Figure 1
The DNA barcoding pipeline. Adapted from CBOL website (Consortium for the Barcode of Life 2016).
Figure 2
Workflow for analysing institutional statements based on the grammar of institutions (Crawford and Ostrom, 1995) and institutional logics (Thornton et al. 2012). Appendix 2 defines each ideal type of institutional logic for each barcoding behaviour.
Figure 3
Number of institutional statements about nine barcoding behaviours in twelve BOL documents coded for four institutional logics. Each statement could be coded with more that one logic.
Figure 4
Percentage of institutional statements made by LMMC or non-LMMC interviewees about a DNA barcoding behaviour. The number of institutional statements is indicated above each bar.
Figure 5
Percentage of institutional statements made by LMMC or non-LMMC interviewees coded by institutional logic. The number of institutional statements is indicated above each bar.
Table 1
Relative odds and confidence intervals (CI) of interviewee statements categorized by barcoding behaviour or institutional logic.
| Odds Ratio* | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|
| Behaviour | ||
| Setting the scope of projects | 0.79 | 0.27–2.3 |
| Starting Collaborations | 0.89 | 0.45–1.8 |
| Collecting specimens | 0.72 | 0.33–1.6 |
| Sharing specimens | 0.67 | 0.36–1.2 |
| Storing specimens | 1.7 | 0.72–4.1 |
| Generating data | 2.5 | 0.83–7.3 |
| Sharing data | 1.2 | 0.68–.20 |
| Storing data | 0.69 | 0.24–2.0 |
| Accessing data | 1.4 | 0.52–3.5 |
| Institutional Logic | ||
| Corporation | 2.3 | 1.3–4.4 |
| Market | 3.0 | 1.4–6.6 |
| Profession | 0.97 | 0.60–1.6 |
| State | 0.53 | 0.32–0.88 |
[i] * Odds ratios (OR) compare the frequency statements by interviewees from non-likeminded megadiverse countries (non-LMMC) to the reference group of interviewees from likeminded megadiverse countries (LMMC).
Figure 6
Percentage of institutional statements about starting collaborations made by LMMC or non-LMMC interviewees coded by institutional logic. The number of institutional statements is indicated above each bar.
Table 2
Relative odds and confidence intervals (CI) of interviewee statements categorized by barcoding behaviour and institutional logic.
| Corporation | Market | Profession | State | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Behaviour | OR* | 95% CI | OR* | 95% CI | OR* | 95% CI | OR* | 95% CI |
| Setting project scope | 14.00 | 0.94–208 | – | 0.13 | 0.02–0.78 | 1.50 | 0.15–15 | |
| Starting Collaborations | 0.56 | 0.05–6.7 | 3.40 | 0.81–14 | 0.58 | 0.11–3 | 4.00 | 0.38–42 |
| Collecting specimens | 0.68 | 0.05–8.5 | – | 2.30 | 0.47–12 | 0.13 | 0.02–0.86 | |
| Sharing specimens | 3.10 | 0.94–10 | 1.50 | 0.01–25 | 1.10 | 0.36–3.5 | 0.29 | 0.09–1 |
| Storing specimens | 0.95 | 0.13–7.2 | – | 7.30 | 1.1–48 | 0.55 | 0.08–3.6 | |
| Generating data | 2.30 | 0.19–28 | 0.89 | 0.06–13 | 1.80 | 0.21–15 | 0.40 | 0.02–8.1 |
| Sharing data | 5.40 | 1.1–27 | 1.50 | 0.23–9.3 | 0.70 | 0.27–1.8 | 0.69 | 0.24–2 |
| Storing data | 4.00 | 0.27–59 | – | 1.40 | 0.10–20 | – | ||
| Accessing and using data | – | 7.00 | 0.61–80 | – | 0.50 | 0.07–3.8 | ||
[i] – Number of statements too small to calculate ORs.
* Odds ratios (OR) compare the frequency statements by interviewees from non-likeminded mega diverse countries (non-LMMC) to the reference group of interviewees from likeminded megadiverse countries (LMMC).
Figure 7
Percentage of institutional statements about collecting specimens made by LMMC or non-LMMC interviewees coded by institutional logic. The number of institutional statements is indicated above each bar.
Figure 8
Percentage of institutional statements about sharing specimens made by LMMC or non-LMMC interviewees coded by institutional logic. The number of institutional statements is indicated above each bar.
Figure 9
Percentage of institutional statements about sharing data made by LMMC or non-LMMC interviewees coded by institutional logic. The number of institutional statements is indicated above each bar.
Table 3
Recommendations for the formulation of DNA barcoding institutional statements based on the grammar of institutions ADICO syntax and analysis of institu-tional logics.
| Behaviour | Recommendation based on ADICO grammar of institutions | Justification based on analysis of institutional logics and the global inequities filter |
|---|---|---|
| Setting the scope of barcode projects | In setting the scope of BOL projects, establish aIms for professional targets in addition to those of BOL organizations | LMMC interviewees were not influenced by the corporation logic, despite participation in BOL organizations |
| Starting collaborations | Set out Conditions that promote equity in how participants derive personal benefits from collaborations | Non-LMMC interviewees were more likely to be influenced by market logic, indicating a potential need to mitigate the impact of seeking personal gain within BOL collaborations |
| Creating the commons (including standards setting) | ||
| Collecting specimens | The aIm of specimen collection should be Conditional on adherence with relevant state laws, regulations and policies and collectors should receive training in their obligations and permitted and forbidden actions (Deontic operators) | LMMC and non-LMMC interviewees held divergent views on specimen collection under the state logic. Given the history of misappropriation of genetic resources, BOL organizations should support adherence to and training on laws, regulations and policies on genetic resources and access and benefit sharing |
| Sharing specimens | As above in the context of sharing specimens. In addition, BOL organizations should develop enforcement mechanisms, including sanctions, to ensure compliance (Or else) | As above and BOL organizations should develop enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with state laws, regulations and policies for dimensions of the barcoding commons that are within their control |
| Storing specimens | BOL organizations should aIm to store collections in the country of origin, and include best practice Conditions under which storage in foreign repositories, especially in non-LMMCs, is permitted for quality control and back-up | LMMC and non-LMMC interviewees shared expectations under the profession logic that duplicate specimens should be stored in multiple locations for quality control and back-up, however differed in their state logic that specimens should be stored in the LMMC of origin |
| Generating data | BOL organizations should aIm to create data standards (Conditions) informed by experts | Interviewees were most influenced by the profession logic, which focused on maintaining and improving data quality |
| Sharing data | BOL organizations should aIm to promote equitable data sharing that recognises the contributions of LMMC participants and impose Conditions for some forms of data, such as sensitive data about endangered or invasive species | LMMC interviewees were influenced by the profession logic, indicating that their data contributions acknowledge their professional contributions, for example, through joint publications. LMMC and non-LMMC interviewees used the state logic to recognise data sharing limits for sensitive data |
| Storing data | BOL organisations should aIm to promote (Deontic operators) the professional requirement to maintain data quality and backup | All interviewees shared expectations about storing data to maintain quality and generating backup data |
| Using the commons | ||
| Accessing and using data | BOL organisations should aIm to maximize data access and sharing, while supporting Conditions that recognize access and use limits imposed by genetic resource and access and benefit sharing laws. BOL organizations might consider sanctions for noncompliant access and use (Or else) | LMMC and non-LMMC interviewees diverged in their use of logics to describe their experiences and expectations in accessing and using barcoding data. The latter used the market logic to favour no restrictions, while the former used the state logic to support restrictions on access and use for the public good, accounting for historical misappropriation of genetic resources and resultant access and benefit sharing laws. |