Hi,
Today we bring you an in-depth analysis on the prevailing challenges in the governance of Digital Sequence Information.
Why is this important? Access to genetic information underpins research and development, and consequently, the access to medical products. How, and at what terms DSI can be used determines innovation in science as much as it impacts health outcomes.
I am delighted to present today’s edition, a careful analysis on the topic by Siddarth Jain, an India-based researcher, specializing in Intellectual Property Rights, with a focus on global health. He is also a part of the Geneva Health Files annual fellowship program. Through his piece he questions scientific neutrality and its implications for health equity.
We hope you find our analysis timely, as the negotiations on the Pathogen Access Benefits Sharing Mechanism at the WHO, gathers steam in Geneva.
Our mission has been to provide critical inter-disciplinary reporting on cutting edge policy areas by breaking down the silos in global health. Thank you for reading.
Support public interest global health journalism, become a paying subscriber. Tracking global health policy-making in Geneva is tough and expensive. Help us raise important questions, and in keeping an ear to the ground. makes this possible.
Gratitude to our subscribers who help us contribute to greater accountability in global health.
More soon!
Best,
Priti
Feel free to write to us: patnaik.reporting@gmail.com or Follow us on Twitter: @filesgeneva
I. ANALYSIS
Governance of Digital Sequence Information at the Crossroads: Examining the Policy Spheres of WIPO & WHO
By Siddarth Jain
Jain is currently a Fellow at Geneva Health Files and holds an MPhil-PhD from the Center for Studies in Science Policy (CSSP), Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Contact: jain.siddarth09@gmail.com
Jain through this article highlights the complex and contested nature of Digital Sequence Information (DSI) governance, revealing it as a central point of tension between Intellectual Property Rights and Global Health Security. It details how recent international agreements—have largely failed to establish a unified and binding framework for DSI, deferring critical discussions to future negotiations.
The political debate over Digital Sequence Information (DSI) concerns who owns genetic data, who can access it, and whether benefit-sharing is owed when it is used in research or commercial applications. DSI refers to digitized genetic data, often extracted from biological samples—plants, pathogens, microbes, and animals.
This debate gained particular prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the rapid open sharing of pathogen sequences (e.g., via GISAID) facilitated vaccine development, but also circumvented[1] ABS (Access and Benefit-Sharing) frameworks under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
The governance of DSI must not be split between health emergencies and biodiversity justice. It must be interoperable across crises, accountable across platforms, and grounded in plural visions of fairness.
DSI sits at the collision point of three world-views: biodiversity sovereignty, Intellectual Property Governance, and Global Health Security. Any attempt to govern it must confront this triangulated tension; fragmentation will only deepen digital inequity.
At the crossroads of WIPO’s Treaty on Intellectual Property Rights, Traditional Knowledge & Genetic Resources, and WHO’s Pandemic Agreement, the two competing legal regimes are set to be potentially operable in the future. (The negotiations on the annex to the Pathogen Access Benefits Sharing mechanism at WHO is at incipient stages.)
[1] COVID-origins report sparks debate over major genome hub GISAID; https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00901-9; Date accessed: July 24, 2025
