Biology is in the middle of a transformation. Over the past five years new sequencing techniques have made it much easier and cheaper to read long strands of DNA, allowing scientists to record gapless genomes with much less uncertainty than before. Scientists are keen to put these capabilities to good use. One ambitious proposal is the Earth Biogenome Project, a moonshot idea to sequence all the planet's eukaryotic life—that is, all plants, animals, fungi and so forth . This would help scientists uncover the hidden handiwork of evolution, monitor how endangered species respond to global warming, and mine genomes for useful biological compounds, such as new antibiotics.

生物学正处于变革之中。 过去五年间，新的测序技术让读取长链DNA变得更为简便且廉价， 这使得科学家能够以前所未有的精准度记录无间隙基因组。 科学家们热切期望能充分利用这些技术能力。 其中一项宏大的计划便是“地球生物基因组计划”，这一“登月级”构想旨在对地球上所有真核生物——即所有植物、动物、真菌等进行基因组测序。 这将助力科学家揭示进化的隐秘成果，监测濒危物种对全球变暖的反应， 并从基因组中挖掘有用的生物化合物，例如新型抗生素。

Unfortunately, the project faces big obstacles. One is the Nagoya protocol, which was supposed to make the biosciences fairer and more efficient. In force since 2014, the protocol asserts countries' sovereign right to negotiate access to genetic resources on their land. Although well-intentioned, it has made sharing biological samples across borders harder, and has not generated benefits for biodiverse countries, many of them poor. It should be scrapped, and replaced with something better.

遗憾的是，该计划面临着巨大阻碍。 其中之一便是《名古屋议定书》，这份议定书原本旨在让生物科学领域更公平、更高效。 自2014年生效以来，该议定书主张各国对其领土上遗传资源的获取谈判拥有主权。 尽管初衷良好，但它却加大了跨国界共享生物样本的难度，且并未给生物多样性丰富的国家（其中许多是贫困国家）带来实际益处。 这份议定书应当被废除，取而代之的应是更完善的制度。

Sequencing is not the only work being hampered by the protocol's red tape. Microbiological research, especially on pathogenic bacteria and viral strains, has often been obstructed, too. Brazilian researchers working under Nagoya-like rules were prevented from sharing samples of the Zika virus during an outbreak in 2016. Likewise with the MERS virus in Saudi Arabia in 2013 (when some Nagoya principles were already in place, under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), of which the protocol is an offshoot). This has slowed vital research, including on vaccines.

测序工作并非唯一受议定书繁琐规定阻碍的领域。 微生物研究，尤其是对致病菌和病毒株的研究，也常常受阻。 2016年寨卡病毒爆发期间，受类似《名古屋议定书》规则约束的巴西研究人员无法共享病毒样本。 同样的情况也发生在2013年沙特阿拉伯的中东呼吸综合征（MERS）疫情中（当时，作为《生物多样性公约》分支的《名古屋议定书》所包含的部分原则已在该公约框架下生效）。 这减缓了包括疫苗研发在内的关键研究进程。

The idea behind the protocol is a noble one. It sought to enable countries to share in the benefits generated from their genetic resources, and to ensure that stewards of biodiversity would not be relied upon for their work and knowledge without proper compensation. The intent was to protect poor countries, in particular, from being exploited by researchers and businesses from the rich world. But the protocol has not only failed to achieve its aims, it has been counterproductive.

议定书背后的理念值得称道。 它旨在让各国能分享从其遗传资源中产生的利益， 确保生物多样性的守护者不会在其工作和知识未获适当补偿的情况下被过度依赖。 其初衷是保护贫困国家，防止它们被富裕国家的研究人员和企业剥削。 但该议定书不仅未能实现其目标，反而产生了适得其反的效果。

Rather than helping biodiverse countries get their due, it is more often imposing a burden on them. As of 2023, more than 80% of countries that have ratified the protocol had yet to issue a single permit, meaning that those countries have received no benefit, monetary or otherwise. Many have no adequate processes in place to facilitate permits; in other places, local scientists seeking permits describe needing to know people if they are to find their way around countries' systems.

它非但没有帮助生物多样性丰富的国家获得应有的回报，反而常常给这些国家带来负担。 截至2023年，超过80%已批准该议定书的国家尚未签发过一份许可， 这意味着这些国家未获得任何经济或其他形式的益处。 许多国家没有完善的流程来推进许可发放；在另一些地方， 寻求许可的本地科学家表示，要在国家的体制内找到门路，必须得有关系。

As a consequence, foreign researchers have at times pulled back from collaborating with colleagues in poor countries. After years of delay, the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Britain has had to reallocate funds from some projects with scientists in countries that have ratified the protocol to projects in countries that have not.

结果是，外国研究人员有时会退出与贫困国家同行的合作。 经过多年的拖延， 英国威康桑格研究所不得不将部分与已批准议定书国家科学家合作项目的资金，重新分配给与未批准议定书国家合作的项目。

Countries are entitled to make their own laws, but the current framework is complex and unworkable. That is not just a bad deal for countries providing samples. The world at large is forgoing the benefits of research when biodiversity is under huge pressure, the threat of pandemics looms large and biology at last has the tools to make important progress.

各国有权制定自己的法律，但当前的框架复杂且难以运作。 这不仅对提供样本的国家不公平， 在生物多样性面临巨大压力、流行病威胁日益加剧，而生物学终于拥有取得重要进展工具的当下，整个世界都在错失研究带来的益处。

That is why the protocol needs to make way for a better system. One might draw inspiration from another offshoot of the CBD, called the Cali Fund. This will create a financial mechanism for companies to pay for genomic sequences (rather than samples). Like copyright collection societies, it will allow data to be shared easily through online databases, in exchange for payment into a central fund responsible for compensating sequence-providing countries.

正因如此，议定书需要为更完善的制度让路。 我们或许可以从《生物多样性公约》的另一个分支——“卡利基金”中汲取灵感。 该基金将建立一种财务机制，让企业为基因组序列（而非样本）付费。 就像版权集体管理组织一样，它将允许数据通过在线数据库轻松共享， 作为交换，企业需向一个中央基金付款，该基金负责向提供序列的国家提供补偿。

A similar system for sharing physical samples could lessen the administrative burden on the poorest countries by removing the need for permits and enabling collaboration. If some of the money that was generated went towards building technical capacity in poor countries, they could more easily take part in international research on an equal footing. That would create value not just for the planet's myriad creatures, but for fledgling scientific communities everywhere.

一种类似的物理样本共享制度，通过取消许可要求并促进合作，能够减轻最贫困国家的行政负担。 如果所产生的部分资金用于提升贫困国家的技术能力， 它们就能更轻松地以平等地位参与国际研究。 这不仅会为地球上无数生物创造价值，也会为各地新兴的科学界创造价值。