The ethical landscape of gene drive research

Abstract

Gene drive technology has immense potential. The ability to bypass the laws of Mendelian inheritance and almost ensure the transmission of specific genetic material to future generations creates boundless possibilities. But alongside these boundless possibilities are major social and ethical issues. This article aims to introduce gene drive technology, some of its potential applications, and some of the social and ethical issues that arise during research into the technology. For example, is investigation into gene drives hubristic? Would applications of gene drives count as technological fixes? Or does research into such a technology sit on a slippery slope or lock us in to its full‐scale use? Are there perverse effects of engaging in research, and, most importantly, who ought to be included in the decision‐making process regarding research and field trials? Understanding the basic ethical landscape of this technology will prove invaluable to the public, scientists, and policy‐makers as research moves forward.

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

“…Additionally, unrealistic expectations may divert resources away from alternative strategies that may in fact be better suited to tackle a particular problem. This may be seen as especially problematic in view of concerns about path dependency, the idea that investment in one particular solution to a problem makes it harder to switch to another solution even if it turned out to be superior [ 12 , 46 ].…”

“…To some degree, these different stances may be attributable to a different understanding of the empirical data on the efficacy of past efforts to confront these problems and the factors that influence future projections of success if these strategies are continued or intensified [ 12 ]. To the extent this is the case, making empirical convictions about both ‘downstream’ and ‘upstream’ alternatives to GDTs will further (policy) discussions about GDTs.…”

“…To the extent this is the case, making empirical convictions about both ‘downstream’ and ‘upstream’ alternatives to GDTs will further (policy) discussions about GDTs. However, these different stances also point to deeper normative questions about the (im)permissibility of ‘technological fixes’, a recurrent theme in debates about biotechnology [ 61 ] that has also received some attention in the debate on GDTs [ 12 , 45 , 62 ]. Such techno-fixes have, amongst others, been critiqued on the ground that they reduce a social problem to a technical problem, which could both perpetuate the underlying problem [ 1 , 62 ] and result in problematic side-effects [ 45 ].…”

“…Major concerns in this debate relate to biosafety and biosecurity issues, including the safeguarding of laboratory experiments with GDTs and potential negative effects on ecosystems due to unintended consequences or misuse of the technology [ 9 , 10 ]. Several papers have mapped the ‘ethical landscape’ and explored various ethical aspects related to GDTs [ 11 , 12 ]. Other authors have analyzed specific concerns with regard to these technologies, including objections pertaining to 'playing God' and the presumed intrinsic wrongness of tampering with nature [ 13 ], intergenerational equity issues [ 14 ] and issues related to decision-making about these technologies [ 15 – 17 ].…”

In Our Image: The Ethics of CRISPR Genome Editing

“…Several concerns have been raised about the ethics of releasing engineered gene drives in the wild [18]: -Is it ethical to deliberately drive a pest species to extinction? In the case of mosquitoes, there are plenty of other mosquitoes that could potentially fill the Anopheles ecological niche but can't host the falciparum protozoan that causes malaria.…”