For all the promise of gene editing technologies, there remain profound concerns about the potential unintended consequences of releasing gene-edited organisms into the environment. In Science, a Yale-led team argues for new global governance to assure a neutral and informed evaluation of these benefits and risks.
In Burkina Faso, the government is considering the use of genetically modified mosquitoes to eradicate malaria. In Nantucket, Mass., officials are looking at gene editing as a tool in the fight against Lyme disease. And scientists are using gene technology to adapt coral to changing ocean conditions from the Caribbean to the Great Barrier Reef.
Yet for all the breathtaking promise of these technologies, there remain profound concerns about the potential unintended consequences of releasing gene-edited organisms into the environment — and a lack of governance oversight.
In a new paper published in Science, an interdisciplinary group led by Yale researchers argues for new global governance to assure a neutral and informed evaluation of the potential benefits and risks of gene editing. They argue that the complex nature of these technologies requires, on a case-by-case basis, careful and judicious review — a decision-making process that must include local communities that would feel the biggest and most immediate effects.
“The biggest risk right now with this technology is the uncertainty associated with it,” said Natalie Kofler, an associate research scientist at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies (F&ES) and lead author of the paper.
“These technologies also have the potential to forever change the genetic makeup of species, or even drive certain species to extinction. ”— Natalie Kofler, associate research scientist and lead author
“In places like Burkina Faso, for instance, it is being touted as a silver bullet to get rid of malaria. But these technologies also have the potential to forever change the genetic makeup of species, or even drive certain species to extinction. Lack of global governance puts our planet at risk.”
In the paper, the authors propose the formation of a new coordinating global body with the power to convene communities, developers, governmental organizations, and NGOs to assure careful and inclusive deliberation over all proposals. Such an organization would provide neutral oversight over decision-making and integrate diverse expertise and perspectives, including participants from impacted local communities.“Confronting this challenge goes beyond just the inclusion of empirical, scientific data, to also bring in value systems, ethics, and relationships with nature, relationships with technology, and historically marginalized voices to make a fully informed decision,” said Kofler. “Our proposal provides a blue-print on how to enact a new model of governance, one built on the integration of empirical and normative inputs, that includes diverse expertise and worldviews.”
The paper was inspired by the Editing Nature Summit, chaired by Kofler and hosted at Yale in the spring of 2017. During the two-day event, participants from a range of disciplines grappled with the ethical questions surrounding the development and deployment of gene editing technologies into the environment. Of critical importance, they concluded, are the questions of who gets to decide what technologies are used and the process by which they reach that decision.
The co-authors, who all participated in the summit, represent 12 different academic institutions and more than dozen disciplines, including ecology, genetics, philosophy, policy, and journalism.
In the paper, they looked in particular at CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) gene editing and other related technologies like gene drives, which are designed to spread genetic changes — including traits such as infertility — through populations of species.
But if these technologies have the potential to eliminate threats to public health or ecosystems, little is known about potential side effects, such as unwanted mutations and new evolutionary resistance.
“Formal safeguards are needed to ensure that these well-intentioned technologies don’t unintentionally spread globally to destroy ecosystems and human welfare and cultures that rely on them.”
— Oswald Schmitz, Oastler Professor of Population and Community Ecology and director of the Yale Institute for Biospheric Studies.
“There are many proposals to release gene-edited organisms into the wild and even actively drive them into the genomes of native wild populations to address a wide range of environmental issues,” said Oswald Schmitz, the Oastler Professor of Population and Community Ecology at F&ES and director of the Yale Institute for Biospheric Studies.
“But this is all proceeding at a heady pace with very little discussion with potentially affected communities. Formal safeguards are needed to ensure that these well-intentioned technologies don’t unintentionally spread globally to destroy ecosystems and human welfare and cultures that rely on them.”
Complicating the discussion is the fact that, in some cases, the proposed gene-editing strategies could mitigate very real public health threats, such as the life-or-death consequences of malaria in parts of Africa, said James Collins, the Virginia M. Ullman Professor of Natural History and the Environment at Arizona State University and co-author of the paper.
“The burden of those infectious diseases such as malaria or the Zika virus is a heavy one for communities to bear,” said Collins, who co-chaired a National Academy of Sciences committee that evaluated responsible use of gene editing technology. “And it’s a consideration that really has to be taken into account as individuals think about whether these technologies should be developed and then released into the environment. At the same time, in the area of unintended consequences, you really want to have done the very best work possible, the very best analysis possible, in terms of risk assessment.
“It’s just really so important that we give every consideration to what the larger implications would be of releasing these organisms,” he added. “It’s also vital that we rely on context and history to guide us in terms of being willing to move ahead with these important areas of research, but also that we do it in a way that is cautious, judicious, and transparent.
“That way, individuals and society can then make an informed judgment as to which of these technologies should be deployed and how that should be done.”
The Latest on: Environmental gene editing
via Google News
The Latest on: Environmental gene editing
- RNA-editing tool a fast, sensitive test for COVID-19on September 25, 2022 at 1:32 am
Researchers have modified a gene editing tool to serve as a highly sensitive diagnostic test for the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. An engineered CRISPR-based method that finds RNA from SARS ...
- Gene editing developer Prime Medicine files for proposed $100M IPOon September 23, 2022 at 2:26 pm
Gene editing technology developer Prime Medicine (PRME) has filed to raise up to $100M via an initial public offering.The biotech company indicated in a filing that it was looking ...
- There’s New Proof Crispr Can Edit Genes Inside Human Bodieson September 22, 2022 at 6:00 am
But one of the challenges of turning test tube Crispr discoveries into cures for patients has been figuring out how to get the gene-editing components to the place in the body that needs treatment.
- Metagenomi Named an Endpoints 11 Winneron September 22, 2022 at 5:00 am
Metagenomi represents a lot of what’s really great about biotech. It’s a chance to take groundbreaking academic insights from some of the world’s top experts in CRISPR and apply them to the ...
- Gene Editing Market 2022 Report Shows the Competitive Situation Among the Top Manufacturers, With Sales, Revenue and Share, Forecast to 2027on September 22, 2022 at 12:35 am
The “ Gene Editing Market ” 2022 Research report will make detailed analysis mainly on in-depth research on the development environment, Market size, share, development trend, operation situation and ...
- "The Era of the Gene-Edited Human Is Here"on September 19, 2022 at 2:46 pm
You can have a gene editing tool that's perfect but you still ... and what's feasible practically and politically at this point in an environment that honestly, is pretty distrustful of science ...
- Gene-editing of salmon being studied in Norwayon September 15, 2022 at 5:24 am
If produced for commercial purposes, any escaped fish would be unable to breed with the wild salmon population. They would also not experience the issue of early sexual maturation, which can lead to ...
- Will the Scottish Government's reluctance on gene-edited crops harm the agriculture sector?on September 14, 2022 at 6:08 am
Is the Scottish Government’s opposition to gene-editing, which is at odds with legislation being passed through ...
- Europe’s Drought Might Force Acceptance of Gene-Edited Cropson September 13, 2022 at 6:20 am
In July, an Italian member of the European Parliament called for a loosening of the rules that restrict crop varieties created using new gene-editing techniques like CRISPR from being grown and ...
via Bing News