Translating gene drive science to promote linguistic diversity in community and stakeholder engagement

Moving beyond narrow definitions of gene drive: Diverse perspectives and frames enable substantive dialogue among science and humanities teachers in the United States and United Kingdom

Gene drive is an emerging biotechnology with applications in global health, conservation and agriculture. Scientists are preparing for field trials, triggering debate about when and how to release gene-drive organisms. These decisions depend on public understandings of gene drive, which are shaped by language. While some studies on gene drive communication assume the need to persuade publics of expert definitions of gene drive, we highlight the importance of meaning-making in communication and engagement. We conducted focus groups with humanities and science teachers in the United Kingdom and United States to explore how different media framings stimulated discussions of gene drive. We found diversity in the value of these framings for public debate. Interestingly, the definition favoured by gene drive scientists was the least popular among participants. Rather than carefully curating language, we need opportunities for publics to make sense and negotiate the meanings of a technology on their own terms.

Gene Drives in the U.K., U.S., and Australian Press (2015-2019): How a New Focus on Responsibility Is Shaping Science Communication

Gene drive is a controversial biotechnology for pest control. Despite a commitment from gene drive researchers to responsibility and the key role of the media in debates about science and technology, little research has been conducted on media reporting of gene drive. We employ metaphor and discourse analysis to explore how responsibility is reflected in the coverage of this technology in the U.S., U.K., and Australian press. The findings reveal a rhetorical strategy of trust-building by evoking the moral attributes of gene drive researchers. We discuss the implications of these findings for the communication of new technologies.

California Residents’ Perceptions of Gene Drive Systems to Control Mosquito-Borne Disease

Scientists developing gene drive mosquitoes for vector control must understand how residents of affected areas regard both the problem of mosquito-borne disease and the potential solutions offered by gene drive. This study represents an experiment in public engagement at an early stage of technology development, intended to inform lab scientists about public attitudes toward their research and inspire consideration and conversation about the social ramifications of creating mosquitoes with gene drive. Online focus groups with California residents explored views on mosquito-borne disease risk, current mosquito control methods, and the proposed development and use of different classes of gene drives to control Ae. aegypti. Rather than a dogmatic rejection of genetic engineering or gene drive, many participants expressed pragmatic concerns with cost, control, the ability to narrowly target specific species, and the challenges of mistrust and institutional cooperation. Work like this can inform the alignment of community priorities and the professional priorities of scientists and vector control specialists.

Interdisciplinary development of a standardized introduction to gene drives for lay audiences

BACKGROUND

While there is wide consensus that the public should be consulted about emerging technology early in development, it is difficult to elicit public opinion about innovations unfamiliar to lay audiences. We sought public input on a program of research on genetic engineering to control mosquito vectors of disease that is led by scientists at the University of California and funded by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). In preparation for this effort, we developed a series of narrated slideshows to prompt responses to the development of gene drive mosquito control strategies among lay people. We describe the development and content of these slideshows and evaluate their ability to elicit discussions among focus group participants.

METHODS

In developing these materials, we used an iterative process involving input from experts in molecular genetics and vector control. Topics were chosen for their relevance to the goals of the scientists leading the program of research. Significant time was devoted to crafting explanations that would be accessible to uninitiated members of the public but still represent the science accurately. Through qualitative analysis of focus group discussions prompted by the slideshows, we evaluated the success of these slideshows in imparting clear technical information sufficient to inform lay discussion.

RESULTS

The collaboration resulted in a series of four narrated slideshows that were used to anchor discussions in online focus groups. Many participants described the slideshows as interesting and informative, while also raising concerns and possible risks that were not directly addressed in the material presented. Open-ended comments from participants suggest that the slideshows inspired critical questions, reflection, and conversation about genetically engineered and gene drive mosquitoes. After the final and most technically complex slideshow, however, some respondents made comments suggestive of overwhelm or confusion.

CONCLUSION

Our narrated slideshows prompted engaged conversations about genetically engineered mosquitoes among members of the public who were generally naïve to this technology. Narrated slideshows may serve as viable and useful tools for future public engagement on other controversial emerging medical and public health technologies.