Does the U.S. public support using gene drives in agriculture? And what do they want to know?

Jones, Michael; Delborne, Jason A.; Elsensohn, Johanna E.; Mitchell, Paul D.; Brown, Zachary S.

doi:10.1126/sciadv.aau8462

Cited by 43 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(89 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent study from Mali, for instance, reveals the reluctance of community members to accept experimental releases of genetically modified mosquitoes in their villages, arguing that the technology should be first tried elsewhere to show evidence of safety [62]. A recent US study has shown that nearly two-thirds of respondents trusted universities and the department of agriculture (but not the private sector or the Department of Defence) to develop gene drives [63]. This study further attests to the importance of gaining approval from local scientists, and the need to strengthen communication between scientists and communities in deliberating over the appropriateness of this technology.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opinions of key stakeholders on alternative interventions for malaria control and elimination in Tanzania

Finda

Christofides

Lezaun

et al. 2020

Malar J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Malaria control in Tanzania currently relies primarily on long-lasting insecticidal nets and indoor residual spraying, alongside effective case management and behaviour change communication. This study explored opinions of key stakeholders on the national progress towards malaria elimination, the potential of currently available vector control interventions in helping achieve elimination by 2030, and the need for alternative interventions that could be used to supplement malaria elimination efforts in Tanzania. Methods: In this exploratory qualitative study, Focus group discussions were held with policy-makers, regulators, research scientists and community members. Malaria control interventions discussed were: (a) improved housing, (b) larval source management, (c) mass drug administration (MDA) with ivermectin to reduce vector densities, (d) release of modified mosquitoes, including genetically modified or irradiated mosquitoes, (e) targeted spraying of mosquito swarms, and (f) spatial repellents. Results: Larval source management and spatial repellents were widely supported across all stakeholder groups, while insecticide-spraying of mosquito swarms was the least preferred. Support for MDA with ivermectin was high among policy makers, regulators and research scientists, but encountered opposition among community members, who instead expressed strong support for programmes to improve housing for poor people in high transmission areas. Policy makers, however, challenged the idea of government-supported housing improvement due to its perceived high costs. Techniques of mosquito modification, specifically those involving gene drives, were viewed positively by community members, policy makers and regulators, but encountered a high degree of scepticism among scientists. Overall, policy-makers, regulators and community members trusted scientists to provide appropriate advice for decision-making. Conclusion: Stakeholder opinions regarding alternative malaria interventions were divergent except for larval source management and spatial repellents, for which there was universal support. MDA with ivermectin, housing improvement and modified mosquitoes were also widely supported, though each faced concerns from at least one stakeholder group. While policy-makers, regulators and community members all noted their reliance on scientists to make informed decisions, their reasoning on the benefits and disadvantages of specific interventions included factors beyond technical efficiency. This study suggests the need to encourage and strengthen dialogue between research scientists, policy makers, regulators and communities regarding new interventions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opinions of key stakeholders on alternative interventions for malaria control and elimination in Tanzania

Finda

Christofides

Lezaun

et al. 2020

Malar J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent study from Mali, for instance, reveals the reluctance of community members to accept experimental releases of genetically modified mosquitoes in their villages, arguing that the technology should be first tried elsewhere to show evidence of safety [64]. A recent US study has shown that nearly two thirds of respondents trusted universities and the department of agriculture (but not the private sector or the Department of Defence) to develop gene drives [65]. This study further attests to the importance of gaining approval from local scientists, and the need to strengthen communication between scientists and communities in deliberating over the appropriateness of this technology.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opinions of key stakeholders on alternative interventions for malaria control and elimination in Tanzania

Finda

Christofides

Lezaun

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Malaria control in Tanzania currently relies primarily on long-lasting insecticidal nets and indoor residual spraying, alongside effective case management and behaviour change communication. This study explored opinions of key stakeholders on the national progress towards malaria elimination, the potential of currently available vector control interventions in helping achieve elimination by 2030, and the need for alternative interventions that could be used to supplement malaria elimination efforts in Tanzania.Methods: In this exploratory qualitative study, focus group discussions were held with policy-makers, regulators, research scientists and community members. Malaria control interventions discussed were: a) improved housing, b) larval source management, c) mass drug administration (MDA) with ivermectin to reduce vector densities, d) release of modified mosquitoes, including genetically modified or irradiated mosquitoes, e) targeted spraying of mosquito swarms, and f) spatial repellents. Results: Larval source management and spatial repellents were widely supported across all stakeholder groups, while insecticide-spraying of mosquito swarms was the least preferred. Support for MDA with ivermectin was high among policy makers, regulators and research scientists, but encountered opposition among community members, who instead expressed strong support for programmes to improve housing for poor people in high transmission areas. Policy makers, however, challenged the idea of government-supported housing improvement due to its perceived high costs. Techniques of mosquito modification, specifically those involving gene drives, were viewed positively by community members, policy makers and regulators, but encountered a high degree of scepticism among scientists. Overall, policy-makers, regulators and community members trusted scientists to provide appropriate advice for decision-making. Conclusion: Stakeholder opinions regarding alternative malaria interventions were divergent except for larval source management and spatial repellents, for which there was universal support. MDA with ivermectin, housing improvement and modified mosquitoes were also widely supported, though each faced concerns from at least one stakeholder group. While policy-makers, regulators and community members all noted their reliance on scientists to make informed decisions, their reasoning on the benefits and disadvantages of specific interventions included factors beyond technical efficiency. This study suggests the need to encourage and strengthen dialogue between research scientists, policy makers, regulators and communities regarding new interventions.

show abstract

“…However, additional work is needed to determine the mode of action of spore killers and/or other similar meiotic drives for scientific as well as regulatory reasons. Although the technology undoubtedly involves the release of a genetically modified organism, the potentially transformative impact of this type of technology, should at least be investigated further with appropriate regulation, alongside studies to gauge social acceptance and safety of such technologies (Jones et al, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural gene drives offer potential pathogen control strategies in plants

Gardiner

Rusu

Barrett

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryGlobally, fungal pathogens cause enormous crop losses and current control practices are not always effective, economical or environmentally sustainable. Tools enabling genetic management of wild pathogen populations could potentially solve many problems associated with plant diseases.A natural gene drive from a heterologous species can be used in the globally important cereal pathogen, Fusarium graminearum, to remove pathogenic traits from contained populations of the fungus. The gene drive element became fixed in a freely crossing populations in only three generations.Repeat induce point mutation, a natural genome defence mechanism in fungi, may be useful to recall the gene drive following release, should a failsafe mechanism be required.We propose that gene drive technology is a potential tool to control plant pathogens.

show abstract

Does the U.S. public support using gene drives in agriculture? And what do they want to know?

Cited by 43 publications

References 50 publications

Opinions of key stakeholders on alternative interventions for malaria control and elimination in Tanzania

Opinions of key stakeholders on alternative interventions for malaria control and elimination in Tanzania

Opinions of key stakeholders on alternative interventions for malaria control and elimination in Tanzania

Natural gene drives offer potential pathogen control strategies in plants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About