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

Codesigning a community-based participatory research project to assess tribal perspectives on privacy and health data sharing: A report from the Strong Heart Study.

Broad health data sharing raises myriad ethical issues related to data protection and privacy. These issues are of particular relevance to Native Americans, who reserve distinct individual and collective rights to control data about their communities. We sought to gather input from tribal community leaders on how best to understand health data privacy and sharing preferences in this population. We conducted a workshop with 14 tribal leaders connected to the Strong Heart Study to codesign a research study to assess preferences concerning health data privacy for biomedical research. Workshop participants provided specific recommendations regarding who should be consulted, what questions should be posed, and what methods should be used, underscoring the importance of relationship-building between researchers and tribal communities. Biomedical researchers and informaticians who collect and analyze health information from Native communities have a unique responsibility to safeguard these data in ways that align to the preferences of specific communities