Scientometric review of the literature about genetic resources access and benefit sharing under the Convention on Biological Diversity: Current research and future directions

We conducted a scientometric on the United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) access to biological resources and benefit sharing (ABS) literature using the Scopus database. There were 723 publications by 2,225 authors broadly related to this topic of which 150 publications by 395 researchers focus on the topic. The literature reflected by keyword choices was diverse in disciplines (eg., social sciences, biological sciences), forms (eg., articles, books, and so on), journals/publishers, authors/affiliations, and themes. Significantly, the vast majority of authors (about 70%) only authored one publication. The literature divided between publications about complying with ABS as a regulatory hurdle to doing science, or on ABS examining social, legal and policy aspects of regulation. While the CBD is focussed on conservation and sustainable development, the literature was focused on a diversity of social, legal and policy debates. We highlight the importance of future research on ABS addressing conservation per se.

Download

Quantifying the Prosecutorial Preauthorization Intake System and the Costs of ‘No Action’ Cases

In most jurisdictions, a police officer arrests and books a defendant, then files the criminal complaint before a judge. The judge sets bail, and if necessary, appoints defense counsel for the accused. Inadequate cases are later dropped – often weeks or months later – by prosecutors. This happens only after extensive investigation and usually not before the accused spent several nights in detention. In 1973, Harris County, Texas developed a solution to this inefficiency: prosecutors receive a phone call from the police officer at the moment of arrest. The officer explains the circumstances of the arrest, and the prosecutor evaluates whether it meets the required elements of the crime. If satisfied, the prosecutor grants authorization, and only then does the police officer file. We quantify the efficacy of this unique pre-authorization intake system, comparing arrests filed in Harris County, TX, Miami-Dade County, FL, and dozens of counties in New Mexico. We find that a pre-authorization intake system would save a municipality like Miami, FL, many millions of dollars annually.

Download

From the Heavens to the Helix: The Cost-Benefit Analysis of President Obama's "Moonshot" Call to Cure Cancer

In his final State of the Union, President Obama called on the scientific community to “make America the country that cures cancer once and for all.” Congress has since responded, increasing funding for such research. While this is good in the abstract, it is unclear that it is an objectively correct and productive use of government funds. This article proposes measures by which to analyze the costs and benefits of the government’s cancer research funding expenditures. Having done so, the article then offers specific policy recommendations incorporating further costbenefit analysis to realize the President’s aim, namely: weighting grant applications by the cost of the cancer being addressed, increasing the number of grants funded and creating a revolving fund for future funding, converting NIH spending from discretionary to mandatory, expending cooperative partnerships, and collecting more data on grant applications themselves for further analysis.

The Role of Neuroscience in Drug Policy: Promises and Prospects

Crack cocaine use carries high costs for society, particularly in terms of increased crime. The tools of modern neuroscience may be able to reduce demand by addressing altered brain circuitry of individuals suffering from severe cocaine use disorder. Here, we review several rehabilitative strategies, including pharmacotherapies targeting neurotransmitter systems, immunotherapies that block cocaine from entering the central nervous system, brain stimulation to disrupt abnormal circuit function, and real-time feedback in neuroimaging to allow the strengthening of impulse control. These experimental treatments hold promise for treating severe cocaine use disorder, and such approaches could be employed as an alternative to widespread incarceration.

A New Criminal Records Database for Large-Scale Analysis of Policy and Behavior

To allow large-scale, cross-jurisdictional analyses of criminal arrests, we have developed the Center for Science and Law’s Criminal Record Database (CRD), a collection of tens of millions of U.S. courthouse records. The CRD can enhance many types of research—for example, identification of high-frequency offenders, measurement of changes in policing strategies, and quantification of legislative efficacy—giving policy makers the best data upon which to base law enforcement decisions. The CRD provides a heightened level of detail about individual offenders, their crimes, and their interactions with the criminal justice system; additionally, it translates court records into a common framework for cross-jurisdiction comparison. In particular, the database includes anonymized identifiers to support exploration of criminal re-offense (recidivism) within the same jurisdiction. A constantly growing project, the CRD currently contains 22.5 million records from 1977 to 2014 from Harris County in Texas, New York City, Miami DadeCounty in Florida, and the state of New Mexico.

Toxic Exposure and Disease: Perspectives from the Scientific, Regulatory and Legal Communities On Causation

In the 21st century, people across the globe encounter more suspected toxins on a daily basis than any time in the history of our planet. Whether a suspected toxin increases the risk of or causes illness or disease is a central question that surfaces in very different ways in the scientific, regulatory and legal communities. There are critical differences in how scientific data is viewed, interpreted and applied when determining causation in a scientific, public health/regulatory, or legal context. Routinely, scientists form hypotheses and study whether there is a scientifically-established causal connection between exposure to a toxin and illness or disease. By contrast, while regulatory and health-based agencies/organizations are science-driven, tend to focus on broader questions on whether a toxin poses a potential health hazard to the public. In the courtroom, courts and juries consider whether exposure to a toxin is a “legal” cause of an injury. Juries are often incapable of truly understanding the differences between good and bad science, especially when well-qualified experts on both sides appear convincing. The fallout is that: (1) companies can no longer look to reliable science to dictate reasonable conduct; (2) the scientific process is diluted and replaced, at least in our court system, with a distorted misperception on what science tells us; and (3) it encourages litigation of scientifically-unsupported claims with enormous financial consequences, both in defending the claims and paying out compensation. The key to solving this problem is to educate courts on how to objectively assess the literature and only permit expert opinions that meet the high standards of truly reliable science; thus, truly fulfilling their gatekeeping role of only permitting scientifically-reliable expert opinions to support claims of toxic exposure. The scientific, regulatory, and legal fields can better support courts in their gatekeeping responsibilities by continuing this open dialogue and transparently acknowledging differing opinions, methodologies, and missions.

Neuroprevention: Developing Legal Policies in Risk Assessment Without Aspiring to Predict Crime

What should be the ultimate purpose of punishment in criminal law? Is it possible to apply measures that do not only pursue a simple retributive punishment but, at the same time, can help to: (a) reduce the risk of recidivism by serving as complementary measures to the penalty and (b) reduce incarceration rates without endangering public safety? Our proposal is to conceptualize the risk assessment of recidivism, and of criminal acts in general, from what we call “neuroprevention.”

We argue that the commonly used term of neuroprediction implies a deeply deterministic, even fatalistic interpretation, of individual behavior, that may lead to a stigmatization of the prisoner or probationer. Furthermore, this can lead to a paradoxical, even dangerous interpretation of the legal policies related to recidivism and criminal acts. Neuroprediction becomes paradoxical when it implies that the system gives itself the power to change the course of future events that, at the same time, it considers to be largely inevitable. This is also a dangerous idea because it could be exploited in certain circumstances to legitimize dictatorial practices.

However, we are convinced that neuroscientific tools and evidence can contribute to reducing crime rates and to a more efficient use of resources destined for risk assessment and criminal prosecutions. This can be accomplished by renouncing the aspiration to predict crime and replacing it with the intention to prevent it, which we consider more realistic and fair. There is no implicit acceptance of the inevitable here. Rather, the emphasis is placed on anticipating the possible or probable, but never conclusively determining it. The double objective pursued by the neuroprevention paradigm is that measures and strategies can be adopted for not only improving public safety, but also for offering the prisoner or probationer a real, scientifically-based opportunity to reintegrate into society by providing adequate intervention and training.

We are convinced that our approach would make it easier for policy-makers and citizens to realize that the advances in neuroscience suggest exciting paths toward a more beneficial, flexible, and humane justice system, one with a more complete and in-depth view of criminal behavior.

Download

Artificial Intelligence and Trust: Improving Transparency and Explainability Policies to Reverse Data Hyper-Localization Trends

Access to data is an essential part of artificial intelligence (AI) technology development efforts.  Government and corporate actors have increasingly imposed localized and hyper-localized restrictions on data due to rising mistrust—the fear and uncertainty about what countries and companies are doing with data, including perceived and real efforts to exploit user data or create more powerful and possibly dangerous AI systems that could threaten civil rights and national security. If the trend is not reversed, over-restriction could impede AI development to the detriment of all. Solutions are offered to improve trust through the adoption of legal and social policies that ensure transparency in data collection and use, and explainability of decisions made by AI systems that affect people’s lives.

Download

On the Origin of Samples: Pathogen Provenance and the Rise of the Material Transfer Agreement

The purpose of this Opinion article is to inform scientists of the access and benefit-sharing (ABS) laws that could encroach on their ability to obtain pathogen samples for research purposes. The United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) reaffirms the sovereign right of states over their genetic resources and recommends that access to such resources occur on mutually agreed terms and with the prior informed consent of eligible providers. This creates the conditions for a quid pro quo on genetic resources, essentially transforming them into articles of trade. The CBD cedes the authority to determine the terms of access to genetic resources, including pathogens, to national governments and this has created a patchwork of domestic ABS regulations around the globe. This article posits that the current ABS regime creates unacceptable incentives to avoid benefit-sharing obligations that could irreparably skew the scientific record. Scientists may restrict their research to samples collected from countries with lax ABS policies, or might even be tempted to misrepresent the provenance of pathogen samples to avoid entering into protracted and potentially expensive benefit-sharing negotiations. The article concludes that one solution might be to use Material Transfer Agreements as a chain-of-custody tool until such time as policymakers can reconcile the ambiguities and inconsistencies of international pathogen sharing regulations.

Download

The Ethics of Biomedical Big Data: Busting Myths

Biomedical research ethics has historically rested on cases of egregious harm and disrespect to subjects through direct experimentation on bodies. However, with the emergence of sophisticated health data and specimen analysis, a new type of research ethics case study has emerged to highlight the limitations of applying current research and privacy regulations to the study of Big Data. In this paper I challenge common myths about data protection and argue three points researchers must keep in mind: (1) De-identification does not always secure privacy in the manner intended, (2) Successful identification does not suffice to address all ethical concerns, and (3) any party that creates new health records should not presume that traditional regulatory restrictions have fully accounted for their own part in this vanguard of evolving responsibilities. To this last point, I argue that any researcher, including those operating in the largely unregulated domains of public data and citizen science, should seek ethics consultation to help them respect persons, avoid harms, and proceed justly beyond the legal minimums.

Review of Adam Benforado's "Unfair: The New Science of Criminal Injustice"