suggests otherwise. Two of the six are medical treatments, one is an electronics application. Another, the Impossible burger, is a first-generation transgenic technology (also lacking in clear benefits versus other dietary choices).

The two products that relate to synthetic biology include 1) PivotBio’s ‘nitrogen-fixing’ edited soil microbe. PivotBio’s N-fixing bacteria, despite being applied to farmer fields for several years, currently lacks evidence of benefits. Publications by the developer state that the product requires being applied to nitrogen-rich soils (https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eraa176). Indeed, the concluding sentence reveals potential limitations of their product in meeting its unique selling point- the transition away from synthetic fertilizer use. They state: “Designing bacteria that fix nitrogen in the presence of exogenously fertilizer is a first step toward developing strains that can replace synthetic fertilizers in cereal crop production.” There remains a lack of evidence that this product improves yields or reduces nitrogen use. Alternatively, a recent study has shown N-fertilizers are regularly over-applied, and that 77 % nitrogen fertilizer is lost, such that applications could be cut down significantly, at least in certain contexts or environments. https://doi.org/10.1071/EN23010

The second synbio application listed in the Voigt paper, is Calyxt’s genome-edited ‘high-oleic’ acid LMO soybean, one of the first genome edited crops to be commercialised in the US, alongside a herbicide-tolerant canola variety marketed by Cibus. Since 2020, both crops appear to have been withdrawn from the market. Cibus, who since incorporated Calyxt, was also recently accused by investors of over-hyping their genome editing technologies (https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240605581184/en/Glancy-Prongay-Murray-LLP-a-Leading-Securities-Fraud-Law-Firm-Announces-Investigation-of-Cibus-Inc.-CBUS-on-Behalf-of-Investors). Both traits appear to lack concrete benefit to biodiversity or human health. Oleic acids are already abundant in other foods, limiting the need for such a trait. Meanwhile herbicide tolerance is associated with adverse impacts to biodiversity and human health (I will add a section on negative impacts in Topic 2). 

Indeed, despite some genome editing tools having been available for decades, there are reportedly only a handful of genome-edited crops currently on the market (not just approved)
https://www.enga.org/newsdetails/new-report-shows-market-reality-of-new-gmos/ https://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/gene-editing-left-behind-fin.pdf.

What is sobering when considering current or even potential benefits, is that what is emerging as a lead trait for genome edited LMO crops, is yet more herbicide tolerance. The EU is currently trialling genome editing technologies applied to herbicide tolerant old transgenic traits (the purpose of which remains somewhat unclear). Indeed, the company, who claims to use multiplexing and AI to improve sustainability, has patented several off-patent transgenic herbicide tolerant traits, and whose website claims to aim to bring growers ‘proprietary GM traits in tandem with novel gene edits’. Herbicide tolerant rice varieties are also advancing through regulatory processes across the world. Cibus, is currently proposing mass commercialisation of genome edited herbicide tolerant rice.

https://inari.com/inari-to-bring-growers-proprietary-gm-traits-in-tandem-with-novel-gene-edits/

https://www.agribusinessglobal.com/agrochemicals/seeds-traits/cibus-and-interoc-advance-rice-commercialization-strategy-for-herbicide-tolerant-traits-in-key-markets-across-latin-america/

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/countrys-first-non-gm-herbicide-tolerant-basmati-rice-varieties-released-for-commercial-cultivation/articleshow/110341380.cms

This discussion is thus a vital one. There is significant hype associated with the field of synthetic biology. Holistic and inclusive assessment processes, including the discussion we are having here, are needed to be able to thoroughly and critically assess all potential benefits, claims of benefits as well as adverse biosafety, socio-economic, cultural and ethical impacts. Thanks very much.

Dear Participants,

Thank you for sharing the additional examples of the synthetic Rice Tungro Virus genomes and semi-synthetic artemisinin. I also noted the further development of engineered microbes that could potentially address pollution and the ongoing work on genome-edited crops for abiotic stress tolerance.

It was shared that the current benefits appear to be mostly linked to industrial or contained use applications at the moment and that many applications remain at an early stage of research or development. Thus, it would be interesting to know about other examples of applications of synthetic biology, particularly for environmental release.

I look forward to seeing how the discussions develop and further perspectives,

Martin

Thank you very much to Mr. Martin Batič for moderating this discussion.

My name is Ediner Fuentes-Campos, national focal point for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for the Republic of Panama, and on this occasion I speak on behalf of my country.

In response to the moderator's first question on what are the current benefits of synthetic biology in relation to the Convention and the KMGBF, Panama wishes to underscore that some of the most concrete and realized benefits come from contained industrial applications that substitute extractive practices, directly reducing pressure on wild species and their habitats. The production of pharmaceutical and diagnostic compounds through synthetic biology, such as semi-synthetic artemisinin already discussed in this forum (#3545), are examples where the substitution of direct species extraction has a measurable impact on biodiversity, with direct relevance to Target 9 of the KMGBF (Paddon & Keasling, 2014). In the same vein, the production of recombinant Factor C as an alternative to horseshoe crab blood extraction represents a current and realized benefit, with a measurable reduction in pressure on a wild species and its coastal ecosystems (Maloney et al., 2018). Likewise, the production through synthetic biology of compounds normally obtained from threatened species — such as essential oils, medicinal metabolites, and fragrances — directly contributes to reducing over-demand on wild biodiversity (#3543), with clear impact on Targets 5 and 9. All of these benefits extend well beyond the debate on access and benefit-sharing, and their contribution to the objectives of the Convention is direct and quantifiable.

Regarding the moderator's second and third questions on which targets are most affected and what the concrete benefits have been, Panama highlights the importance of maintaining a genuinely multisectoral vision. In the diagnostics and health sector, the production of recombinant proteins, enzymes, and diagnostic reagents in contained settings (#3509) strengthens national biotechnological infrastructure with direct benefits for Targets 17 and 20 of the KMGBF. In the environmental sphere, applications of engineered microorganisms for bioremediation of contaminated soils and water represent current benefits with direct application to Targets 2 and 7 (#3504, #3545; Jaiswal & Shukla, 2020). In the food sector, the development of alternatives produced through engineered microorganisms in contained settings (#3503) contributes to reducing pressure on wild habitats and species, with relevance for Targets 2 and 10.

Thank you very much.
Ediner Fuentes-Campos
National Focal Point — Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
Republic of Panama

References
Jaiswal, S., and Shukla, P. (2020). Alternative Strategies for Bioremediation of Emerging Pollutants. Frontiers in Microbiology, 11, 808. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.00808
Maloney, T., Phelan, R., and Simmons, N. (2018). Saving the horseshoe crab: A synthetic alternative to horseshoe crab blood for endotoxin detection. PLOS Biology, 16(10), e2006607. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006607
Paddon, C.J., and Keasling, J.D. (2014). Semi-synthetic artemisinin: a model for the use of synthetic biology in pharmaceutical development. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 12, 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro3240

Dear colleagues

Under this thread I refer to my contribution [#3560] in the sister thread on potential benefits, here with an emphasis on current. I do not require that benefits only be remunerative or otherwise derived from commercial activity. However, I share the perspectives expressed in posts #3500, #3510, #3515, among others, that there should be evidence for realisation.

I hope to assist the AHTEG with an intervention on the challenges of identifying, verifying, and responsibly reporting current benefits of synthetic biology. This is important, if for no other reason than overstating (hyping) a technology can be harmful to it [1]. This is distinct from the “potential negative impacts of the most recent technological developments in synthetic biology.”

In posts #3546 and #3552 (in the potential impacts thread), the authors remind us that along with differences in perceived value of any use or product of synthetic biology and the realities of benefit maldistributions, is the temporal dimension of when benefit is measured. Already some benefits are historic and probably far more modest than anticipated when the products were first announced or prototypes described in the scientific literature.

This newly published article in Forbes [1] captures the difficulties with measuring both benefit and current benefit, adding to Eva’s list. “Venture funding for U.S. gene editing companies rose steadily from $2.4 billion in 2016 to a peak of $12.2 billion in 2021, according to data from VC database PitchBook. By last year, investment in the sector had fallen back to $5.2 billion...”

“Crispr companies across the board have been hit with scientific setbacks, layoffs and sharp stock declines. The first startup to come out of Doudna’s lab, Caribou Biosciences, launched in 2011, went public with big hopes a decade later, and has since seen its stock fall 91%, giving it a market cap near $150 million. Editas, for which Doudna is one of the scientific founders, laid off 65% of its staff and shelved its lead gene-editing program for sickle cell disease in December 2024. And in one of the more spectacular blowups, Tome Biosciences, which spun out of MIT, laid off almost all of its staff in 2024 and is no longer operating after raising more than $200 million” [1].

To one observer, even the latest investment figure is large and indicative of benefit. To another, the decline from earlier years could look like the cost of opportunities lost from not having invested in something else over those years.

Opportunity cost is rarely captured in assessments of benefit. What instead would have come from the billions invested had that resource been used differently? We addressed this issue in a recent publication on “promise markets” [2] with an emphasis on biotechnology to mitigate climate change. While opportunity costs are not special to synthetic biology, opportunity costs in the area of conservation and agriculture biotechnology that is not synthetic biology provide solid and proven benchmarks for comparison. That also was the basis of assessment of modern biotechnology for the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development [3] about 15 years ago, and one that is warranted here too.

With these caveats in mind, I struggle to present even current commercial benefits of synthetic biology. I acknowledge that some products of modern biotechnology (including those that may be argued to be also synthetic biology) have been marketed, finding evidence of the size of their markets, the net good of their products, and the need for synthetic biology (or modern biotechnology) to provide the benefit, is difficult to find and verify. I hope that the AHTEG will include these kinds of details in any examples of current benefits on which it reports.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyfeldman/2026/02/17/gene-editing-has-struggled-to-go-commercial-this-nobel-laureate-has-a-1-billion-plan-to-fix-that/
[2] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101222. See also https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-026-00483-y discussing gene editing of wild animals for preservation of biodiversity.
[3] https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/636821468316165959

Dear colleagues,

I'm Felix Moronta Barrios from the Regulatory Science Group of the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB), Trieste, Italy.

I would like to briefly add a perspective that is not about a specific product but about an enabling condition for current and future benefits: regulatory preparedness.

In this thread, the moderator has encouraged participants to focus on concrete, current examples with references and explicit links to KMGBF targets (#3512, #3548). Other contributions have also stressed that technical capability does not automatically translate into societal or environmental benefit (#3510), and that claims about benefits can be difficult to verify and responsibly report without clear criteria and transparency (#3561). In that context, regulatory clarity, risk assessment procedures, and monitoring systems are relevant to how benefits are realised and evidenced.

In a recent paper, we analysed how different jurisdictions are approaching the regulation of emerging genetic technologies, including synthetic biology applications (https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1483279). The paper looks at how existing biosafety frameworks are being interpreted, adapted, or clarified. While regulation is not itself a “product”, workable and transparent regulatory pathways are central to KMGBF Target 17, and they are also part of the practical capacity-building agenda under Target 20.

I would also like to share a short review I wrote, Gene Drive Regulations: Are We Stuck in Debate? (https://monitoringgenedrives.com/gene-drive-regulations/). The main point is that international and national biosafety instruments already exist, and that their coherence and practical use are what will make governance credible. Even before any environmental releases, mapping regulatory pathways and decision points is a current contribution to implementation, because it clarifies how evidence could be generated through stepwise, transparent processes rather than through speculation.

I hope these resources are useful in complementing the examples in this thread by highlighting the regulatory dimension that underpins how benefits are evaluated, verified, and governed under the Convention and the KMGBF.

Dear participants,

Thank you to Mr. Martin Batič for moderating this discussion and all participants for the insightful comments.

My name is Luciana Ambrozevicius, I'm a agronomist with a Ph.D. on Genetic and Plant Breeding and a regulator at Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock in Brazil, a risk assessor at our National Biosafety Commission and a former member in the SynBio AHTEG and the RA AHTEG.

Between the two topics presented - the potential of synthetic biology and its current benefits - an important question that arises and requires deeper analysis is precisely about the existing barriers for R&D to transform research into commercial products in an agile and safe way. In developing countries, this gap is enormous. We could list several factors such as scarce funding for collaborative and international research programs; lack of national and regional research platforms, incubators and biofoundries with shared facilities; lack of resources for investment in equipment and reagents; bureaucratic system for importing research materials; lack of training in key areas such as intellectual property and the patent system; outdated regulatory system; necessity to strengthen science-industry-government linkages; necessity to attract and retain skilled professionals in areas like computational biology and bioengineering, etc.

For Brazil, example of current benefits are related with successful deployment of sugarcane ethanol, biological nitrogen fixation, and genetically improved crops that provides a foundation for new biotech frontiers (https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3410 ; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9081011; https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1027828 ). The conclusion from article https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-3921.pab2025.v60.04148) represents the expectation for the near future - “today, this legacy is being reimagined through the lens of synthetic biology, with the use of native genes, synthetic chassis, and systems biology to engineer climate-resilient solutions. Whether through microbial biofertilizers, carbon-fixing plant pathways, or biodegradable proteins inspired by spider silk, Brazilian institutions are already showing what a bioeconomy rooted in biodiversity can look like” (https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.958486; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crmicr.2021.100094; https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201847580 ).

Thank you.

Best regards,
Luciana P. Ambrozevicius

Dear colleagues, thank you for the valuable contributions and perspectives shared in this discussion.

Current benefits reported in the literature are mainly associated with environmental monitoring technologies, biosensing systems, and early-stage bioremediation applications, which can support biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource management.

For instance, engineered microbial biosensors have been developed to detect arsenic contamination in water, providing accessible tools for environmental monitoring in regions with limited analytical infrastructure (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2017.08.006). Such technologies can contribute to improved detection of environmental stressors affecting ecosystems and human health.

Similarly, research on synthetic biology-based bioremediation approaches highlights the potential of engineered microbial systems to address environmental contamination and restore ecosystem functions (https://doi.org/10.1186/s44314-025-00029-2).

These applications are particularly relevant to KMGBF Target 7 (pollution reduction) and Target 17 (biosafety). Target 17 explicitly recognizes the need to manage biotechnology through effective risk assessment and biosafety frameworks.

We stress that current benefits should not be overstated and must always be evaluated within the context of national regulatory capacity, environmental monitoring systems, and inclusive decision-making processes involving Indigenous peoples and local communities.

Kind regards,

Nancy Serrano Silva
PhD in Biotechnology
“Investigadoras e Investigadores por México” program
Executive Secretariat of the Cibiogem, Mexico

Thank you to colleagues for the insightful contributions highlighting examples of current applications of synthetic biology in areas such as agriculture, industrial biotechnology and environmental monitoring.

In considering these developments, it may be useful to distinguish between technological advances and demonstrated, measurable benefits. Identifying current benefits therefore requires evidence that specific applications have produced observable outcomes relevant to biodiversity conservation, sustainable use of biodiversity, or the fair and equitable sharing of benefits.

For example, some agricultural applications report improvements such as increased productivity, reduced pesticide use, or enhanced stress tolerance. While these outcomes may be measurable at the farm or production level, the extent to which they translate into biodiversity-related benefits may depend on broader factors, including agricultural practices, landscape management and monitoring systems.

At the same time, assessing benefits in the context of biodiversity governance raises methodological challenges. Scientific publications often describe technological performance or agronomic outcomes, but they rarely provide indicators that allow assessment of biodiversity-level impacts or societal outcomes over longer timeframes. In practice, discussions on “benefits” can therefore remain relatively general and provide limited guidance for the policy work required to ensure that emerging technologies effectively contribute to the Convention’s three objectives.

Global environmental trends also highlight the importance of careful evaluation. Recent assessments indicate that seven of the nine planetary boundaries have already been transgressed (PBScience, 2025), despite the fact that several generations of agricultural biotechnologies have been in use, globally. This suggests that the presence of technological innovation alone does not necessarily translate into positive biodiversity outcomes at system level.

It may therefore be useful not only to consider reported or future benefits, but also to reflect on lessons from previous technology deployments. For instance, herbicide-tolerant crops were initially promoted as reducing chemical inputs, yet in many contexts they contributed to increased herbicide use and herbicide-resistant weeds. Similarly, new genetic pest-control (Genetic Pesticides) approaches that have been proposed as highly specific alternatives to chemical pesticides are in some cases now being discussed for broader-spectrum applications (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andrey-zarur-a73a748_innovation-savethebees-cropprotection-share-7435043245539098624-4OPI?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAC9RgIsB2dHUfbmGU-YfxfPOyNoFPNnhSuo). Such examples illustrate how technological trajectories can evolve in ways that were not initially anticipated – the reason for a precautionary approach.

Recent analyses highlight that while new technologies can significantly improve biodiversity monitoring and research, they are unlikely to resolve the biodiversity crisis on their own and must be accompanied by broader social, political and economic changes addressing the root causes of biodiversity loss (Lostanlen et al., 2025). This could help ensure that discussions on synthetic biology remain closely linked to biodiversity protection and to the effective implementation of the Convention’s objectives.

Planetary Boundaries Science (PBScience) (2025) Planetary Health Check 2025. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, Germany. https://planetaryhealthcheck.org

Lostanlen V, Barragan-Jason G, Elger A and Cauchoix M (2025) Editorial: Can technology save biodiversity?. Front. Conserv. Sci. 6:1646634. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2025.1646634

Thank you very much,
Sarah

Hello,

My name is Lorrie Boisvert and I am acting unit head in the Biotechnology, Innovation and Novel Sciences Section at Environment and Climate Change Canada.  My group is responsible for doing the risk assessment of novel organisms before they can be produced or imported into Canada.

Synthetic biology offers a strategic pathway for addressing several critical global challenges by enabling the engineering of organisms to deliver practical, scalable solutions. This emerging field supports the development of sustainable alternatives to animal derived products, helping reduce pressures on land use, water consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. Synthetic biology also provides tools for environmental bioremediation, including organisms designed to break down pollutants and support ecosystem restoration.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-pollution/evaluating-new-substances/biotechnology-living-organisms/risk-assessment-decisions/summary-20941-20942-20943.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-pollution/evaluating-new-substances/biotechnology-living-organisms/risk-assessment-decisions/summary-20941-20942-20943.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-pollution/evaluating-new-substances/biotechnology-living-organisms/risk-assessment-decisions/summary-20941-20942-20943.html

In the agricultural sector, genetic modification is used to introduce traits such as insect resistance, disease resistance, herbicide tolerance, and improved nutritional profiles, which can support more reliable production and reduce losses. These traits help farmers manage pests, improve yields, and maintain crop quality under challenging conditions. Examples of genetically modified crops that are approved in Canada include canola, soybean, corn, potatoes, sugar beets and alfalfa. Similarly, genetic engineering in animals used in the farming industry, (e.g.  Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus-Resistant Pigs) can improve animal health and reduce economic losses, while maintaining food safety and nutrition standards, thus contributing to stable food supply and pricing. 

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/genetically-modified-foods-other-novel-foods/approved-products.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-pollution/evaluating-new-substances/biotechnology-living-organisms/risk-assessment-decisions/summary-22051-22196-22197-22198.html

Synthetic biology is already used in medicine. For example, scientists modify E. coli by adding genes that let it take up the amino acid phenylalanine in the gut and convert it into harmless metabolites.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-pollution/evaluating-new-substances/biotechnology-living-organisms/risk-assessment-decisions/summary-21300.html

In addition, mRNA vaccines show how synthetic biology can make vaccines faster, safer, and easier to update for new viruses. (doi: 10.1186/s12985-025-02645-6.)

Viruses can be modified to create vaccines and cells can be modified for immunotherapy purposes.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-pollution/evaluating-new-substances/biotechnology-living-organisms/risk-assessment-decisions/summary-20657.html

Collectively, these innovations highlight synthetic biology’s ability to advance national or global sustainability goals, strengthen economic resilience, and address long-term environmental pressures.

Dear all,

My name is Daphne Esquivel-Sada, I am an interdisciplinary sociologist of science, originally trained in Agronomic Engineering in Brazil. I will represent the CBD's  Women's Caucus in the next AHTEG on synthetic biology, and it is as a representative of the Caucus that I share our inputs to the current discussions in this forum.

To minimize misunderstandings and ensure rigour in our discussions on the current benefits of synthetic biology, it is important to distinguish between the potential benefits of synthetic biology at the stage of experimental lab research, and those that have reached the stages of development and commercialization. While the former are numerous and diverse, and can echo many of the KMGBF’s targets, the latter remain limited in number (Dalziell and Rogers, 2023). Moreover, the benefits of commercialized applications are not always assessed in ways that capture their multi-scale aspects, transdisciplinary considerations and inclusion of different systems of knowledge making. Even from a reductionist molecular perspective, significant challenges remain in translating synthetic biology innovations beyond the laboratory (Brooks and Alper, 2021; Hanson and Lorenzo, 2023; Lux et al., 2023: 3).

It should also be noted that the consultation questions do not explicitly invite contributions on current negative impacts of synthetic biology. Including a specific question on this topic would have supported a more balanced and objective set of inputs to the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Synthetic Biology. Evidence from some of the few projects that have reached the production or release stage suggests that the impacts of these technologies are more complex than often portrayed. We take here the case, originally portrayed as the success story of synthetic biology, of the industrialization of the production of the semisynthetic artemisinin, used to showcase synthetic biology’s ability in replacing plant production of bio-chemicals by engineered microbial foundries. It must be called to AHTEG’s attention that despite the effort of industrial actors in following an alternative economic path, under a “no profit no loss principle” (Dalziell and Rogers, 2022: 514), and the fact that they have been heavily subsidized by charity foundations, the production of artemisinin still relies on the plant (Artemisia annua) natural synthesis, which remains even after more than 15 years, the most cost-effective approach in providing this substance for pharmaceutical industries. The project was publicly presented as a way to avoid the oscillations in the provision of artemisinin given the natural cycles of Artemisia annua over the year, while contributing to the conservation of this plant ecosystem, cultured especially in the Global South. Yet, one can identify the negative impacts of this industrial synthetic biology development, if one considers the amount of human, financial, natural, and time resources it has mobilized so far, while not meeting its promises. The project would have demanded “150 person-years of research and $50 million funding,” resources that were complemented by universities, private and non-profit organizations (Dalziell and Rogers, 2022). The resulting material and immaterial “waste” is noteworthy (Dalziell and Rogers, 2023: 6). Had decision-making actors and strategic stakeholders been more knowledgeable and critical of the “hope” and “promise” economy where synthetic biology evolves, these precious and limited resources could have been used for building basic biological and conservation relevant knowledge on Artemisia annua.  Meanwhile, research shows that “the lack of understanding of its  [Artemisia annua] distribution, environmental conditions and protection status limits the mass acquisition of artemisinin” (Wang et al., 2022). Basic understanding of “environmental influences on artemisinin biosynthesis” remains a gap as well (Qamar et al., 2024). While the future of the industrial production of semisynthetic artemisinin is open, Artemisia annua requires imperative protection measures, especially in times of climate change (Qamar et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2022).  Therefore, this project can be seen has so far to have worked against KMGBF’s target 21, aimed at building knowledge to guide biodiversity action. Furthermore, the company which had initially bought the rights to employ the synthetic biology methods developed for the industrial production of semisynthetic artemisinin, Sanofi, has become at some point the sole patent owner of the method (Liu et al., 2020). Because there is little protection against this situation in the current global patent system, projects replacing the natural production of substance can also oppose KMGBF’s target 13, seeking to increase the sharing of benefits from Genetic Resources.

To sum up, this case highlights the importance of considering opportunity costs. Significant material and cognitive resources were mobilized to develop the synthetic biology pathway, while important gaps remain in the ecological understanding, conservation status, and sustainable cultivation of Artemisia annua, particularly in regions of the Global South where the plant is widely grown, and capacity-building for on-ground, actual conservation projects is needed. This case underline the need for a broader and more balanced assessment framework that considers not only potential benefits but also possible negative impacts, as well as the wider ecological, socio-economic and governance implications of synthetic biology developments.

Looking forward to pursuing these discussions,

Daphne Esquivel-Sada (Ph.D), for the CBD's Women's Caucus


References
Ansai S and Kitano J (2022) Speciation and adaptation research meets genome editing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 377(1855): 20200516.
Brooks SM and Alper HS (2021) Applications, challenges, and needs for employing synthetic biology beyond the lab. Nature Communications 12(1). Nature Publishing Group: 1390.
Dalziell J and Rogers W (2022) Are the Ethics of Synthetic Biology Fit for Purpose? A Case Study of Artemisinin [Point of View]. Proceedings of the IEEE 110(5): 511–517.
Dalziell J and Rogers W (2023) Scientists’ Views on the Ethics, Promises and Practices of Synthetic Biology: A Qualitative Study of Australian Scientific Practice. Science and Engineering Ethics 29(6): 41.
Funk AT, Martin J, Clark M, et al. (2025) Knocking out genes to reveal drivers of natural selection on phenotypic traits: a study of the fitness consequences of albinism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 292(2053): 20251458.
Hanson AD and Lorenzo V de (2023) Synthetic Biology─High Time to Deliver? ACS Synthetic Biology 12(6). American Chemical Society: 1579–1582.
Kitano J, Ishikawa A, Ravinet M, et al. (2022) Genetic basis of speciation and adaptation: from loci to causative mutations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 377(1855): 20200503.
Liu K, Zuo H, Li G, et al. (2020) Global research on artemisinin and its derivatives: Perspectives from patents. Pharmacological Research 159: 105048.
Lux MW, Strychalski EA and Vora GJ (2023) Advancing reproducibility can ease the ‘hard truths’ of synthetic biology. Synthetic Biology 8(1). Oxford Academic. DOI: 10.1093/synbio/ysad014
Plewnia A, Hoenig BD, Lötters S, et al. (2026) The Emergence of a CRISPR‐Cas Revolution in Ecology: Applications, Challenges, and an Ecologist’s Overview of the Toolbox. Molecular Ecology Resources 26(1): e70086.
Qamar F, Ashrafi K, Singh A, et al. (2024) Artemisinin production strategies for industrial scale: Current progress and future directions. Industrial Crops and Products 218: 118937.
Wang D, Shi C, Alamgir K, et al. (2022) Global assessment of the distribution and conservation status of a key medicinal plant (Artemisia annua): The roles of climate and anthropogenic activities. Science of The Total Environment 821: 153378.

Dear Participants,

Thank you for sharing further considerations on the topic of current benefits of synthetic biology. I appreciate the sharing of additional information of concrete examples, as well as the critical analysis provided with respect to the current benefits of synthetic biology. I also thank you for describing the links to the targets of the KMGBF. The considerations related to infrastructure, regulation and barriers to research also offer interesting examples for further thought.
I will also take the opportunity to kindly encourage you to continue to post. The forum will close tomorrow at 5 p.m. Montreal time.

Best,

Martin

Dear All,

Many thanks to Dr. Batič for moderating this forum. 

My name is Piet van der Meer. I am a biologist and lawyer by trade and have been involved in biosafety legislation since 1986 and in COPs and MOPs since COP1 in 1994. I am a former member in the RA AHTEG.

I echo the illustrations of the potential benefits of Synthetic Biology in the previous thread.

In this thread I want to follow up on some contributions that seem to suggest that a relatively limited number of materialized benefits would place doubts on the potential of synthetic biology.

There is little logic in that.

Any new technology will need time to start delivering its potential. For long, the materialized benefits of renewable energy technologies were far behind the promising prognoses. Fortunately, developers kept trying, and things look much better now.

Regards and good weekend to all!

Piet van der Meer

Dear colleagues,

My name is Lúcia de Souza, and I participate in COPs and MOPs with the Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI).

Thank you to the moderator and participants for the thoughtful contributions and for highlighting the importance of identifying evidence-based examples of current benefits of synthetic biology in relation to the objectives of the Convention and the implementation of the KMGBF.

The discussion so far illustrates both emerging examples and the challenges associated with evaluating biodiversity outcomes of technological interventions.

Several contributions have reflected on the current evidence base regarding biodiversity-related benefits of synthetic biology. An important aspect of this discussion is the difficulty of measuring and attributing biodiversity outcomes, which often depend on broader ecological and management contexts beyond the technology itself. This challenge is not unique to biotechnology; biodiversity outcomes of many interventions are influenced by multiple interacting ecological processes and management practices.

At the same time, continued scientific innovation, including developments in biotechnology, can expand the range of tools available to address biodiversity challenges when applied in a safe and responsible manner, complementing existing conservation and sustainable use approaches.

It may also be useful to recall that the operational concept of “synthetic biology” used in CBD discussions encompasses a wide range of technologies, including applications that overlap with organisms developed through modern biotechnology and living modified organisms under the Cartagena Protocol. In addition, some genome editing approaches are regulated differently across jurisdictions. As a result, the available evidence regarding benefits and impacts may vary across different types of applications.

Against this background, examples mentioned in this thread illustrate areas where biotechnology-based approaches may contribute to biodiversity objectives. For instance, recombinant Factor C as an alternative to horseshoe crab blood harvesting has been cited as a case where technological substitution can reduce pressure on wild species, with relevance to Target 9 on sustainable use. Similarly, biosensors and bioremediation tools based on engineered microorganisms may support efforts to detect and address environmental pollution, which relates to Target 7. Industrial biotechnology applications that substitute extractive supply chains may also help reduce pressures on ecosystems and biological resources, which can be relevant to Targets 9 and 10.

The effective and responsible realization of such benefits depends on appropriate governance frameworks and biosafety capacity. Strengthening regulatory preparedness and biosafety systems is directly relevant to Target 17, while capacity building, technology transfer, and access to scientific knowledge can support the implementation of Target 20.

Recognizing the diversity of technologies involved, continued case-by-case evaluation and robust biosafety frameworks will remain important to ensure that emerging applications contribute safely to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

I look forward to further examples and perspectives as the discussion continues.

Kind regards, Lúcia

I am Tae Seok Moon, a full professor at J. Craig Venter Institute, a non-profit research institute in the United States. In addition, I serve as the director of an NSF global center called CIRCLE that focuses on waste valorization and circular economy. This center consists of >20 companies and >40 academic investigators at 18 institutes from 6 nations and aims to solve global waste and pollution problems by using synthetic biology, outreach activities (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHXKHYZj0ec&list=PL-440if8TYxKhZI6CmoxFcLflOJ5l0bQl), and education.

In 2022, I summarized my views and visions on synthetic biology (benefits and risks) after ~20 years of research in this field (doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2022.08.010). Briefly, I propose we can see the entire planet as a huge bioreactor where microbes and microbiota can be harnessed to fix greenhouse gases to mitigate climate problems, fix nitrogen more efficiently to solve food inequality and shortage (by reducing chemical fertilizers), and engineer plastic eating bacteria that self-destruct once microplastic clean-up missions are accomplished (doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2022.08.010).

My views and visions have been confirmed and reinforced after traveling for ~180 days a year to give seminars and conference talks as well as to see nature and ecosystems, especially including Oceania (dying coral reef), Americas (coast cities with more pollutions), Europe (many cities suffering from waste issues), and Asia (developing countries that try to catch up with developed nations in exchange of polluting the environments). My conclusion after those trips was that engineering biology or synthetic biology is NOT conquering nature BUT living together in nature. In short, “Human arrogance that we own this world is a culprit for the current climate crisis; this earth belongs to all living creatures, including viruses, microbes, insects, plants, animals, and humans. We must change our mindset or paradigm to solve global problems such as climate crisis, pollution, sustainable agriculture, and green production.” (doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2022.08.010) Synthetic biology or engineering biology can help realize this view and solve global problems, including biodiversity issues.

As other technologies, synthetic biology has risks, including biodiversity loss by introducing GMOs and engineered invasive species. However, the issues of the biodiversity loss have been created more by other human activities, including climate crisis partly due to coal/petroleum-based industrialization, pollutions due to urbanization, and unrestricted farming and fishing. To quickly and sustainably solve these problems created by human activities, synthetic biology or engineering biology can be used (doi.org/10.1038/s44168-023-00089-8 & doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2024.02.002).

Thanks for the wonderful discussion.

Sincerely,

Tae Seok Moon, Professor at J. Craig Venter Institute
Moonshot Bio Founder, SynBYSS Chair & EBRC Council Member
NSF Global Center CIRCLE Director

Dear all,

thanks for the possibility to contribute to the discussion.

My name is Christoph Then, I am working for Testbiotech (http://www.testbiotech.org).  Testbiotech is a NGO based in Germany, working on impact assessment in the field of biotechnology. We evaluate available information from the perspective of the protection of health, the environment and nature.

One our activities is horizon scanning on publications in regard to transgenic plants and their impact on the environment. Since there is no possibility to report on existing experience with negative impacts of transgenic plants on biodiversity, I simply add some findings under this point.

Our findings show that the experience from small field trials were not sufficient to predict the factual environmental risks under large scale an long term cultivation. These findings are highly relevant to the ongoing discussion about potential negative impacts caused by SynBio organisms that they may involve a much broader range of species, traits and adverse effects in future.


> It was shown that under large scale cultivation, insecticidal Bt plants can cause a change in the wing shape of the pest insects enabling them to fly faster and cover longer distances (Mikac et al., 2025).

Mikac K.N., Davila J.H.D., Powley M.J., Barclay S., Pezzini D., Reisig D.D., (2025) Helicoverpa zea selected on Bt corn have wing shapes better suited to long distance flight, Environmental Entomology, 2025;, nvaf117, https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvaf117

> Virus resistant papaya trees lost its resistance, spread in the environment and became a reservoir for several viruses (Yang et al, 2024);

Yang MZ, Hao ZG, Ren ZT, Tang R, Wu QH, Zhou LY, Hu YJ, Guo JY, Chen Y, Guo YL, Liu B, Liu LP, Xue K, Jia RZ. (2024) Genetic Variability and Evolutionary Dynamics of Papaya Ringspot Virus and Papaya Leaf Distortion Mosaic Virus Infecting Feral Papaya in Hainan Island. Phytopathology. 114(11):2442-2452. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-01-24-0022-R.

> Herbicide resistant plants caused the rapid adaptation of noxious weeds (Heap, 2014) and increase in herbicide applications (Miyazaki et al., 2019).

Heap I. (2014) Global perspective of herbicide-resistant weeds. Pest Manag Sci. 70(9):1306-15. doi: 10.1002/ps.3696.

Miyazaki, J., Bauer-Panskus A., Bøhn T., Reichenbecher, W., Then C. (2019) Insufficient risk assessment of herbicide tolerant genetically engineered soybeans intended for import into the EU.
Environ Sci Eur, 31, 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-019-0274-1

> Diversity of bird populations can be impacted by the large-scale cultivation of transgenic plants (Engist et al., 2024).

Engist, D., Guzman, L.M., Larsen, A. Church T., Noack F. (2024) The impact of genetically modified crops on bird diversity. Nat Sustain 7, 1149–1159. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01390-y

> Insecticidal and herbicide resistant traits if combined in the fields, may facilitate interactions promoting the spread of pest insects (Almeida et al., 2021; Páez Jerez et al., 2022).

Almeida, M.F., Tavares, C.S., Araújo, E.O., Picanço, M.C., Oliveira, E.E., Pereira E.J.G. (2021) Plant resistance in some modern soybean varieties may favor population growth and modify the stylet penetration of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). J Econ Entomol 114(2): 970-978. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toab00

Páez Jerez, P.G., Hill J.G., Pereira E.J.G., Pereyra P.M., Vera M.T. (2022) The role of genetically engineered soybean and Amaranthus weeds on biological and reproductive parameters of Spodoptera cosmioides (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Pest Manag Sci 78: 2502–2511. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.6882

> Several transgenic plants have spread beyond the fields into the environment (Bauer-Panskus et al., 2013); several data point to the higher fitness of weedy hybrids (Bauer-Panskus et al., 2020).

Bauer-Panskus, A., Breckling, B., Hamberger, S., Then, C. (2013) Cultivation-independent establishment of genetically engineered plants in natural populations: current evidence and implications for EU regulation. Environ Sci Eur, 25, 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/2190-4715-25-34

Bauer-Panskus, A., Miyazaki, J., Kawall, K., Then, C. (2020) Risk assessment of genetically engineered plants that can persist and propagate in the environment. Environ Sci Eur, 32, 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-00301-0

Dear Colleagues,
My Name is Margret Engelhard, I am the head of the GMO and Synthetic Biology Division at the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. I was a member of all previous AHTEGs on Synthetic Biology.

First and foremost, I would like to thank Martin for his excellent moderation and all contributors for their valuable input to this online forum! We are living in a time when synthetic biology is advancing at an unprecedented pace. More and more organismic groups are being subject to Synthetic Biology. This forum is therefore a valuable resource for parties and their bodies to learn more about and understand better these new developments and its potential impact on the goals of the convention.

In my view, the two most significant overarching trends are the integration of generative AI in the field of synthetic biology and the expansion of synthetic biology to an ever-growing number of organism groups.

As the AHTEG reviews the contributions in this forum, it will face the challenge of distinguishing the most important examples from the less relevant ones. It will also be crucial to assess its state of the art in order to determine:
1. whether the examples are recent—that is, whether they have emerged since the last intersessional period;
2. whether these examples have already been realized or remain theoretical ideas. A standardized evaluation procedure could be helpful here;
3. the concept of benefit that the AHTEG will apply for the analysis. For example, a solid understanding of risks is central before potential benefits are being assigned. In addition an understanding how they impact the targets of the KMGBF and the three objectives of the Convention. For this a differentiated conceptual view is of importance. Some projects– for example – may not align with nature conservation goals, such as the use of genetic engineering techniques on protected species (BfN, 2022).

The activities of this intersessional period further highlight the need for capacity-building among parties, enabling them to follow the pace of teh developments and to assess synthetic biology applications against the three objectives of the Convention and the targets of the KMGBF. A prerequisite of capacity building is therefore a sound knowledge on the current developments in Synthetic Biology worldwide. For this these knowledge sharing activities  are crucial - for example in online fora like this. Ultimately, we aim to translate these experiences into a thematic action plan for capacity building in synthetic biology

Reference:
BfN (Federal Agency for Nature Conservation) (2022) Genetic engineering, nature conservation and biological diversity: Boundaries of design. Viewpoint Paper by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, DOI: 10.19217/pos222en

Dear participants,

Thanks Mr. Martin Batič for moderating this extremely relevant and timely discussion and all participants for their insightful comments.

My name is Rodrigo C A Lima from Brazil, I'm an international lawyer and I have been engaged in the CBD agenda since 2005. The evolution of synthetic biology under the CBD highlights the importance of guiding Parties towards assessing and managing synthetic biology aimed at contributing to achieving the 3 core CBD goals. 

Based on this approach, I am honoured to contribute to the online forum.

The work undertook under the CBD to address synthetic biology and potential benefits, and adverse effects allows to conclude that “living organisms developed through synthetic biology are similar to living modified organisms (LMOs) as defined in the Cartagena Protocol. The Conference of the Parties noted that the general principles and methodologies for risk assessment under the Cartagena Protocol and existing biosafety frameworks provide a good basis for risk assessment of living organisms developed through synthetic biology, but such methodologies might need to be updated and adapted.” 

In this sense, it is relevant to highlight that synthetic biology is part of the continuum of modern biotechnology, and, therefore, should be addressed through the lens of biosafety and risk assessment frameworks.

This is extremely relevant to support Parties with the implementation of policies and actions aimed at contributing to the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) targets. 

The Thematic Action Plan approved by Decision CBD/COP/DEC/16/2, aims to “support capacity-building and development, access to and transfer of technology and knowledge-sharing in the context of synthetic biology, building on the needs and priorities of Parties”.

The ability to develop, assess and enjoy the benefits or manage potential adverse effects from synthetic biology technologies requires scientific and regulatory capacities narrowed to support innovation in different fields. The Action Plan should therefore support continuous capacity-building for Parties aimed at fostering synthetic biology research and innovation, risk assessment and management, and institutional preparedness.

Moreover, it should promote cooperation, technology transfer, enable investments in scientific and technological capabilities aimed at developing technologies that would support Parties in contributing to key GBF targets.

Innovation aimed at improving and supporting the sustainable use of biodiversity, while delivering climate change benefits, is particularly relevant in fields like renewable energy, environmental monitoring and carbon capture, which are important for  synthetic biology.

As presented by Ms. Luciana Ambrozevicius from the Brazilian Minister of Agriculture (thread #3584), there are multiple GBF targets that can benefit from synbio technologies, such as:

Target 7 (pollution): development of microbial biosensors that detect heavy metal contaminants by expressing fluorescent or electrochemical signals upon exposure to target compounds (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dwt.2024.100456); Escherichia coli whole-cell biosensor engineered to detect and monitor microplastic degradation products (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113568)

Target 8 (climate change): development of programmable artificial photosynthetic cells as a synthetic platform for CO2 capture and conversion (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42591-x); convertion of C3 plants into C4- like systems, aiming to minimize photorespiration and boost photosynthetic efficiency (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2023.108256); genetic engineering of yeasts and bacteria as microbial platforms for sustainable biofuel production (https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1423935, https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01140-07, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.femsec.2005.02.010)

Target 10 (sustainable agriculture): engineered microorganisms with specialized functions, such as biocontrol, biofertilization, and biostimulation that directly enhance agricultural productivity (https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00164-18; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-019-0383-z); use of engineered endophyte beneficial microorganisms that live within plant tissues (https://doi.org/10.1007/s44351-025-00011-z); use of engineered diazotrophs that can be applied directly in the field to boost crop yield (» https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-78243-3); whole-cell biosensors engineered to detect specific metabolites, nutrient concentrations, or phytohormonal signals (https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.7b00292).

Target 16 (sustainable consumption choices): integration of metabolic pathways for polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs ) biosynthesis into Escherichia coli or Pseudomonas putida for biodegradable plastic production (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2023.01.002, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2019.08.010, https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1275036); Komagataeibacter strains engineered to enhance bacterial cellulose production (https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21239185); spider silk–inspired proteins produced in microbial systems and tailored for high-strength applications in textiles, biomedicine, and lightweight composites (https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.958486)

In line with this, the implementation of the GBF should encompass synthetic biology as a continuum of the evolution of biotechnology that can deliver solutions towards sustainable development based on sound science. Supporting Parties in engaging and advancing in this field, according to their needs, will be pivotal to strengthening their ability to advance the implementation of the CBD and the KMGBF.

Dear colleagues,

My name is Naomi Kosmehl, and I work for the Zukunftsstiftung Landwirtschaft in Germany.

Thank you very much for the many valuable contributions shared in this thread so far, and my apologies for joining the discussion relatively late in the process. I was particularly interested in the comments posted by Jack Heinemann [#3561], and especially [#3560], noting that benefits are not universally experienced but need to be understood within their specific context.

Reading this brought to mind the example of the black-footed ferret. Researchers are currently exploring the possibility of genetically engineering ferrets to increase resistance to plague. What may initially appear as a clear benefit could look somewhat different when considered within its broader context. I would like to briefly refer to two aspects that may be relevant when assessing potential benefits in relation to the three objectives of the Convention and/or the KMGBF: the ecosystem context and the availability of alternatives.

When looking at the ecosystem context, it becomes apparent that, beyond the impact of plague, the main food source of ferrets—prairie dogs—has been in continuous decline. In addition, the contiguous shortgrass prairie habitat on which both species depend has been lost in many areas. As a result, there are currently animals in captivity that cannot be reintroduced into the wild because these ecological conditions are not in place. This brings me to the second parameter mentioned above: the availability of alternatives. An ecosystem-based approach, rather than the technological approach proposed through synthetic biology, might in this case provide broader benefits and contribute to addressing several KMGBF targets (https://engineeringnature.org/black-footed-ferret/).

Jack Heinemann [#3561] also referred to the concept of opportunity costs, which could represent another useful parameter when assessing potential benefits, before making broader or more hypothetical claims. In this regard, it may be valuable for Parties and observers to the CBD to undertake more comprehensive assessments of potential benefits, rather than relying on expectations or projections that several colleagues in this discussion have already highlighted as potentially overstated.

Dear Colleagues
I do apologise I am reposting this message in this thread as I accidentally posted it in the wrong thread ("The potential benefits of synthetic biology"). I would, however, observe that — other than the example I detail below — I respectfully question whether any of the posts in this thread represent CURRENT applications of synthetic biology at scale, with benefits that align with the CBD (particularly when research applications are excluded).
----------------------------------------------------
Dear Forum,

I would like to thank Martin Batič for moderating this discussion.

Within the context of conserving biodiversity, synthetic biology—while broadly defined and with this technique having applied use dating back to recombinant protein production from microorganisms in the 1980s—offers the singular example of a current, realized benefit for biodiversity : recombinant Factor C (rFC) production in contained laboratory facilities as an alternative to harvesting horseshoe crab blood.

As this forum question is intended to focus on the CURRENT benefits of synthetic biology, it is essential to identify sources where USE is reported, rather than the availability of reagents or services, or published evaluations. At least based on this company webpage it is reported that rFC is currently in use:

"Currently, Lilly has converted 80% of our testing of medicines from LAL to rFC testing. We began to implement rFC testing in 2016. Lilly now uses rFC testing in all our injectable manufacturing facilities and for all our new injectable medicines." https://sustainability.lilly.com/environmental/biodiversity

The environmental value of this approach stems from its use within production contained facilities and the avoidance of modifying wild species or natural environments.

Estimates suggesting that the biomedical industry could achieve a 90% reduction in the use of reagents derived from horseshoe crabs by adopting rFC for routine testing applications [1] — are currently just estimates and beyond the scope of the terms of this discussion.

[1] Maloney, Tom, Ryan Phelan, and Naira Simmons. 2018. 'Saving the Horseshoe Crab: A Synthetic Alternative to Horseshoe Crab Blood for Endotoxin Detection'. PLoS Biology 16 (10): e2006607. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006607.


Thanks and I look forward to a productive discussion.

Dr R. Guy Reeves

Save Our Seeds Zukunftsstiftung Landwirtschaft / Foundation on Future Farming Büro Berlin / Berlin office

Hello, everyone.
I’m Kathleen Lehmann working at the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety of the European Commission. I’m a member of this year’s AHTEG of synthetic biology (SynBio) and was also a member of the last multidisciplinary AHTEG, participating for the European Union. My general background is in biochemistry and I’m a specialist for regulation and risk assessment of genetically modified organisms, including for SynBio.

Let me first thank Martin for moderating this discussion and all participants for their pertinent contributions.

For this topic, I would like to start with recalling the operational definition of synthetic biology developed by a previous AHTEG on SynBio: “Synthetic biology is a further development and new dimension of modern biotechnology that combines science, technology and engineering to facilitate and accelerate the understanding, design, redesign, manufacture and/or modification of genetic materials, living organisms and biological systems.”

Of course, this operational definition already indicates that SynBio developments represent a continuum with previous approaches in modern biotechnology and that the boundaries between SynBio and what could be considered more “classical” modern biotechnology and genetic engineering are not so clearcut. For the European Commission, the multidisciplinary approach of SynBio is an essential element of its nature, with SynBio capturing approaches like extensive metabolic engineering, for which several posts give excellent examples (e.g. #3539 and #3540 in the potential benefits thread), de novo design of organisms and molecular circuits. In contrast, developments such as the use of gene editing to improve the properties of plants, the development of cell and gene therapies or viral vectors for medical purposes, or the use of genetically modified microorganisms for production purposes should rather be considered “standard” and well-established uses of genetic engineering or biotechnology and should not be the focus of the discussions of this forum or the AHTEG on SynBio.

As regards current benefits in relation to the Convention, we would maintain that there are, at least to our knowledge, currently no products on the market that should be considered SynBio in a narrow sense.
For that reason, it is in our view at this point in time too early to meaningfully report on current benefits of SynBio in relation to the Convention and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). Most SynBio applications remain in early research phases, with long-term ecological, social, and economic impacts still poorly understood.
While SynBio holds theoretical potential to support certain KMGBF targets – such as ecosystem restoration (Target 2), to reduce pollution (Target 7), to mitigate climate change impacts (Target 8), or to enhance the sustainability of production systems (Target 10) – real-world benefits have yet to be demonstrated and rigorously evaluated.

In complement to the intervention presented in #3557, and taking note of the valuable contributions received since then, I wish to highlight some positions that reinforce the elements already raised and that contribute to building a technically sound consensus in this forum.

The contribution of #3583 clearly identifies the structural barriers that prevent developing countries from translating research into products: scarce funding, insufficient infrastructure, outdated regulatory systems, and limited training in key areas such as bioinformatics and intellectual property. This diagnosis reinforces the need for the Thematic Action Plan to prioritize the effective strengthening of national capacities as a fundamental enabling condition for realizing the benefits that this thread is tasked with identifying.

Along the same lines, #3641 precisely underscores that synthetic biology constitutes a continuum of modern biotechnology and should be addressed through the lens of existing biosafety and risk assessment frameworks, noting that Decision CBD/COP/DEC/16/2 should orient support toward research, innovation, risk management, and institutional preparedness of Parties. This approach is the one most coherent with the Convention's mandate and with the efficient use of available resources. Complementing this perspective, #3648 highlights that regulatory frameworks should not constitute obstacles but rather catalysts for responsible development, and that the risk assessment principles developed for LMOs are fully applicable to most synthetic biology products already within the scope of the Cartagena Protocol — a position I fully share.

I equally value the contribution of #3620, which recalls that the operational concept of synthetic biology used under the CBD encompasses a broad spectrum of technologies overlapping with organisms already regulated under the Cartagena Protocol, and that case-by-case evaluation alongside robust biosafety frameworks will remain essential to ensure that emerging applications contribute safely to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

Finally, particularly relevant is the observation in #3646 that recombinant Factor C produced in contained facilities represents the most solid and verifiable example of a current and realized benefit of synthetic biology with direct relevance to the Convention — concrete evidence already cited in #3557 and further reinforced in this contribution with documentation of real-world use at industrial scale.

In that regard, I reiterate that the greatest contribution this forum and the upcoming AHTEG can make is to orient available resources toward the effective strengthening of national capacities for risk assessment and biosafety governance under the Cartagena Protocol. In a context of significant budgetary constraints facing the United Nations system, it is essential that resources be directed as a priority toward ensuring that countries — particularly developing ones — have the technical tools, trained personnel, and institutional infrastructure needed to assess, govern, and where appropriate benefit from these developments. Investing in parallel assessments or new regulatory categories when existing frameworks are underutilized would not represent the best use of the limited resources available to the Parties.

International cooperation among Parties in this direction constitutes, in my view, the most concrete and lasting contribution that can emerge from these processes.

Thank you very much.

Ediner Fuentes-Campos
Deputy Director of Research and Development, Secretariat of Science, Technology and Innovation of Panama / National Focal Point — Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

Dear Forum Participants and Mr. Batic, 

My name is Ana Atanassova, and I represent the Global Industry Coalition (GIC) in this online forum. My input draws upon over 20 years of academic and biotech industry experience in research, development, and regulation of biotech crops, as well as advancements in agricultural biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. I have served as a participant in the AHTEG on Synthetic Biology 2017-2018 and have been contributing to the development of GIC materials and submission of information in response to SCBD Notifications. I look forward to contributing to the work of the AHTEG on Synthetic Biology 2026. 

In line with our view that use of the term “biotechnology” provides more inclusive and coherent framework for achieving the goals of the CBD and the 2030 KMGBF Targets (#3666) rather than “synthetic biology”, in this “current benefits” thread we include examples of biotech innovations with demonstrated benefits. These examples are intended to be illustrative but not exhaustive. In our previous GIC submissions of information (2017-2023; linked in the beginning of  #3666), we have provided examples of biotech crops with quantified outcomes that advance biodiversity conservation, the sustainable use of biological resources, and facilitate benefit sharing, in line with CBD’s objectives and KMGBF goals and targets, as well as other international sustainability goals.

It is well documented that the demands on agriculture are expected to grow substantially over the coming decades, due to global population growth (predicted to be 9.7 billion by 2050), increasingly challenging environmental conditions and climate change, and increasing societal expectations for sustainability (Keiper and Atanassova 2022 https://doi.org/10.3389/fgeed.2022.898950). Technological developments that provide new tools in agriculture, from pest management to plant breeding, have the potential to contribute to productivity and more sustainable agricultural practices. This is relevant to the KMGBF 2050 Goals and 2030 Targets related to reducing threats to biodiversity, and sustainable management of agriculture (Target 10); also Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for no poverty (#1); zero hunger (#2), the latter encompassing improved nutrition and food security, and promotion of agricultural sustainability and productivity; good health and well-being (#3); climate change (#13) and life on land (#15).

In the GIC’s 2017 CBD synthetic biology submission (Global Industry Coalition | BCH-SUB-SCBD-112053 | Submissions | Biosafety Clearing-House), we elaborated on the substantial body of published evidence quantifying positive environmental impacts of biotech crops as well as benefits for human health and safety, and socio-economic benefits of commercialized biotech crops (see literature compiled at Environmental Benefits | Impact Areas | Benefits & Safety of Biotechnology Database), including recent assessments that highlight the relevance of biotech crops to climate change mitigation (Smyth et al 2023, DOI: 10.1080/21645698.2024.2335701 https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2024.2335701). 

The additional illustrative examples we provide below (and many of those provided by others #3584) are generally best understood as applications that could support CBD objectives/KMGBF Targets in conjunction with broader conservation and sustainability measures, including in combination with, or supplementary to existing conventional tools. These opportunities can be mapped to multiple KMGBF targets, and most notably Targets 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 17 and 20. The examples also underline the broad enabling role of biotechnology in improving services and processes (often improving the speed, precision or scale of existing tools - e.g. faster diagnostics, greener manufacturing, accelerated screening and breeding), in parallel to the development of new products (often improvements of earlier such products). Given that this type of information has been collected many times before in the synthetic biology programs of work, and that it is now collected to inform the work of the new Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group who are asked to build on previous work, we limit our consideration to the well-established tools that also have relevance to the current intersessional period (2024-2026). 

One category of applications involves monitoring of species and activities:

DNA barcoding for species Identification & discovery (Target 21 (linked to knowledge & data accessible for biodiversity decisions) and CBD objective - Conservation (linked to better information for protecting species). DNA barcoding speeds up species detection, thereby improving conservation priority-setting and management and enables more informed protected area planning and monitoring. Diversity2022, 14(3), 213;https://doi.org/10.3390/d14030213

Environmental DNA (eDNA) for species monitoring is with relance to Target 6 (linked to halving introduction of invasive species) and Target 21 (strengthen biodiversity monitoring & knowledge). Non-invasive monitoring of rare or invasive species via eDNA techniques to detect genetic traces of organisms in water, soil, or air, allows to confirm presence of elusive or invasive species without direct sightings. For example, DNA from pond water revealed the presence of invasive American bullfrogs in France even at low densities, enabling early management interventions Biol Lett (2008) 4 (4): 423–425 .https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2008.0118 These types of biotechnology applications improve wildlife monitoring, aiding early warning for invasive species control.

DNA “forensics” in wildlife trade control – such tools can be linked to Target 5 (legal, sustainable use of wild species; prevent illegal poaching/trade). DNA barcoding and sequencing of animal parts helps enforce wildlife trade laws by identifying protected species in commerce. For instance, genetic barcoding of shark fins in African and Asian markets uncovered meat from endangered shark species, providing evidence to prosecute illegal fishing and trafficking of protected wildlife Krishna Krishnamurthy, P., Francis, R.A. A critical review on the utility of DNA barcoding in biodiversity conservation. Biodivers Conserv 21, 1901–1919 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0306-2 

Another category of applications relates to the generation and availability of tools and data sharing to enable research and monitoring

Open genomic data - Target 13 (increase benefits from genetic resources & DSI) and Target 21 (open access biodiversity data & knowledge) global collaboration and benefit-sharing in biodiversity science: The open sharing of genomic data (e.g. GenBank, BOLD and other DNA barcode databases) is a globally shared benefit that enables all countries and researchers (from developed and developing countries) to access genetic information that can be used for biodiversity research. This improves our collective ability to monitor species and ecosystems (through data-driven tools like barcoding/metabarcoding) and also aligns with efforts to create frameworks for equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources Molecular Ecology, 2025; 34:e17712 https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.17712 

While longer term than the current intersessional, the ongoing global iGEM competition raised by #3589 provides another example that contributes to Target 20. With thousands of participants from over 65 countries, iGEM has inspired over 400 synthetic biology projects and led to more than 350 startups founded by its alumni. Its focus on biosafety and responsible innovation serves as a model for safe and responsible innovation.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this exchange,

Kind regards

Dear Forum,

It can be argued that the definition and scope of synthetic biology remain ambiguous due to the rapid advancement of biotechnology. This lack of clarity regarding its boundaries makes it difficult to define its specific products and, consequently, complicates the assessment of its current benefits against the high expectations for its future, even though it sounds very promising. Currently, a significant portion of synthetic biology's outcomes remains confined to the laboratory or design stages, rather than widespread commercial application.
Nevertheless, the current benefit of synthetic biology is increasingly evident in its role as a transformative platform technology that provides the necessary procedural infrastructure for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). By standardizing biological parts and accelerating the DBTL cycle, it offers a realized advantage in how we address the following global targets:
- Foundational Climate Mitigation (Target 8): While large-scale sequestration is still maturing, synthetic biology currently provides the high-precision tools required to redesign metabolic cycles for enhanced carbon capture. These tangible experimental advances in metabolic engineering demonstrate the feasibility of creating synthetic carbon-fixation pathways—such as the CETCH or McG cycles—that can outperform natural photosynthesis, providing a scientifically promising route to mitigate climate-driven biodiversity loss even at the proof-of-concept stage.
- Procedural Support for Sustainable Production (Target 10): The technology acts as a foundational enabler by improving the efficiency of precision fermentation. This currently allows for the specialized production of high-value compounds in contained settings, offering a functional pathway to reduce land-use pressure and minimize the ecological footprint of industrial and agricultural processes.

In this sense, the support synthetic biology provides today is foundational and procedural; it transforms biodiversity targets into manageable engineering challenges, ensuring that the transition to a sustainable bio-based economy is guided by increased predictability and robust biosafety governance under Targets 17 and 20.

Thanks

Dr. Ju Seok Lee

My name is Delphine Thizy. I am a senior advisor on policy and stakeholder engagement at Imperial College, working with Target Malaria, and an advocacy consultant for Friends of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

I would like to support the statements #3609 and #3545 which highlight the current benefits of synthetic artemisin and to comment on statement #3613 which questions the benefits of R&D on synthetic artemisin.

Malaria continues to exact a devastating toll, with over 282 million cases and over 610,000 deaths annually, mostly among children under 5 years old in sub-Saharan Africa (WHO, malaria report 2025). Artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) are the cornerstone of global malaria treatment, but their effectiveness depends on a stable, affordable supply of artemisinin. The value chain for ACTs faces persistent challenges: fluctuating yields of Artemisia annua, climate-related disruptions to agriculture, and price volatility. Semisynthetic artemisinin, produced through innovative biotechnology, has emerged as a critical solution to these challenges. By diversifying production methods, it strengthens the supply chain, ensures price stability, and increases access to life-saving treatments in regions where malaria is most endemic. The WHO’s prequalification of semisynthetic artemisinin in 2013 marked a turning point, enabling manufacturers to scale up production and meet surging demand, especially during shortages of plant-derived artemisinin. This technological advancement is not about replacing traditional agricultural sources but about complementing them to create a more resilient and equitable system for malaria control.

The development of semisynthetic artemisinin also underscores the importance of sustained investment in research and development. Not every R&D effort yields immediate or guaranteed success—many medical breakthroughs, from penicillin to mRNA vaccines, required decades of trial, error, and persistence before transforming global health. For example, the discovery of artemisinin itself was the result of research by Chinese scientists in the 1970s, and its derivatives only became widely accessible after years of further innovation (Wang, 2019). Study (Schuhmacher, 2025) show that an average likelihood of approval rate (ability to get a regulatory approval for a new drug) of 14.3% for the leading companies, demonstrating that the ratio between R&D and actual discoveries that can make a difference is low, but nonetheless transformative when thinking about life-saving drugs such as Lenacapavir for HIV prevention, or mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 . Similarly, the path to semisynthetic artemisinin involved a decade-long collaboration among academic, non-profit, and private sector partners, demonstrating that even when initial results are modest, continued R&D can lead to transformative outcomes. While some argue, such as in post #3613 that resources could be better spent elsewhere, history shows that abandoning promising avenues of research risks missing opportunities to save lives and improve health equity. The no-profit, no-loss model adopted for semisynthetic artemisinin production ensures that its benefits reach those who need them most, without undermining the role of smallholder farmers who cultivate Artemisia annua.

Rather than viewing synthetic biology as a distraction from traditional solutions, we should recognize it as a necessary tool in a multi-pronged strategy to combat malaria. The rise of drug-resistant parasites and the ongoing threat of supply chain disruptions demand that we explore all viable options - including biotechnology - to secure the future of malaria treatment. By supporting R&D in semisynthetic artemisinin and other innovations, we can address current gaps in the ACT value chain and build a more adaptive response to one of the world’s oldest and most persistent diseases.

World Health Organisation (WHO). (2025). World Malaria Report 2025. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/teams/global-malaria-programme/reports/world-malaria-report-2025

Wang, J., Xu, C., Wong, Y. K., Li, Y., Liao, F., Jiang, T., & Tu, Y. (2019). Artemisinin, the Magic Drug Discovered from Traditional Chinese Medicine. Engineering, 5(1), 32–39. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2018.11.011

Kung SH, Lund S, Murarka A, McPhee D, Paddon CJ. Approaches and Recent Developments for the Commercial Production of Semi-synthetic Artemisinin. Front Plant Sci. 2018 Jan 31;9:87. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00087. PMID: 29445390; PMCID: PMC5797932. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2018.00087/full

World Health Organization (2019) The use of non-pharmaceutical forms of Artemisia. Geneva. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/186c21a1-c481-43ac-a1ad-1b7b81be9f9f/content

World Health Organization (WHO) (2013) Acceptance of non-plant-derived-artemisinin offers potential to increase access to malaria treatment, press release https://extranet.who.int/prequal/sites/default/files/documents/PQ_non-plant_derived_artemisinin_1.pdf

Zhao L, Zhu Y, Jia H, Han Y, Zheng X, Wang M, Feng W. From Plant to Yeast-Advances in Biosynthesis of Artemisinin. Molecules. 2022 Oct 14;27(20):6888. doi: 10.3390/molecules27206888. PMID: 36296479; PMCID: PMC9609949. https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/27/20/6888

Schuhmacher, A., Hinder, M., Brief, E., Gassmann, O., & Hartl, D. (2025). Benchmarking R&D success rates of leading pharmaceutical companies: an empirical analysis of FDA approvals (2006–2022). Drug Discovery Today, 30(2), 104291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2025.104291

Dear Participants,

In the last hours of the forum, I just wanted to express my appreciation for the discussions and perspectives shared. At the time of writing, the discussions on the current benefits have been the most active and I would like to thank you for that.

It is important that a variety of concrete examples of the current benefits of synthetic biology was been provided here. It is also equally important that other relevant considerations have also been shared to better understand the larger picture. I was happy to see some participants even sharing statistics regarding some applications and biotechnology companies.
Together, the information will enable the AHTEG to critically consider the information shared and have conversations regarding the relevance to the Convention and KMGBF.

I will work with the Secretariat to ensure that the information has been captured.

Best,

Martin

Firstly, I would like to thank Martin Batič for moderating this forum and all the colleagues who contributed to the discussion.

Synthetic biology is advancing rapidly thanks to a combination of factors, including the biotechnological tools available, our understanding of and information on biological systems, computational power, process automation, and the generative abilities of artificial intelligence. In my opinion, synthetic biology's primary benefit today is its ability to foster knowledge and innovation in a variety of application areas.

With regard to objective one — the conservation of biological diversity — synthetic biology contributes by providing an alternative to the exploitation of natural resources. Conserving natural resources means conserving natural ecosystems, which contributes directly to the conservation of biological diversity.

Regarding the second objective, the sustainable use of the components of biological diversity, synthetic biology raises awareness of their tremendous value among a wider population. Currently, the generative capacity of technology is still limited. Nature continues to provide tremendous inspiration for biotechnological applications. If technology is used wisely, we can learn from nature and apply this knowledge sustainably, without relying on the exploitation of natural resources themselves.

Regarding the third objective of the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources, synthetic biology must be used within existing frameworks that provide access to and sharing of the benefits of genetic resources. The Nagoya Protocol and, more recently, the BBNJ provide the necessary instruments. While monetary compensation is important, it is also crucial that benefit-sharing includes capacity-building and knowledge transfer. This will enable more parties to utilise the potential of synthetic biology safely and responsibly.
Regarding the third objective — the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources — synthetic biology must be used within existing frameworks that facilitate access to and sharing of benefits from genetic resources. The Nagoya Protocol and, more recently, the BBNJ provide the necessary instruments. While monetary compensation is important, it is also crucial that benefit-sharing includes capacity-building and knowledge transfer. This will enable more parties to utilise the potential of synthetic biology safely and responsibly for the benefit of countries and biological diversity.

Dear Participants,

Thank you kindly for your active participation and robust discussions.

The Open-Ended Online Forum is now closed.

Kind regards,

The Secretariat