Return part of the profit from genetic information to the communities and people who have protected living things
In short
- Companies that sell products made with the genetic information of living things pay part of their sales into a worldwide fund.
- Nobody traces which living thing each company used, one by one, and instead the whole industry pays together.
- Most of the money goes directly to the local and Indigenous people who have protected forests and seas.
- Genetic information databases stay free for anyone in the world to use, as they are now.
- Universities doing research that does not earn money, and companies with small sales, do not have to pay.
If this comes true
In a forest village by a river, an older woman who has passed down the knowledge of telling medicinal plants apart uses money from the fund to hire three young people, and they head out together to patrol the forest.
Perhaps
A crop farmer who buys seed every year might pay a slightly higher price and have no way of knowing which forest the money reached.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
The rule covers companies that sell products developed with genetic information read from living things, meaning data on the order of their DNA. These products include medicines, seeds, enzymes, cosmetic ingredients, and materials made with synthetic biology. Countries make an international agreement under which companies must pay a very small share of sales on covered products sold in that country into a common worldwide fund, for example about one percent of profit or about 0.1 percent of sales. Payment is tied to approval to sell a new medicine or seed and to patent registration, and a company that has not paid cannot sell in that country's market. The current approach is to find out, case by case, which living thing from which country supplied the information and to sign a separate contract for each. For data, this approach is dropped, and the whole industry that uses genetic information pays together instead. The fund's money is divided mainly by giving weight to regions with many kinds of living things, but at least half is set aside to go directly, without passing through national governments, to the Indigenous peoples and local communities that have actually protected forests and seas. Representatives of the people who receive the money take part in deciding how it is divided. Public databases stay as they are now, with no registration and no cost, and no limits are placed on their use. Research by universities and public institutions that do not seek profit, and small companies whose sales fall below a set amount, are exempt from paying. When actual living things or specimens are taken out of a country, permission from the country of origin and a separate contract are still required, as before.
BenefitsData stays open, and protectors are rewarded
The core of this system is that it does not make research freedom and fairness trade against each other. Because the databases are not closed and no permission is required for each use, researchers can keep using genetic information from around the world freely, as they do now. Then, only at the stage when products sell and make a profit, the industry carries the cost broadly and thinly. Working out which living thing's information helped which product is almost impossible technically and becomes a source of disputes, but under a system where everyone pays together, that effort and the lawyers' fees disappear. For countries rich in living things, the reason to wall off data goes away, and the world's research is kept from splitting apart. Above all, the people who have protected forests by leaving them uncut can now earn money by protecting them. For work such as hiring patrol workers, saving seeds, and teaching children traditional knowledge, funds arrive not as outside donations but as a share of the value their own land created. Protecting living things changes from a losing choice into one that is rewarded, and keeping nature standing, which is the raw material of future research, pays off in the long run even for companies that use genetic information.
DrawbacksMedicines and seeds cost more, and the money may not fully reach protectors
In many cases, the money companies pay is simply added to the price of the product. In the end, the people who bear it are patients who buy medicines and farmers who buy seeds, and these include people in low-income countries. What is more, paying together, in exchange for fairness, cuts the link between how much was used and how much is paid. A product that drew only slightly on genetic information and a product that depended on it heavily would pay at the same rate, and companies would see this as a tax that makes no sense. Developing a new medicine costs an enormous amount, and even a small added cost could become a reason to give up on medicines for diseases that do not pay off. Heavier still is the question of whether the money collected really reaches the protectors. It is hard to decide who has protected a given forest, and there is a danger that loud groups or people close to the government will claim to be the ones who receive the money. International funds tend to have high running costs, and they can also become a stage for bargaining between countries over how to divide the money. The burden on those who pay is certain to arise, while the benefit to those who receive is uncertain, and we need to be ready to accept that gap.
Learn the background
Much of the improvement of medicines and crops, genome editing, and synthetic biology starts from the genetic information of living things found in tropical forests and seas and in mountain fields. Most of the places rich in such living things are in low-income countries, where local people have for generations left the forests uncut, passed down seeds, and kept their knowledge of medicinal plants. But once the genetic information of a living thing has been collected, it is posted as data in public databases and can be taken for free from anywhere in the world. Companies in wealthy countries use it to develop products, take out patents, and make large profits, while almost nothing goes back to the original land. There are international rules that require permission and a sharing of benefits when physical specimens are taken out, yet as soon as the material becomes data, that promise slips away. Some countries that feel this is unfair are moving to restrict the sharing of data itself, and if that happens, research around the world will shrink. Meanwhile, with no reward for those who protect them, lands rich in living things are quickly being lost under pressure from development.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-20b) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes