Experts’ moral views on gene drive technologies: a qualitative interview study

Abstract

Background Gene drive technologies (GDTs) promote the rapid spread of a particular genetic element within a population of non-human organisms. Potential applications of GDTs include the control of insect vectors, invasive species and agricultural pests. Whether, and if so, under what conditions, GDTs should be deployed is hotly debated. Although broad stances in this debate have been described, the convictions that inform the moral views of the experts shaping these technologies and related policies have not been examined in depth in the academic literature. Methods In this qualitative study, we interviewed GDT experts (n = 33) from different disciplines to identify and better understand their moral views regarding these technologies. The pseudonymized transcripts were analyzed thematically. Results The respondents’ moral views were principally influenced by their attitudes towards (1) the uncertainty related to GDTs; (2) the alternatives to which they should be compared; and (3) the role humans should have in nature. Respondents agreed there is epistemic uncertainty related to GDTs, identified similar knowledge gaps, and stressed the importance of realistic expectations in discussions on GDTs. They disagreed about whether uncertainty provides a rationale to refrain from field trials (‘risks of intervention’ stance) or to proceed with phased testing to obtain more knowledge given the harms of the status quo (‘risks of non-intervention’ stance). With regards to alternatives to tackle vector-borne diseases, invasive species and agricultural pests, respondents disagreed about which alternatives should be considered (un)feasible and (in)sufficiently explored: conventional strategies (‘downstream solutions’ stance) or systematic changes to health care, political and agricultural systems (‘upstream solutions’ stance). Finally, respondents held different views on nature and whether the use of GDTs is compatible with humans’ role in nature (‘interference’ stance) or not (‘non-interference stance’). Conclusions This interview study helps to disentangle the debate on GDTs by providing a better understanding of the moral views of GDT experts. The obtained insights provide valuable stepping-stones for a constructive debate about underlying value conflicts and call attention to topics that deserve further (normative) reflection. Further evaluation of these issues can facilitate the debate on and responsible development of GDTs.

Governing Gene Drive Technologies: A Qualitative Interview Study

“…The findings related to the substantive ethical questions, concerns, and implications of GDTs − i.e. those questions, concerns, and implications that relate to "what is right in terms of duties, rights, and values (..) independent of any decision-making procedure" (Sollie 2009) (155) have been reported elsewhere (De Graeff, Jongsma, and Bredenoord 2021). A detailed description of the methodology of the study, in line with the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ), has also been provided in that publication.…”

“…This article reports on the findings related to the procedural ethical aspects of GDTs, i.e., the questions, concerns, and implications that relate to the process of governance of and decision-making about GDTs 4 . In what follows, we provide a concise summary of the study methodology, which has been described in more detail elsewhere (De Graeff, Jongsma, and Bredenoord 2021).…”

“…As reported in another manuscript based on the same study (De Graeff, Jongsma, and Bredenoord 2021), there are several limitations that should be taken into consideration when interpreting its results. First, our study was the first large and in-depth interview study on professional experts' perspectives regarding GDT governance.…”

“…Emerging technologies such as GDTs have several features that make procedural validity and fairness especially important for the legitimacy of governance procedures (Kuzma 2020;Kuzma et al 2018;Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2012;IRGC 2015). First, GDTs are characterized by substantial uncertainty about the potential benefits and risks of their deployment due to the inherent complexity of ecosystems and the limitations of the extent to which laboratory conditions and mathematical models can model the real-world (De Graeff, Jongsma, and Bredenoord 2021;Marchant, Abbott, and Brown 2013;Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2012;Rudenko, Palmer, and Oye 2018). In addition, different stakeholders have ambiguous understandings of the prospects that GDTs offer and divergent moral views on whether, and if so under what conditions, to deploy GDTs (De Graeff, Jongsma, and Bredenoord 2021).…”

“…First, GDTs are characterized by substantial uncertainty about the potential benefits and risks of their deployment due to the inherent complexity of ecosystems and the limitations of the extent to which laboratory conditions and mathematical models can model the real-world (De Graeff, Jongsma, and Bredenoord 2021;Marchant, Abbott, and Brown 2013;Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2012;Rudenko, Palmer, and Oye 2018). In addition, different stakeholders have ambiguous understandings of the prospects that GDTs offer and divergent moral views on whether, and if so under what conditions, to deploy GDTs (De Graeff, Jongsma, and Bredenoord 2021). Ambiguity makes it difficult to come to a shared understanding of the substantive criteria that governance decisions should be based on, and uncertainty complicates the evaluation of such criteria (Marchant, Abbott, and Brown 2013;Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2012).…”