Regulatory experience and challenges for the release of GM insects

Oxitec and MosquitoMate in the United States: lessons for the future of gene drive mosquito control

In response to growing concerns regarding mosquito-borne diseases, scientists are developing novel systems of vector control. Early examples include Oxitec's OX513A genetically-engineered mosquito and MosquitoMate's Wolbachia-infected mosquito, and systems using 'gene-drive' are in development. Systems based on genetic engineering are controversial and institutions around the world are grappling with the question of who should have a say in how such technologies are field-tested and used. Based on media coverage and public records, we created comparative timelines of the efforts of Oxitec and MosquitoMate to navigate federal and local governance and bring their products to market in the United States. We analyze these timelines with particular attention to the role of public input in technology governance. These cases illustrate how governance of technology in the US is diverse, complex, and opaque. Further, the public response to proposed field trials of the Oxitec product highlights inconsistencies between public expectations for governance and actual practice. As gene-drive mosquito control products develop, both federal and local agencies will find their legitimacy tested without a better procedure for transparently integrating public input.

Global Governing Bodies: A Pathway for Gene Drive Governance for Vector Mosquito Control

Gene drive technologies represent powerful tools to develop vector control strategies that will complement the current approaches to mitigate arthropod-borne infectious diseases. The characteristics of gene drive technologies have raised additional concerns to those for standard genetically engineered organisms. This generates a need for adaptive governance that has not been met yet because of the rapid rate of progress in gene drive research. For the eventual release of gene drive insects into wild populations, an international governance network would be helpful in guiding scientists, stakeholders, public opinion, and affected communities in its use. We examined the current institutions and governing bodies among various continents that could have an impact on gene drive governance or the potential to adapt to its future use. Possible governance strategies also are proposed that seek to bridge gaps and promote an ethically sound policy framework. Ideally, governance strategies should be developed before or at the same pace as gene drive research to anticipate field releases and maximize their impact as a public health tool. However, this is not likely to happen as it takes years to develop global accords, and some countries may choose to move ahead independently on the new technology.

The Rise, Regulation and Risks of Genetically Modified Insect Technology in Global Agriculture

The article explores the rise, regulation and risks of genetically modified (GM) insect technology in global agriculture. It contributes to the debate on the nexus of science, technology and food security in Science and Technology Studies from an International Relations perspective. The study locates GM insect technology within the context of conceptual debates about global agriculture, transnational entrepreneurship and the pooling of different sources of political authority. It introduces the pooling of political authority as a potential causal mechanism that transmits biotechnical innovations and entrepreneurship to the spread of GM insect technology in the global agri-food regime. The study focusses, especially on Oxitec Limited, the most important business entrepreneur in the field. The empirical findings reveal that Oxitec has pooled moral and technical political authority and has influenced the global rise and regulation of GM insect technology. The contribution discusses the implications of Oxitec’s entrepreneurial involvement and identifies the three key challenges concerning the global regulation of GM insect technology: the transboundary scope, the provision of transparency, and the assessment of risks. Finally, the study outlines future areas of research.