Motivations, roles, and power dynamics at the Knowledge-Policy interface: The co-production of Digital Sequence Information governance at the Convention for Biological Diversity

International boundary organisations facilitate the exchange between knowledge and policy, often to tackle wicked problems such as climate change and biodiversity loss. By gathering stakeholder knowledge, needs and values, and providing a forum for decisions to be negotiated, such organisations have a key role in the co-production of knowledge and social order. The governance of emerging technology is an area that is understudied in this context; therefore, this paper focuses on an ongoing attempt to govern biological ‘Digital Sequence Information’ (DSI) under the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD). Positioning the CBD as a boundary organization provides a structured lens to examine the exchange between knowledge and power in the co-production of DSI governance. Since DSI governance encompasses the negotiation of a global benefit-sharing agreement from the use of DSI, it pertains to diverse issues, including indigenous data sovereignty, international capacity building, and reflection about the purpose of biological research and innovation. Therefore, this paper explores the motivations and roles of two engaged stakeholder groups representing biological scientists and Indigenous People and Local Communities (IPLCs). It examines how both formal and informal interactions with policymakers, in conjunction with the power dynamics at play, impact their participation and influence on outcomes. To achieve this, the paper utilises the results of participant observations at two negotiations, namely the 15th Conference of Parties (Montreal, December 2022) and the Open-Ended Working Group on DSI (Geneva, November 2023). Notes from these observations, as well as the results of 30 semi-structured interviews were analysed using deductive coding to probe the dynamics of the knowledge-policy process. Natural scientists revealed a range of perceptions regarding their role in negotiations, varying from educating policymakers and representing the ‘voice of science’, to serving as ‘honest brokers’ who acknowledge the specific political dynamics that must be navigated. Conversely, IPLC groups viewed their role as advocating for indigenous rights while simultaneously contributing knowledge about indigenous worldviews and practices pertinent to governance processes. Both groups saw themselves in bridging roles between the policy process and their broader communities, forming significant responsibilities for the individuals involved. However, a significant finding is that, despite UN rules regarding participation in formal knowledge gathering and exchange processes, both groups highlighted that pivotal moments, where influence and understanding are developed, are characterized by informality, often ‘in the corridors’. Interviewees indicated that this phenomenon is influenced by the resources, skills, and capacity to engage in such interactions and can inadvertently influence the selection of individuals for subsequent roles, such as performing formal reports and participating in expert working groups. Therefore, the power implications of informality should be accounted for in explorations of knowledge-policy exchanges. Overall, this paper explores the roles of stakeholder groups in a science governance process, offering insights into their influence and power dynamics within international boundary organizations. By examining this case, we shed light on the interaction of stakeholder groups and policymakers in their attempts to order the relationship between bioscience innovation and concerns related to fairness, equity, and ownership within the global biotechnology innovation system.