Evaluating Gene Drive Approaches for Public Benefit

Gene drive approaches—those which bias inheritance of a genetic element in a population of sexually reproducing organisms—have the potential to provide important public benefits. The spread of selected genetic elements in wild populations of organisms may help address certain challenges, such as transmission of vector-borne human and animal diseases and biodiversity loss due to invasive animals. Adapting various naturally occurring gene drive mechanisms to these aims is a long-standing research area, and recent advances in genetics have made engineering gene drive systems significantly more technically feasible. Gene drive approaches would act through changes in natural environments, thus robust methods to evaluate potential research and use are important. Despite the fact that gene drive approaches build on existing paradigms, such as genetic modification of organisms and conventional biological control, there are material challenges to their evaluation. One challenge is the inherent complexity of ecosystems, which makes precise prediction of changes to the environment difficult. For gene drive approaches that are expected to spread spatially and/or persist temporally, responding to this difficulty with the typical stepwise increases in the scale of studies may not be straightforward after studies begin in the natural environment. A related challenge is that study or use of a gene drive approach may have implications for communities beyond the location of introduction, depending on the spatial spread and persistence of the approach and the population biology of the target organism. This poses a particular governance challenge when spread across national borders is plausible. Finally, community engagement is an important element of responsible research and governance, but effective community engagement for gene drive approaches requires addressing complexity and uncertainty and supporting representative participation in decision making. These challenges are not confronted in a void. Existing frameworks, processes, and institutions provide a basis for effective evaluation of gene drive approaches for public benefit. Although engineered gene drive approaches are relatively new, the necessities of making decisions despite uncertainty and governing actions with potential implications for shared environments are well established. There are methodologies to identify potential harms and assess risks when there is limited experience to draw upon, and these methodologies have been applied in similar contexts. There are also laws, policies, treaties, agreements, and institutions in place across many jurisdictions that support national and international decision making regarding genetically modified organisms and the potential applications of gene drive approaches, such as public health and biodiversity conservation. Community engagement is an established component of many decision-making processes, and related experience and conceptual frameworks can inform engagement by researchers. The existence of frameworks, processes, and institutions provides an important foundation for evaluating gene drive approaches, but it is not sufficient by itself. They must be rigorously applied, which requires resources for risk assessment, research, and community engagement and diligent implementation by governance institutions. The continued evolution of the frameworks, processes, and institutions is important to adapt to the growing understanding of gene drive approaches. With appropriate resources and diligence, it will be possible to responsibly evaluate and make decisions on gene drive approaches for public benefit

CRISPR in context : towards a socially responsible debate on embryo editing

Following the birth in 2018 of two babies from embryos altered using CRISPR-Cas9, human germline gene editing (GGE) moved from abstract concern to reality. He Jiankui, the scientist responsible, has been roundly condemned by most scientific, legal and ethical commentators. However, opinions remain divided on whether GGE could be acceptably used in the future, and how, or if it should be prohibited entirely. The many reviews, summits, positions statements and high-level meetings that have accompanied the emergence of CRISPR technology acknowledge this, calling for greater public engagement to help reach a consensus on how to proceed. These calls are laudable but far from unproblematic. Consensus is not only hugely challenging to reach, but difficult to measure and to know when it might be achieved. Engagement is clearly desirable, but engagement strategies need to avoid the limitations of previous encounters between publics and biotechnology. Here we set CRISPR in the context of the biotechnology and fertility industries to illustrate the lessons to be learned. In particular we demonstrate the importance of avoiding a ‘deficit mode’ in which resistance is attributed to a lack of public understanding of science, addressing the separation of technical safety criteria from ethical and social matters, and ensuring the scope of the debate includes the political-economic context in which science is conducted and new products and services are brought to market. Through this history, we draw on Mary Douglas’ classic anthropological notion of ‘matter out of place’ to explain why biotechnologies evoke feelings of unease and anxiety, and recommend this as a model for rehabilitating lay apprehension about novel biological technologies as legitimate matters of concern in future engagement exercises about GGE