A typology of community and stakeholder engagement based on documented examples in the field of novel vector control.

BackgroundDespite broad consensus on the importance of community and stakeholder engagement (CSE) for guiding the development, regulation, field testing, and deployment of emerging vector control technologies (such as genetically engineered insects), the types of activities pursued have varied widely, as have the outcomes. We looked to previous CSE efforts for clarity about appropriate methods and goals. Our analysis yielded a typology of CSE, and related vocabulary, that describes distinctions that funders, organizers, and scholars should make when proposing or evaluating CSE.MethodsWe compiled available formal documentation of CSE projects, starting with projects mentioned in interviews with 17 key informants. Major features of these examples, including the initiators, target groups, timing, goals, and methods were identified using qualitative coding. Based on these examples, subcategories were developed for a subset of features and applied to the identified cases of CSE in the documents. Co-occurrence of subcategorized features was examined for patterns.ResultsWe identified 14 documented examples CSE projects, which were comprised of 28 distinct CSE activities. We found no clear patterns with respect to timing. However, we found that grouping examples according to whether initiators or targets could enact the immediate desired outcome could help to clarify relationships between goals, methods, and targets.ConclusionBased on this analysis, we propose a typology that distinguishes three categories of CSE: engagement to inquire -where initiators are empowered to act on information collected through engagement with target groups; engagement to influence -where initiators engage to affect the actions of already-empowered target groups; and engagement to involve -where initiators engage to delegate authority to target groups. The proposed typology can serve as a guide for establishing the goals, identifying appropriate methods, and evaluating and reporting CSE projects by directing attention to important questions to be asked well before determining who to engage and how

Exploring the value of a global gene drive project registry

Recent calls to establish a global project registry before releasing any gene-drive-modified organisms (GDOs) have suggested a registry could be valuable to coordinate research, collect data to monitor and evaluate potential ecological impacts, and facilitate transparent communication with community stakeholders and the general public. Here, we report the results of a multidisciplinary expert workshop on GDO registries convened on 8–9 December 2020 involving 70 participants from 14 countries. Participants had expertise in gene drive design, conservation and population modeling, social science, stakeholder engagement, governance and regulation, international policy, and vector control; they represented 45 organizations, spanning national and local governmental agencies, international organizations, nonprofit organizations, universities, and district offices overseeing local vector control. The workshop aimed to gather perspectives on a central question: “In what ways could a gene-drive project registry both contribute to and detract from the fair development, testing and use of GDOs?” We specifically queried the perceived purpose of a registry, the information that would need to be included, and the perceived value of a registry. Three primary findings emerged from the discussion: first, many participants agreed a registry could serve a coordinating function for multidisciplinary and multisector work activities; second, doing so may require different design elements, depending on the target end-user group and intended purpose for that group; and third, these different information requirements lead to concerns about information sharing via a registry, suggesting potential obstacles to achieving transparency through such a mechanism. We conclude that any development of a gene-drive project registry requires careful and inclusive deliberation, including with potential end-users, to ensure that registry design is optimal

Islands as Laboratories: Indigenous Knowledge and Gene Drives in the Pacific

This article argues that the genetic engineering technology known as gene drive must be evaluated in the context of the historic and ongoing impacts of settler colonialism and military experimentation on indigenous lands and peoples. After defining gene drive and previewing some of the key ethical issues related to its use, the author compares the language used to justify Cold War–era nuclear testing in the Pacific with contemporary scholarship framing islands as ideal test sites for gene drive–modified organisms. In both cases, perceptions of islands as remote and isolated are mobilized to warrant their treatment as sites of experimentation for emerging technologies. Though gene drive may offer valuable interventions into issues affecting island communities (e.g., vector-borne disease and invasive species management), proposals to conduct the first open trials of gene drive on islands are complicit in a long history of injustice that has treated islands (and their residents) as dispensable to the risks and unintended consequences associated with experimentation. This article contends that ethical gene drive research cannot be achieved without the inclusion of indigenous peoples as key stakeholders and provides three recommendations to guide community engagement involving indigenous communities: centering indigenous self-determination, replacing the deficit model of engagement with a truly participatory model, and integrating indigenous knowledge and values in the research and decision-making processes related to gene drive

Editing Islands: (Re)Imagining Isolation in Gene Drive Science and Engagement

Westerners have long imagined, represented, and treated islands around the globe as “natural laboratories” given their perceived geographic isolation. It was on islands that colonizers first conducted “experiments” in imperial expansion via the establishment of plantation economies and maritime military infrastructure, and where scientists developed myriad ecological, evolutionary, and anthropological theories predicated on views of islands as enclosed systems containing human and nonhuman subjects amenable to scientific observation. In this way, island isolation represents an enduring mythology fundamental to the entangled projects of settler colonialism, militarism, and scientific knowledge production. This dissertation examines the meaning-making processes that continue to uphold myths of isolation in contemporary scientific practice, focusing on an emerging genetic engineering technology known as gene drive.This examination is organized into three chapters. Chapter 1 considers the historical basis of the myth of the isolated island laboratory, focusing on appropriations of Pacific Islands as military outposts and sites of nuclear weapons testing. Against this history, it considers the incommensurability of the conception of island isolation with Indigenous relations to islands as connected (not isolated) by the ocean. Chapter 2 examines presumptions of island isolation embedded in calls to trial genetically engineered organisms containing gene drives on remote islands. The third and final chapter provides an account of an ethnographic investigation of emergent community and stakeholder engagement practices meant to facilitate just decision-making surrounding the deployment of gene drive technologies, focusing on two Hawaiian Islands where gene drive research is underway. I identify isolation and containment as salient frames structuring scientific practices related to gene drives, and argue that these are ill-equipped to facilitate the just use of these technologies. I invite a reimagination of gene drive science and engagement through more oceanic and archipelagic ways of knowing that embrace connectivity and attend to history and power

Editing Islands: (Re)Imagining Isolation in Gene Drive Science and Engagement

Westerners have long imagined, represented, and treated islands around the globe as “natural laboratories” given their perceived geographic isolation. It was on islands that colonizers first conducted “experiments” in imperial expansion via the establishment of plantation economies and maritime military infrastructure, and where scientists developed myriad ecological, evolutionary, and anthropological theories predicated on views of islands as enclosed systems containing human and nonhuman subjects amenable to scientific observation. In this way, island isolation represents an enduring mythology fundamental to the entangled projects of settler colonialism, militarism, and scientific knowledge production. This dissertation examines the meaning-making processes that continue to uphold myths of isolation in contemporary scientific practice, focusing on an emerging genetic engineering technology known as gene drive.This examination is organized into three chapters. Chapter 1 considers the historical basis of the myth of the isolated island laboratory, focusing on appropriations of Pacific Islands as military outposts and sites of nuclear weapons testing. Against this history, it considers the incommensurability of the conception of island isolation with Indigenous relations to islands as connected (not isolated) by the ocean. Chapter 2 examines presumptions of island isolation embedded in calls to trial genetically engineered organisms containing gene drives on remote islands. The third and final chapter provides an account of an ethnographic investigation of emergent community and stakeholder engagement practices meant to facilitate just decision-making surrounding the deployment of gene drive technologies, focusing on two Hawaiian Islands where gene drive research is underway. I identify isolation and containment as salient frames structuring scientific practices related to gene drives, and argue that these are ill-equipped to facilitate the just use of these technologies. I invite a reimagination of gene drive science and engagement through more oceanic and archipelagic ways of knowing that embrace connectivity and attend to history and power

Implementing the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance in Biodiversity Data Management

Indigenous data governance is a critical aspect of upholding Indigenous rights and fostering equitable partnerships in biodiversity research and data management. An estimated 80% of the planet's biodiversity exists on Indigenous lands (Sobrevila 2008), and the majority of Indigenous data derived from specimens taken from Indigenous lands are held by non-Indigenous entities and institutions. The CARE Principles (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics) are designed to guide the inclusion of Indigenous peoples in data governance, and increase their access to and benefit from data (Carroll et al. 2020). This talk will share emerging tools and resources that can be leveraged to implement the CARE Principles within repositories and institutions that hold Indigenous data. This talk highlights two primary tools to promote Indigenous data governance in repositories:a phased framework to guide third-party holders of Indigenous data through foundational learning and concrete steps to apply the CARE principles in their respective settings, andthe CARE criteria, an assessment tool by which researchers and institutions can evaluate the maturity of CARE implementation, identify areas for improvement, and allow other entities such as funders and publishers to evaluate CARE compliance

Recognising Indigenous Provenance in Biodiversity Records

The advent of data-driven technologies and the increasing demand for data have brought about unique challenges for Indigenous data governance. The CARE principles emphasize Collective Benefit, Authority, Responsibility, and Ethics as essential pillars for ensuring that Indigenous data rights are upheld, Indigenous knowledge is protected, and Indigenous Peoples are active participants in data governance processes (Carroll et al. 2020, Carroll et al. 2021). Identifying tangible activities and providing guidance to centre Indigenous perspectives provide a comprehensive approach to address the complexities of Indigenous data governance in a rapidly evolving data landscape (Gupta et al. 2023, Jennings et al. 2023, Sterner and Elliott 2023).Biodiversity research has increasingly recognized the intertwined relationship between biological diversity and cultural practices, leading to discussions about how research can strengthen the evidence base, build trust, enhance legitimacy for decision making (Alexander et al. 2021) and explore requirements for Indigenous metadata (Jennings et al. 2023). An Indigenous Metadata Bundle Communique, produced following an Indigenous Metadata Symposium, recommended the initial categories as: Governance, Provenance, Lands & Waters, Protocols, and Local Contexts Notices & Labels. Traditional Knowledge (TK) and Biocultural (BC) Labels have emerged as essential tools for recognising and maintaining Indigenous provenance, protocols and permissions in records for both natural ecosystems and cultural heritage (Anderson et al. 2020, Liggins et al. 2021) emphasizing the importance of Indigenous Peoples and local knowledge systems in research and digital management. Biocultural labels acknowledge the intricate links between biodiversity and cultural diversity, emphasizing the role of indigenous communities in preserving biodiversity through their traditional practices (Hudson et al. 2021). By recognizing the intrinsic value of these relationships, TK and BC labels not only contribute to a more holistic understanding of biodiversity but also promote ethical considerations and mutual respect between researchers and local communities, fostering collaborative partnerships for research and conservation initiatives (McCartney et al. 2023).Addressing the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance in biodiversity research introduces several challenges and opportunities. Ethical concerns regarding recognition of Indigenous rights and interests in data (Hudson et al. 2023), intellectual property rights, cultural appropriation, and equitable benefit sharing, must be navigated sensitively (Carroll et al. 2022b, Golan et al. 2022). Moreover, fostering effective communication between researchers and communities is paramount for ensuring the accuracy and authenticity of Indigenous metadata and protocols for appropriate use (Carroll et al. 2022a). However, these challenges are offset by the potential for enriching scientific knowledge, enhancing policy frameworks, and strengthening community-based conservation efforts