Report of the ad hoc technical expert group on synthetic biology

1. In decision XIII/17, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity commended the work of the online forum and the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Synthetic Biology (AHTEG) and welcomed the conclusions and recommendations of the report of the AHTEG as a basis for further discussion. The Conference of the Parties also considered the operational definition useful as a starting point for the purpose of facilitating scientific and technical deliberations under the Convention and its Protocols and took note of the conclusion of the AHTEG 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. 2. In the same decision, the Conference of the Parties (a) extended the mandate of the current AHTEG in accordance with the terms of reference contained in the annex to the decision; (b) extended the open-ended online forum to support the work of the AHTEG; (c) invited Parties, other Governments, relevant organizations and indigenous peoples and local communities and other relevant stakeholders to submit information and supporting documentation on topics relevant to the work of the AHTEG, as outlined in paragraph 10 of the decision; and (d) requested the Executive Secretary, among other things, to continue to facilitate moderated discussions under the open-ended online forum on synthetic biology through the Biosafety Clearing House. 3. In response to this decision, with a view to supporting the work of the AHTEG, the Secretariat has taken the following actions: (a) It issued a notification1 inviting the submission of information and documentation, as outlined in paragraph 10 of the decision. A total of 29 submissions were received, of which 15 were from Parties, 1 from a non-Party and 13 from organizations;2 (b) It convened a series of moderated online discussions of the open-ended online forum on synthetic biology from July to October 2017;3

More related to this:

EFSA advises on risk assessment of engineered gene drives

Public engagement pathways for emerging GM insect technologies

Engineering Bugs, Resurrecting Species: The Wild World of Synthetic Biology for Conservation

Gene drives, species, and compassion for individuals in conservation biology