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

Abstract

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.

Why intended consequences?

“…Brister, Holbrook, and Palmer (2021) diagnose the causes and consequences of an "ethos of restraint." Responsible research and engagement protocols (Barnhill-Dilling & Delborne, 2021), intersections between governance, constituencies, and risk (Burgiel et al, 2021), and careful forecasting models (Mozelewski & Scheller, 2021) are areas essential to successfully planning for intended consequences. Post-workshop, 46 participants drafted a statement to guide scientists, practitioners and other stakeholders as they safely harness the power of innovation for conservation (Phelan et al, 2021).…”

Whose intentions? What consequences? Interrogating “Intended Consequences” for conservation with environmental biotechnology

“…In light of these pressing problems, inaction feels unethical (Brister, Holbrook, & Palmer, 2021). Yet, while novel genetic interventions may offer innovative solutions to environmental challenges, they also represent new kinds of risks and concerns for diverse publics (Burgiel et al 2021). Moreover, the nature of emerging environmental biotechnologies suggests that policy-makers and conservation practitioners will make impactful decisions in the midst of some uncertainty and consideration of unintended consequences (Hayes et al, 2018).…”