Ugandan stakeholder hopes and concerns about gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control: new directions for gene drive risk governance

The Adoption of Genetically Modified Crops in Africa: the Public's Current Perception, the Regulatory Obstacles, and Ethical Challenges

Genetically modified (GM) crops are the most important agricultural commodities that can improve the yield of African smallholder farmers. The intricate circumstances surrounding the introduction of GM agriculture in Africa, however, underscore the importance of comprehending the moral conundrums, regulatory environments, and public sentiment that exist today. This review examines the current situation surrounding the use of GM crops in Africa, focusing on moral conundrums, regulatory frameworks, and public opinion. Only eleven of the fifty-four African countries currently cultivate GM crops due to the wide range of opinions resulting from the disparities in cultural, socioeconomic, and environmental factors. This review proposed that addressing public concerns, harmonizing regulations, and upholding ethical standards will improve the adoption of GM crops in Africa. This study offers ways to enhance the acceptability of GM crops for boosting nutrition and food security globally.

Scientism, trust, value alignment, views of nature, and U.S. public opinion about gene drive mosquitos

Gene drive could be a powerful tool for addressing problems of conservation, agriculture, and human health caused by insect and animal pests but is likely to be controversial as it involves the release of genetically modified organisms. This study examined the social determinants of opinion of gene drive. We asked a representative sample of the U.S. public to respond to a description of a hypothetical application of a gene-drive mosquito to the problem of malaria and examined the relationship of these responses with demographic and ideological beliefs. We found strong general approval for the use of gene-drive mosquitos to address malaria, coinciding with the concern about a possible environmental impact of modified mosquitos and that gene drives represent "too much power over nature." Among the determinants we measured, respondent acceptance of scientism and trust that scientists are advancing the public's interest were the greatest predictors of views of gene drive.

The legal aspect of the current use of genetically modified organisms in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda

Many African nations place a high priority on enhancing food security and nutrition. However, unfavorable environmental conditions interfere with the achievement of food security in Africa. The production of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) presents intriguing possibilities for improving food security on the continent. In Africa, countries in the same regions have different GMO usage policies and laws. While some nations are updating their laws and policies to allow GMOs, others are still debating whether they are worth the risk. However, there is still little information available regarding the most recent status of GMO applications in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. The current review summarizes the state of GMO applications for enhancing food security in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. Currently, Tanzania and Uganda do not accept GMOs, but Kenya does. This study can assist governments, academics, and policymakers in enhancing GMO acceptance for boosting nutrition and food security in their nations.

The Strategy of Paratransgenesis for the Control of Malaria Transmission

Insect-borne diseases are responsible for important burdens on health worldwide particularly in Africa. Malaria alone causes close to half a million deaths every year, mostly in developing, tropical and subtropical countries, with 94% of the global deaths in 2019 occurring in the WHO African region. With several decades, vector control measures have been fundamental to fight against malaria. Considering the spread of resistance to insecticides in mosquitoes and to drugs in parasites, the need for novel strategies to inhibit the transmission of the disease is pressing. In recent years, several studies have focused on the interaction of malaria parasites, bacteria and their insect vectors. Their findings suggested that the microbiota of mosquitoes could be used to block Plasmodium transmission. A strategy, termed paratransgenesis, aims to interfere with the development of malaria parasites within their vectors through genetically-modified microbes, which produce antimalarial effectors inside the insect host. Here we review the progress of the paratransgenesis approach. We provide a historical perspective and then focus on the choice of microbial strains and on genetic engineering strategies. We finally describe the different steps from laboratory design to field implementation to fight against malaria.

Lessons learned from the introduction of genetically engineered crops: relevance to gene drive deployment in Africa

The application of gene drives to achieve public health goals, such as the suppression of Anopheles gambiae populations, or altering their ability to sustain Plasmodium spp. infections, has received much attention from researchers. If successful, this genetic tool can contribute greatly to the wellbeing of people in regions severely affected by malaria. However, engineered gene drives are a product of genetic engineering, and the experience to date, gained through the deployment of genetically engineered (GE) crops, is that GE technology has had difficulty receiving public acceptance in Africa, a key region for the deployment of gene drives. The history of GE crop deployment in this region provides good lessons for the deployment of gene drives as well. GE crops have been in commercial production for 24 years, since the planting of the first GE soybean crop in 1996. During this time, regulatory approvals and farmer adoption of these crops has grown rapidly in the Americas, and to a lesser extent in Asia. Their safety has been recognized by numerous scientific organizations. Economic and health benefits have been well documented in the countries that have grown them. However, only one transgenic crop event is being grown in Europe, and only in two countries in that region. Europe has been extremely opposed to GE crops, due in large part to the public view of agriculture that opposes “industrial” farming. This attitude is reflected in a highly precautionary regulatory and policy environment, which has highly influenced how African countries have dealt with GE technology and are likely to be applied to future genetic technologies, including gene drives. Furthermore, a mistrust of government regulatory agencies, the publication of scientific reports claiming adverse effects of GE crops, the involvement of corporations as the first GE crop developers, the lack of identifiable consumer benefit, and low public understanding of the technology further contributed to the lack of acceptance. Coupled with more emotionally impactful messaging to the public by opposition groups and the general tendency of negative messages to be more credible than positive ones, GE crops failed to gain a place in European agriculture, thus influencing African acceptance and government policy. From this experience, the following lessons have been learned that would apply to the deployment of gene drives, in Africa:

It will be important to establish trust in those who are developing the technology, as well as in those who are making regulatory decisions. Engagement of the community, where those who are involved are able to make genuine contributions to the decision-making process, are necessary to achieve that trust. The use of tools to facilitate participatory modeling could be considered in order to enhance current community engagement efforts.

Trusted, accurate information on gene drives should be made available to the general public, journalists, and scientists who are not connected with the field. Those sources of information should also be able to summarize and analyze important scientific results and emerging issues in the field in order to place those developments in the proper context. Engagement should involve more opportunities for participation of stakeholders in conceptualizing, planning, and decision-making.

Diversifying the source of funding for gene drive research and development, particularly by participation of countries and regional bodies, would show that country or regional interests are represented.

Efforts by developers and neutral groups to provide the public and decisionmakers with a more thorough understanding of the benefits and risks of this technology, especially to local communities, would help them reach more informed decisions.

A better understanding of gene drive technology can be fostered by governments, as part of established biosafety policy in several African countries. Developers and neutral groups could also be helpful in increasing public understanding of the technology of genetic engineering, including gene drives.

Effective messaging to balance the messaging of groups opposed to gene drives is needed. These messages should be not only factual but also have emotional and intuitive appeal.

Stakeholder engagement to inform the risk assessment and governance of gene drive technology to manage spotted-wing drosophila

Emerging biotechnologies, such as gene drive technology, are increasingly being proposed to manage a variety of pests and invasive species. As one method of genetic biocontrol, gene drive technology is currently being developed to manage the invasive agricultural pest spotted-wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii, SWD). While there have been calls for stakeholder engagement on gene drive technology, there has been a lack of empirical work, especially concerning stakeholder engagement to inform risk assessment. To help address this gap and inform future risk assessments and governance decisions for SWD gene drive technology, we conducted a survey of 184 SWD stakeholders to explore how they define and prioritize potential benefits and potential adverse effects from proposed SWD gene drive technology. We found that stakeholders considered the most important potential benefits of SWD gene drive technology to be: 1) Decrease in the quantity or toxicity of pesticides used, and 2) Decrease in SWD populations. Stakeholders were most concerned about the potential adverse effects of: 1) Decrease in beneficial insects, 2) Increase in non-SWD secondary pest infestations, and 3) Decrease in grower profits. Notably, we found that even stakeholders who expressed support for the use of SWD gene drive technology expressed concerns about potential adverse effects from the technology, emphasizing the need to move past simplistic, dichotomous views of what it means to support or oppose a technology. These findings suggest that instead of focusing on the binary question of whether stakeholders support or oppose SWD gene drive technology, it is more important to identify and assess the factors that are consequential to stakeholder decision making - including, for example, exploring whether and under what conditions key potential adverse effects and potential benefits would result from the use of SWD gene drive technology.

Engineering a self-eliminating transgene in the yellow fever mosquito, Aedes aegypti

Promising genetics-based approaches are being developed to reduce or prevent the transmission of mosquito-vectored diseases. Less clear is how such transgenes can be removed from the environment, a concern that is particularly relevant for highly invasive gene drive transgenes. Here, we lay the groundwork for a transgene removal system based on single-strand annealing (SSA), a eukaryotic DNA repair mechanism. An SSA-based rescuer strain (kmo^RG ) was engineered to have direct repeat sequences (DRs) in the Aedes aegypti kynurenine 3-monooxygenase (kmo) gene flanking the intervening transgenic cargo genes, DsRED and EGFP. Targeted induction of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) in the DsRED transgene successfully triggered complete elimination of the entire cargo from the kmo^RG strain, restoring the wild-type kmo gene, and thereby, normal eye pigmentation. Our work establishes the framework for strategies to remove transgene sequences during the evaluation and testing of modified strains for genetics-based mosquito control.

California Residents’ Perceptions of Gene Drive Systems to Control Mosquito-Borne Disease

Scientists developing gene drive mosquitoes for vector control must understand how residents of affected areas regard both the problem of mosquito-borne disease and the potential solutions offered by gene drive. This study represents an experiment in public engagement at an early stage of technology development, intended to inform lab scientists about public attitudes toward their research and inspire consideration and conversation about the social ramifications of creating mosquitoes with gene drive. Online focus groups with California residents explored views on mosquito-borne disease risk, current mosquito control methods, and the proposed development and use of different classes of gene drives to control Ae. aegypti. Rather than a dogmatic rejection of genetic engineering or gene drive, many participants expressed pragmatic concerns with cost, control, the ability to narrowly target specific species, and the challenges of mistrust and institutional cooperation. Work like this can inform the alignment of community priorities and the professional priorities of scientists and vector control specialists.

Stakeholder Views on Engagement, Trust, Performance, and Risk Considerations About Use of Gene Drive Technology in Agricultural Pest Management

Gene drive is an experimental technique that may make it possible to alter the genetic traits of whole populations of a species through the genetic modification of a relatively small number of individuals. This technology is sufficiently new that literature on the understanding and views of stakeholders and the public regarding the use of gene drive organisms in agricultural pest management is just beginning to emerge. Our team conducted a 2-pronged engagement process with Texas gene drive agricultural stakeholders to ascertain their values, beliefs, and preferences about the efficacy, safety, and risk management considerations of gene drive technology as a potential tool for agricultural pest management. We found that a majority of stakeholders support gene drive research and its potential use for managing agricultural pests. Our work with stakeholders confirms both their willingness to be engaged and the importance they place on stakeholder and public engagement regarding these issues, as well as the need to address these issues before use of gene drive as a pest management mechanism will be accepted and trusted.

Facilitating the Conversation: Gene Drive Classification

Gene drives are an emerging technology with tremendous potential to impact public health, agriculture, and conservation. While gene drives can be described simply as selfish genetic elements (natural or engineered) that are inherited at non-Mendelian rates, upon closer inspection, engineered gene drive technology is a complex class of biotechnology that uses a diverse number of genetic features to bias rates of inheritance. As a complex technology, gene drives can be difficult to comprehend, not only for the public and stakeholders, but also to risk assessors, risk managers, and decisionmakers not familiar with gene drive literature. To address this difficulty, we describe a gene drive classification system based on 5 functional characteristics. These characteristics include a gene drive's objective, mechanism, release threshold, range, and persistence. The aggregate of the gene drive's characteristics can be described as the gene drive's architecture. Establishing a classification system to define different gene drive technologies should make them more comprehensible to the public and provide a framework to guide regulatory evaluation and decisionmaking.

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.

Risk management recommendations for environmental releases of gene drive modified insects

The ability to engineer gene drives (genetic elements that bias their own inheritance) has sparked enthusiasm and concerns. Engineered gene drives could potentially be used to address long-standing challenges in the control of insect disease vectors, agricultural pests and invasive species, or help to rescue endangered species. However, risk concerns and uncertainty associated with potential environmental release of gene drive modified insects (GDMIs) have led some stakeholders to call for a global moratorium on such releases or the application of other strict precautionary measures to mitigate perceived risk assessment and risk management challenges. Instead, we provide recommendations that may help to improve the relevance of risk assessment and risk management frameworks for environmental releases of GDMIs. These recommendations include: (1) developing additional and more practical risk assessment guidance to ensure appropriate levels of safety; (2) making policy goals and regulatory decision-making criteria operational for use in risk assessment so that what constitutes harm is clearly defined; (3) ensuring a more dynamic interplay between risk assessment and risk management to manage uncertainty through closely interlinked pre-release modelling and post-release monitoring; (4) considering potential risks against potential benefits, and comparing them with those of alternative actions to account for a wider (management) context; and (5) implementing a modular, phased approach to authorisations for incremental acceptance and management of risks and uncertainty. Along with providing stakeholder engagement opportunities in the risk analysis process, the recommendations proposed may enable risk managers to make choices that are more proportionate and adaptive to potential risks, uncertainty and benefits of GDMI applications, and socially robust.

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.