Core commitments for field trials of gene drive organisms

Long, Kanya C.; Alphey, Luke; Annas, George J.; Bloss, Cinnamon S.; Campbell, Karl J.; Champer, Jackson; Chen, Chun Hong; Choudhary, Amit; Church, George M.; Collins, James P.; Cooper, Kimberly L.; Delborne, Jason A.; Edwards, Owain; Emerson, Claudia; Esvelt, Kevin M.; Evans, Sam Weiss; Friedman, Robert M.; Gantz, Valentino M.; Gould, Fred; Hartley, Sarah; Heitman, Elizabeth; Hemingway, Janet; Kanuka, Hirotaka; Kuzma, Jennifer; Lavery, James V.; Y, Lee; Lorenzen, Marcé D.; Lunshof, Jeantine E.; Marshall, John M.; Messer, Philipp W.; Montell, Craig; Oye, Kenneth A.; Palmer, Megan J.; Papathanos, Philippos Aris; Paradkar, Prasad N.; Piaggio, Antoinette J.; Rasgon, Jason L.; Rašić, Gordana; Руденко, Лариса; Saah, J. Royden; Scott, Maxwell J.; Sutton, Jolene T.; Vorsino, Adam E.; Akbari, Omar S.

doi:10.1126/science.abd1908

Cited by 76 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with the GDT literature (NASEM 2016;Adelman, Akbari, et al 2017;Carter and Friedman 2016;Long et al 2020;Santos 2020;Emerson et al 2017), there was broad agreement amongst respondents on the importance of engaging communities, stakeholders, and publics. At the same time, the interviewed experts had divergent views on what this should consist of.…”

Section: The Challenge Of Moving From General Moral Principles To Concrete Obligationsmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…Different policies have been proposed to govern GDTs, ranging from voluntary consensus statements to (inter)national regulation. Various policy papers and consensus statements have been published in which academics and scientific organizations have outlined recommendations and principles for GDT research and policymaking (Oye et al 2014;Akbari et al 2015;Adelman, Akbari, et al 2017;Adelman, Pledger, et al 2017;Carter and Friedman 2016;Emerson et al 2017;James et al 2018;Long et al 2020;Roberts et al 2017;NASEM 2016), ranging from safety recommendations for laboratory research (Akbari et al 2015;Adelman, Pledger, et al 2017) to core commitments for field trials with localized GDTs (Long et al 2020). These manuscripts provide recommendations for different actors that play a role in GDT research and development, including researchers, policy makers and funders of GDT research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Governing Gene Drive Technologies: A Qualitative Interview Study

Graeff

Jongsma

Lunshof

et al. 2021

AJOB Empirical Bioethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: The Challenge Of Moving From General Moral Principles To Concrete Obligationsmentioning

confidence: 61%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing Gene Drive Technologies: A Qualitative Interview Study

Graeff

Jongsma

Lunshof

et al. 2021

AJOB Empirical Bioethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…), and assess their potential uses, risks and benefits in field scenarios, and (2) community engagement [10]. Core commitments for field trials with GDMOs [68] and a code of ethics for GD research [110] have recently been issued by the research/GD community. They highlight, among other aspects, the need for engagement and public transparency, GD product efficacy and safety, regulatory evaluation (including risk-benefit assessments), and post-release monitoring and mitigation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At present, some GDMIs are either in development or have been tested experimentally in the laboratory, often with multigenerational data and model simulations [17,19,20,27,28,33,35,39,43,45,46,[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67]. However, no "contemporary" GDMIs have been assessed in small-scale physically and/or ecologically confined field trials, or open release trials [5,8,10,15,68].…”

Section: Engineered Gene Drive Strategies and Approaches In Insectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential use of gene drive modified insects against disease vectors, agricultural pests and invasive species poses new challenges for risk assessment

Devos

Mumford

Bonsall

et al. 2021

Critical Reviews in Biotechnology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Containment methods for modified organisms and exit strategies will be essential if ecosystem risk is considered high. Field trials, predictive mathematical models, and mesocosm studies will become especially important to anticipate the likelihood of negative impacts (e.g., Long et al, 2020;Mozelewski & Scheller, 2021).…”

Section: Revisiting Characterizations Of Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the intersections of governance, constituencies, and risk in genetic interventions

Burgiel

Baumgartner

Brister

et al. 2021

Conservat Sci and Prac

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In June 2020, Revive & Restore hosted the Intended Consequences Workshop to explore how the field of conservation can realize the benefits of genetic interventions and address concerns about unintended consequences of these actions. A group of 57 participants from eight countries representing government, academia, and conservation practice discussed how implementation of genetic interventions designed to achieve conservation objectives can be optimized to both address concerns about risk and achieve the intended consequences. Genetic interventions are efforts designed to manipulate the genetic composition of a conservation target at a species or population level. The planning and implementation of genetic interventions in conservation raises questions about how key constituencies are involved in the process and how risks and benefits are characterized and evaluated. Governance frameworks are critical to structuring dialogue and decision‐making among interested parties around the development of these conservation efforts in a manner that addresses risks, benefits, and equity considerations. In this article, we explore related issues of policy and governance, key constituencies, and risk as raised during discussions at a 2020 workshop on “Intended Consequences” of conservation interventions. We examine how different constituencies characterize risks of genetic interventions within particular sociocultural contexts. We then revisit the characterization and framing of risks to suggest ways that the perspectives of different constituencies can be visualized in a manner to inform resulting policy decisions.

show abstract

Core commitments for field trials of gene drive organisms

Abstract: We must ensure that trials are scientifically, politically, and socially robust, publicly accountable, and widely transparent

Cited by 76 publications

References 14 publications

Governing Gene Drive Technologies: A Qualitative Interview Study

Governing Gene Drive Technologies: A Qualitative Interview Study

Potential use of gene drive modified insects against disease vectors, agricultural pests and invasive species poses new challenges for risk assessment

Exploring the intersections of governance, constituencies, and risk in genetic interventions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About