Considerations for the governance of gene drive organisms

Procedural legitimacy: co-developing a community agreement model for genetic approaches research to malaria control in Africa

With reductions in the malaria burden stalling in the past years, gene drive holds promise as a novel way of reducing disease transmission. Governance and decision-making processes are pivotal aspects of the legitimate adoption of this technology. Here, the authors explore Target Malaria's journey in developing a community agreement model for the release of non-gene drive genetically modified mosquitoes. They describe the iterative development of the model, including consultations with experts, stakeholder engagement, and alignment with principles of procedural justice. Several challenges were identified during its development, including defining communities, ensuring adequate information, consultation, monitoring, and achieving a common decision between dissenting and consenting viewpoints. They underscore the complexity of developing a legitimate model and emphasize the importance of transparency, procedural legitimacy, and adherence to ethical principles. This paper does not describe the model itself, which will be the subject of another paper. Instead it focuses on the process, to share this experience with other projects-those working with gene drive, or any other projects requiring a community-level decision-making process. The model builds on Target Malaria's experience with the release of genetically modified sterile male mosquitoes, to address the challenges posed by modified mosquitoes which are fertile and would therefore be expected to persist longer in the environment and spread further than the sterile male mosquito strains. While the level of spread and persistence of these non gene drive, but fertile, modified mosquitoes are expected to be substantially lower than those of the gene drive mosquitoes, the process is an essential advance in accommodating the broader geographical and temporal concerns associated with the more permanent spread of gene drive mosquitoes. The work described here constitutes part of the evolution of a community agreement process that could be applied to proposals for releases of gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control. In describing this process, Target Malaria hopes to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on good practices for community agreement engagement in research for genetic vector control approaches and to share the experience of building legitimacy while designing such agreement models.

Assessing CRISPR/Cas9 potential in SDG3 attainment: malaria elimination-regulatory and community engagement landscape

Elimination of malaria has become a United Nations member states target: Target 3.3 of the sustainable development goal no. 3 (SDG3). Despite the measures taken, the attainment of this goal is jeopardized by an alarming trend of increasing malaria case incidence. Globally, there were an estimated 241 million malaria cases in 2020 in 85 malaria-endemic countries, increasing from 227 million in 2019. Malaria case incidence was 59, which means effectively no changes in the numbers occurred, compared with the baseline 2015. Jennifer Doudna-co-inventor of CRISPR/Cas9 technology-claims that CRISPR holds the potential to lessen or even eradicate problems lying in the centre of SDGs. On the same note, CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mosquito-targeting gene drives (MGD) are perceived as a potential means to turn this trend back and put momentum into the malaria elimination effort. This paper assessed two of the critical elements of the World Health Organization Genetically modified mosquitoes (WHO GMM) Critical Pathway framework: the community and stakeholders' engagement (inability to employ widely used frameworks, segmentation of the public, 'bystander' status, and guidelines operationalization) and the regulatory landscape (lex generali, 'goldilocks dilemma', and mode of regulation) concerning mosquito-oriented gene drives (MGD) advances. Based on the assessment findings, the author believes that CRISPR/Cas-9-mediated MGD will not contribute to the attainment of SDG3 (Target 3.3), despite the undisputable technology's potential. This research pertains to the state of knowledge, legal frameworks, and legislature, as of November 2022.

Anti-CRISPR Anopheles mosquitoes inhibit gene drive spread under challenging behavioural conditions in large cages

CRISPR-based gene drives have the potential to spread within populations and are considered as promising vector control tools. A doublesex-targeting gene drive was able to suppress laboratory Anopheles mosquito populations in small and large cages, and it is considered for field application. Challenges related to the field-use of gene drives and the evolving regulatory framework suggest that systems able to modulate or revert the action of gene drives, could be part of post-release risk-mitigation plans. In this study, we challenge an AcrIIA4-based anti-drive to inhibit gene drive spread in age-structured Anopheles gambiae population under complex feeding and behavioural conditions. A stochastic model predicts the experimentally-observed genotype dynamics in age-structured populations in medium-sized cages and highlights the necessity of large-sized cage trials. These experiments and experimental-modelling framework demonstrate the effectiveness of the anti-drive in different scenarios, providing further corroboration for its use in controlling the spread of gene drive in Anopheles.

Ethical Considerations for Gene Drive: Challenges of Balancing Inclusion, Power and Perspectives

Progress in gene-drive research has stimulated discussion and debate on ethical issues including community engagement and consent, policy and governance, and decision-making involved in development and deployment. Many organizations, academic institutions, foundations, and individual professionals have contributed to ensuring that these issues are considered prior to the application of gene-drive technology. Central topics include co-development of the technology with local stakeholders and communities and reducing asymmetry between developers and end-users. Important questions include with whom to conduct engagement and how to define community acceptance, develop capacity-building activities, and regulate this technology. Experts, academics, and funders have suggested that global frameworks, standards, and guidelines be developed to direct research in answering these important questions. Additionally, it has been suggested that ethical principles or commitments be established to further guide research practices. The challenging and interesting contradiction that we explore here is that the vast majority of these conversations transpire with little or no input from potential end-users or stakeholders who, we contend, should ultimately determine the fate of the technology in their communities. The question arises, whose concerns regarding marginalization, disempowerment, and inequity should be included in discussions and decisions concerning how inequities are perceived and how they may be addressed? At what stage will true co-development occur and how will opinions, perspectives and knowledge held by low-income country stakeholders be applied in determining answers to the questions regarding the ethics being debated on the academic stage? Our opinion is that the time is now.

iGEM and Gene Drives: A Case Study for Governance

Gene drives have already challenged governance systems. In this case study, we explore the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition's experiences in gene drive-related research and lessons in developing, revising, and implementing a governance system. iGEM's experiences and lessons are distilled into 6 key insights for future gene drive policy development in the United States: (1) gene drives deserve special attention because of their potential for widescale impact and remaining uncertainty about how to evaluate intergenerational and transboundary risks; (2) an adaptive risk management approach is logical for gene drives because of the rapidly changing technical environment; (3) review by individual technical experts is limited and may fail to incorporate other forms of expertise and, therefore, must be complemented with a range of alternative governance methods; (4) current laboratory biosafety and biosecurity review processes may not capture gene drive research or its components in practice even if they are covered theoretically; (5) risk management for research and development must incorporate discussions of values and broader implications of the work; and (6) a regular technology horizon scanning capacity is needed for the early identification of advances that could pose governance system challenges.

From the Lab to the Last Mile: Deploying Transgenic Approaches Against Mosquitoes

Ingenious exploitation of transgenic approaches to produce malaria resistant or sterile mosquitoes, or hypervirulent mosquito pathogens, has produced many potential solutions to vector borne diseases. However, in spite of technological feasibility, it has not been determined how well these new methods will work, and how they should be tested and regulated. Some self-limiting transgenic fungal pathogens and mosquitoes are almost field ready, and may be easier to regulate than self-sustaining strategies. However, they require repeat sales and so must show business viability; low-cost mass production is just one of a number of technical constraints that are sometimes treated as an afterthought in technology deployment. No transgenic self-sustaining approach to anopheline control has ever been deployed because of unresolved ethical, social and regulatory issues. These overlapping issues include: 1) the transparency challenge, which requires public discourse, particularly in Africa where releases are proposed, to determine what society is willing to risk given the potential benefits; 2) the transboundary challenge, self-sustaining mosquitoes or pathogens are potentially capable of crossing national boundaries and irreversibly altering ecosystems, and 3) the risk assessment challenge. The polarized debate as to whether these technologies will ever be used to save lives is ongoing; they will founder without a political answer as to how do we interpret the precautionary principle, as exemplified in the Cartagena protocol, in the global context of technological changes.

Oxitec and MosquitoMate in the United States: lessons for the future of gene drive mosquito control

In response to growing concerns regarding mosquito-borne diseases, scientists are developing novel systems of vector control. Early examples include Oxitec's OX513A genetically-engineered mosquito and MosquitoMate's Wolbachia-infected mosquito, and systems using 'gene-drive' are in development. Systems based on genetic engineering are controversial and institutions around the world are grappling with the question of who should have a say in how such technologies are field-tested and used. Based on media coverage and public records, we created comparative timelines of the efforts of Oxitec and MosquitoMate to navigate federal and local governance and bring their products to market in the United States. We analyze these timelines with particular attention to the role of public input in technology governance. These cases illustrate how governance of technology in the US is diverse, complex, and opaque. Further, the public response to proposed field trials of the Oxitec product highlights inconsistencies between public expectations for governance and actual practice. As gene-drive mosquito control products develop, both federal and local agencies will find their legitimacy tested without a better procedure for transparently integrating public input.

Governing Gene Drive Technologies: A Qualitative Interview Study

BACKGROUND

Gene drive technologies (GDTs) bias the inheritance of a genetic element within a population of non-human organisms, promoting its progressive spread across this population. If successful, GDTs may be used to counter intractable problems such as vector-borne diseases. A key issue in the debate on GDTs relates to what governance is appropriate for these technologies. While governance mechanisms for GDTs are to a significant extent proposed and shaped by professional experts, the perspectives of these experts have not been explored in depth.

METHODS

A total of 33 GDT experts from different professional disciplines were interviewed to identify, better understand, and juxtapose their perspectives on GDT governance. The pseudonymized transcripts were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Three main themes were identified: (1) engagement of communities, stakeholders, and publics; (2) power dynamics, and (3) decision-making. There was broad consensus amongst respondents that it is important to engage communities, stakeholders, and publics. Nonetheless, respondents had diverging views on the reasons for doing so and the timing and design of engagement. Respondents also outlined complexities and challenges related to engagement. Moreover, they brought up the power dynamics that are present in GDT research. Respondents stressed the importance of preventing the recurrence of historical injustices and reflected on dilemmas regarding whether and to what extent (foreign) researchers can legitimately make demands regarding local governance. Finally, respondents had diverging views on whether decisions about GDTs should be made in the same way as decisions about other environmental interventions, and on the decision-making model that should be used to decide about GDT deployment.

CONCLUSIONS

The insights obtained in this interview study give rise to recommendations for the design and evaluation of GDT governance. Moreover, these insights point to unresolved normative questions that need to be addressed to move from general commitments to concrete obligations.

Making gene drive biodegradable

Gene drive systems have long been sought to modify mosquito populations and thus combat malaria and dengue. Powerful gene drive systems have been developed in laboratory experiments, but may never be used in practice unless they can be shown to be acceptable through rigorous field-based testing. Such testing is complicated by the anticipated difficulty in removing gene drive transgenes from nature. Here, we consider the inclusion of self-elimination mechanisms into the design of homing-based gene drive transgenes. This approach not only caused the excision of the gene drive transgene, but also generates a transgene-free allele resistant to further action by the gene drive. Strikingly, our models suggest that this mechanism, acting at a modest rate (10%) as part of a single-component system, would be sufficient to cause the rapid reversion of even the most robust homing-based gene drive transgenes, without the need for further remediation. Modelling also suggests that unlike gene drive transgenes themselves, self-eliminating transgene approaches are expected to tolerate substantial rates of failure. Thus, self-elimination technology may permit rigorous field-based testing of gene drives by establishing strict time limits on the existence of gene drive transgenes in nature, rendering them essentially biodegradable.

This article is part of the theme issue ‘Novel control strategies for mosquito-borne diseases'.

[George Lucas: prophet of transhumanism?]

Star Wars, a "general public" film saga, raises questions about human nature and transhumanism. It features different characters who are neither "real" humans nor robots; there are creatures that can be likened to advanced humans (cyborgs, chimeras or genetically-modified humans). Based on the "Star Wars" movie, we will approach some ways of modifying the human person both in his body and in his consciousness and we will wonder about the man of tomorrow by asking ourselves if George Lucas (director of the first film released) might have not been a visionary of the men of tomorrow.

Articulating 'free, prior and informed consent' (FPIC) for engineered gene drives

Recent statements by United Nations bodies point to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as a potential requirement in the development of engineered gene drive applications. As a concept developed in the context of protecting Indigenous rights to self-determination in land development scenarios, FPIC would need to be extended to apply to the context of ecological editing. Without an explicit framework of application, FPIC could be interpreted as a narrowly framed process of community consultation focused on the social implications of technology, and award little formal or advisory power in decision-making to Indigenous peoples and local communities. In this paper, we argue for an articulation of FPIC that attends to issues of transparency, iterative community-scale consent, and shared power through co-development among Indigenous peoples, local communities, researchers and technology developers. In realizing a comprehensive FPIC process, researchers and developers have an opportunity to incorporate enhanced participation and social guidance mechanisms into the design, development and implementation of engineered gene drive applications.

A typology of community and stakeholder engagement based on documented examples in the field of novel vector control

Background

Despite broad consensus on the importance of community and stakeholder engagement (CSE) for guiding the development, regulation, field testing, and deployment of emerging vector control technologies (such as genetically engineered insects), the types of activities pursued have varied widely, as have the outcomes. We looked to previous CSE efforts for clarity about appropriate methods and goals. Our analysis yielded a typology of CSE, and related vocabulary, that describes distinctions that funders, organizers, and scholars should make when proposing or evaluating CSE.

Methods

We compiled available formal documentation of CSE projects, starting with projects mentioned in interviews with 17 key informants. Major features of these examples, including the initiators, target groups, timing, goals, and methods were identified using qualitative coding. Based on these examples, subcategories were developed for a subset of features and applied to the identified cases of CSE in the documents. Co-occurrence of subcategorized features was examined for patterns.

Results

We identified 14 documented examples CSE projects, which were comprised of 28 distinct CSE activities. We found no clear patterns with respect to timing. However, we found that grouping examples according to whether initiators or targets could enact the immediate desired outcome could help to clarify relationships between goals, methods, and targets.

Conclusion

Based on this analysis, we propose a typology that distinguishes three categories of CSE: engagement to inquire –where initiators are empowered to act on information collected through engagement with target groups; engagement to influence –where initiators engage to affect the actions of already-empowered target groups; and engagement to involve –where initiators engage to delegate authority to target groups. The proposed typology can serve as a guide for establishing the goals, identifying appropriate methods, and evaluating and reporting CSE projects by directing attention to important questions to be asked well before determining who to engage and how.

Mosquito borne diseases, such as malaria and dengue, are major causes of illness and death worldwide. Furthermore, it is getting harder to control mosquitoes and other disease-carrying pests because global climate change is facilitating their spread to new areas, and over time, mosquitoes develop resistance to pesticides. Scientists are therefore developing new methods for controlling mosquito vectors using new gene editing tools. However, releasing genetically engineered insects into the environment is controversial. Many experts recommend that communities and stakeholders be consulted about if or how to use these new methods, but there are few guidelines for the best way to do this. We examined published accounts of community and stakeholder engagement pertaining to novel vector control and looked for patterns across these cases. We found that many efforts were not described in published sources, but those that were could be grouped into three categories: engagement to inquire, engagement to influence, and engagement to involve.

Multi-cellular engineered living systems: building a community around responsible research on emergence

Ranging from miniaturized biological robots to organoids, multi-cellular engineered living systems (M-CELS) pose complex ethical and societal challenges. Some of these challenges, such as how to best distribute risks and benefits, are likely to arise in the development of any new technology. Other challenges arise specifically because of the particular characteristics of M-CELS. For example, as an engineered living system becomes increasingly complex, it may provoke societal debate about its moral considerability, perhaps necessitating protection from harm or recognition of positive moral and legal rights, particularly if derived from cells of human origin. The use of emergence-based principles in M-CELS development may also create unique challenges, making the technology difficult to fully control or predict in the laboratory as well as in applied medical or environmental settings. In response to these challenges, we argue that the M-CELS community has an obligation to systematically address the ethical and societal aspects of research and to seek input from and accountability to a broad range of stakeholders and publics. As a newly developing field, M-CELS has a significant opportunity to integrate ethically responsible norms and standards into its research and development practices from the start. With the aim of seizing this opportunity, we identify two general kinds of salient ethical issues arising from M-CELS research, and then present a set of commitments to and strategies for addressing these issues. If adopted, these commitments and strategies would help define M-CELS as not only an innovative field, but also as a model for responsible research and engineering.

Two unresolved issues in community engagement for field trials of genetically modified mosquitoes

There is an emerging consensus among scientists, ethicists, and public health officials that substantive and effective engagement with communities and the wider public is required prior to releasing genetically modified mosquitoes into the environment. While there is little disagreement about the need for community and public engagement prior to releasing genetically modified mosquitoes into the environment, two important issues have not been resolved, namely: defining the community and dealing with potential conflicts between the community and the wider public. This commentary addresses these unresolved issues.