1
|
Hartley S, Stelmach A, Opesen C, Openjuru GL, Neema S. Talking About Gene Drive in Uganda: The Need for Science Communication to Underpin Engagement. SCIENCE COMMUNICATION 2024; 46:431-457. [PMID: 39100392 PMCID: PMC11293996 DOI: 10.1177/10755470241234048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/06/2024]
Abstract
Uganda may host the world's first field trials of gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control. Global North discourses pre-suppose African publics have access to information about gene drive and are ready to make decisions about its governance. We explore assumptions about the availability of this information in Uganda. We find a paucity of information available combined with a strong desire for information from lay publics. We discuss these findings in the context of Ugandan information infrastructures and political sensitivities to genetic technologies. If Ugandans are to decide about gene drive, they need independent information about the science to underpin engagement.
Collapse
|
2
|
Snuzik A. Assessing CRISPR/Cas9 potential in SDG3 attainment: malaria elimination-regulatory and community engagement landscape. Malar J 2024; 23:192. [PMID: 38898518 PMCID: PMC11186152 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-024-04996-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2022] [Accepted: 11/25/2023] [Indexed: 06/21/2024] Open
Abstract
Elimination of malaria has become a United Nations member states target: Target 3.3 of the sustainable development goal no. 3 (SDG3). Despite the measures taken, the attainment of this goal is jeopardized by an alarming trend of increasing malaria case incidence. Globally, there were an estimated 241 million malaria cases in 2020 in 85 malaria-endemic countries, increasing from 227 million in 2019. Malaria case incidence was 59, which means effectively no changes in the numbers occurred, compared with the baseline 2015. Jennifer Doudna-co-inventor of CRISPR/Cas9 technology-claims that CRISPR holds the potential to lessen or even eradicate problems lying in the centre of SDGs. On the same note, CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mosquito-targeting gene drives (MGD) are perceived as a potential means to turn this trend back and put momentum into the malaria elimination effort. This paper assessed two of the critical elements of the World Health Organization Genetically modified mosquitoes (WHO GMM) Critical Pathway framework: the community and stakeholders' engagement (inability to employ widely used frameworks, segmentation of the public, 'bystander' status, and guidelines operationalization) and the regulatory landscape (lex generali, 'goldilocks dilemma', and mode of regulation) concerning mosquito-oriented gene drives (MGD) advances. Based on the assessment findings, the author believes that CRISPR/Cas-9-mediated MGD will not contribute to the attainment of SDG3 (Target 3.3), despite the undisputable technology's potential. This research pertains to the state of knowledge, legal frameworks, and legislature, as of November 2022.
Collapse
|
3
|
Resnik DB, Medina RF, Gould F, Church G, Kuzma J. Genes drive organisms and slippery slopes. Pathog Glob Health 2024; 118:348-357. [PMID: 36562087 PMCID: PMC11234912 DOI: 10.1080/20477724.2022.2160895] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
The bioethical debate about using gene drives to alter or eradicate wild populations has focused mostly on issues concerning short-term risk assessment and management, governance and oversight, and public and community engagement, but has not examined big-picture- 'where is this going?'-questions in great depth. In other areas of bioethical controversy, big-picture questions often enter the public forum via slippery slope arguments. Given the incredible potential of gene drive organisms to alter the Earth's biota, it is somewhat surprising that slippery slope arguments have not played a more prominent role in ethical and policy debates about these emerging technologies. In this article, we examine a type of slippery slope argument against using gene drives to alter or suppress wild pest populations and consider whether it has a role to play in ethical and policy debates. Although we conclude that this argument does not provide compelling reasons for banning the use of gene drives in wild pest populations, we believe that it still has value as a morally instructive cautionary narrative that can motivate scientists, ethicists, and members of the public to think more clearly about appropriate vs. inappropriate uses of gene drive technologies, the long-term and cumulative and emergent risks of using gene drives in wild populations, and steps that can be taken to manage these risks, such as protecting wilderness areas where people can enjoy life forms that have not been genetically engineered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David B. Resnik
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Raul F. Medina
- Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
| | - Fred Gould
- Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
| | - George Church
- Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jennifer Kuzma
- School of Public and International Affairs, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Finda MF, Juma EO, Kahamba NF, Mthawanji RS, Sambo M, Emidi B, Wiener S, O'Brochta D, Santos M, James S, Okumu FO. Perspectives of African stakeholders on gene drives for malaria control and elimination: a multi-country survey. Malar J 2023; 22:384. [PMID: 38129897 PMCID: PMC10740233 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-023-04787-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2023] [Accepted: 11/09/2023] [Indexed: 12/23/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Gene drive modified mosquitoes (GDMMs) have the potential to address Africa's persistent malaria problem, but are still in early stages of development and testing. Continuous engagement of African stakeholders is crucial for successful evaluation and implementation of these technologies. The aim of this multi-country study was, therefore, to explore the insights and recommendations of key stakeholders across Africa on the potential of GDMMs for malaria control and elimination in the continent. METHODS A concurrent mixed-methods study design was used, involving a structured survey administered to 180 stakeholders in 25 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, followed by 18 in-depth discussions with selected groups and individuals. Stakeholders were drawn from academia, research and regulatory institutions, government ministries of health and environment, media and advocacy groups. Thematic content analysis was used to identify key topics from the in-depth discussions, and descriptive analysis was done to summarize information from the survey data. RESULTS Despite high levels of awareness of GDMMs among the stakeholders (76.7%), there was a relatively low-level of understanding of their key attributes and potential for malaria control (28.3%). When more information about GDMMs was provided to the stakeholders, they readily discussed their insights and concerns, and offered several recommendations to ensure successful research and implementation of the technology. These included: (i) increasing relevant technical expertise within Africa, (ii) generating local evidence on safety, applicability, and effectiveness of GDMMs, and (iii) developing country-specific regulations for safe and effective governance of GDMMs. A majority of the respondents (92.9%) stated that they would support field trials or implementation of GDMMs in their respective countries. This study also identified significant misconceptions regarding the phase of GDMM testing in Africa, as several participants incorrectly asserted that GDMMs were already present in Africa, either within laboratories or released into the field. CONCLUSION Incorporating views and recommendations of African stakeholders in the ongoing research and development of GDMMs is crucial for instilling stakeholder confidence on their potential application. These findings will enable improved planning for GDMMs in Africa as well as improved target product profiles for the technologies to maximize their potential for solving Africa's enduring malaria challenge.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marceline F Finda
- Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences, Ifakara Health Institute, PO Box 53, Ifakara, Tanzania.
| | - Elijah O Juma
- Pan-African Mosquito Control Association (PAMCA), Off Mbagathi Road, PO Box 44455-00100, Nairobi, Kenya
| | - Najat F Kahamba
- Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences, Ifakara Health Institute, PO Box 53, Ifakara, Tanzania
| | - Rhosheen S Mthawanji
- Malawi Liverpool Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, Blantyre 3, PO Box 30096, Chichiri, Malawi
| | - Maganga Sambo
- Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences, Ifakara Health Institute, PO Box 53, Ifakara, Tanzania
| | - Basiliana Emidi
- National Institute for Medical Research, PO Box 1462, Mwanza, Tanzania
| | - Susan Wiener
- Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, 11400 Rockville Pike, Suite 600, North Bethesda, MD, 20852, USA
| | - David O'Brochta
- Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, 11400 Rockville Pike, Suite 600, North Bethesda, MD, 20852, USA
| | - Michael Santos
- Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, 11400 Rockville Pike, Suite 600, North Bethesda, MD, 20852, USA
| | - Stephanie James
- Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, 11400 Rockville Pike, Suite 600, North Bethesda, MD, 20852, USA
| | - Fredros O Okumu
- Environmental Health and Ecological Sciences, Ifakara Health Institute, PO Box 53, Ifakara, Tanzania
- School of Life Science and Bioengineering, The Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology, P. O. Box 447, Arusha, Tanzania
- School of Biodiversity, One Health and Veterinary Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G128QQ, UK
- School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 1 Smuts Avenue, Braamofontein, 2000, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Pare Toe L, Dicko B, Linga R, Barry N, Drabo M, Sykes N, Thizy D. Operationalizing stakeholder engagement for gene drive research in malaria elimination in Africa—translating guidance into practice. Malar J 2022; 21:225. [PMID: 35870909 PMCID: PMC9308116 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-022-04241-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2022] [Accepted: 07/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
AbstractGene drive mosquitoes are increasingly considered a potential transformational tool for vector control of malaria mosquitoes. As part of efforts to promote responsible research in this field, a number of guidance documents have been published by the World Health Organization, National Academies and expert groups. While virtually all recent guidance documents on gene drive research stress the importance of stakeholder engagement activities, no specific guidelines on implementing them have been established. Target Malaria, a not-for-profit research consortium developing a vector-control gene drive approach to eliminate malaria, has reflected on how its stakeholder engagement strategy translates engagement guidance documents into practice. The project analysed and addressed the tension between the context specificities and the international recommendations. The engagement strategy combines published recommendations for responsible gene drive research, information collected from the local context where the project operates and a set of principles guiding the choices made. This strategy was first developed during the early phases of the project’s research, years ahead of any activities with gene drive mosquitoes in those countries of operations. These earlier activities, and their related engagement, allow the project to develop and adapt an engagement strategy appropriate for potential gene drive research in its field site countries. This paper offers a description of a stakeholder engagement strategy operationalization based on (1) adaptation to stakeholder preferences, (2) inclusiveness and (3) empowerment and accountability. The authors hope to offer concrete examples to support other projects with the development and implementation of their engagement strategies with particular attention to the co-development principle.
Collapse
|
6
|
Connolly JB, Mumford JD, Glandorf DCM, Hartley S, Lewis OT, Evans SW, Turner G, Beech C, Sykes N, Coulibaly MB, Romeis J, Teem JL, Tonui W, Lovett B, Mankad A, Mnzava A, Fuchs S, Hackett TD, Landis WG, Marshall JM, Aboagye-Antwi F. Recommendations for environmental risk assessment of gene drive applications for malaria vector control. Malar J 2022; 21:152. [PMID: 35614489 PMCID: PMC9131534 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-022-04183-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2022] [Accepted: 05/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Building on an exercise that identified potential harms from simulated investigational releases of a population suppression gene drive for malaria vector control, a series of online workshops identified nine recommendations to advance future environmental risk assessment of gene drive applications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John B Connolly
- Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, Sunninghill, Ascot, UK.
| | - John D Mumford
- Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, Sunninghill, Ascot, UK
| | | | | | - Owen T Lewis
- Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sam Weiss Evans
- Program On Science, Technology & Society, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Geoff Turner
- Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, Sunninghill, Ascot, UK
| | | | - Naima Sykes
- Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, Sunninghill, Ascot, UK
| | - Mamadou B Coulibaly
- Malaria Research and Training Center (MRTC), University of Sciences, Techniques and Technologies of Bamako, Bamako, Mali
| | - Jörg Romeis
- Research Division Agroecology and Environment, Agroscope, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - John L Teem
- Genetic Biocontrols LLC, Tallahassee, FL, USA
| | - Willy Tonui
- Environmental Health and Safety (EHS Consultancy) Ltd, Nairobi, Kenya
| | - Brian Lovett
- Division of Plant and Soil Sciences, West Virginia University, Morgantown, USA
| | - Aditi Mankad
- CSIRO Synthetic Biology Future Science Platform, CSIRO Land & Water, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Abraham Mnzava
- African Leaders Malaria Alliance, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
| | - Silke Fuchs
- Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, Sunninghill, Ascot, UK
| | | | - Wayne G Landis
- Institute of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, College of the Environment, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, USA
| | - John M Marshall
- Divisions of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA
| | - Fred Aboagye-Antwi
- Department of Animal Biology and Conservation Sciences, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra, Ghana
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Warmbrod KL, Kobokovich AL, West R, Gronvall GK, Montague M. The Need for a Tiered Registry for US Gene Drive Governance. Health Secur 2022; 20:43-49. [PMID: 35007428 PMCID: PMC8892961 DOI: 10.1089/hs.2021.0139] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Kelsey Lane Warmbrod
- Kelsey Lane Warmbrod, MS, MPH, and Amanda L. Kobokovich, MPH, are Senior Analysts; and Gigi Kwik Gronvall, PhD, and Michael Montague, PhD, are Senior Scholars; all at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, MD. Rachel West, PhD, is a Health Scientist and Presidential Management Fellow, Waterborne Disease Prevention Branch, Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.,Address correspondence to: Kelsey Lane Warmbrod, MS, MPH, Senior Analyst, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, 621 East Pratt St, Suite 210, Baltimore, MD 21202
| | - Amanda L. Kobokovich
- Kelsey Lane Warmbrod, MS, MPH, and Amanda L. Kobokovich, MPH, are Senior Analysts; and Gigi Kwik Gronvall, PhD, and Michael Montague, PhD, are Senior Scholars; all at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, MD. Rachel West, PhD, is a Health Scientist and Presidential Management Fellow, Waterborne Disease Prevention Branch, Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
| | - Rachel West
- Kelsey Lane Warmbrod, MS, MPH, and Amanda L. Kobokovich, MPH, are Senior Analysts; and Gigi Kwik Gronvall, PhD, and Michael Montague, PhD, are Senior Scholars; all at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, MD. Rachel West, PhD, is a Health Scientist and Presidential Management Fellow, Waterborne Disease Prevention Branch, Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
| | - Gigi Kwik Gronvall
- Kelsey Lane Warmbrod, MS, MPH, and Amanda L. Kobokovich, MPH, are Senior Analysts; and Gigi Kwik Gronvall, PhD, and Michael Montague, PhD, are Senior Scholars; all at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, MD. Rachel West, PhD, is a Health Scientist and Presidential Management Fellow, Waterborne Disease Prevention Branch, Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
| | - Michael Montague
- Kelsey Lane Warmbrod, MS, MPH, and Amanda L. Kobokovich, MPH, are Senior Analysts; and Gigi Kwik Gronvall, PhD, and Michael Montague, PhD, are Senior Scholars; all at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, MD. Rachel West, PhD, is a Health Scientist and Presidential Management Fellow, Waterborne Disease Prevention Branch, Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Abstract
Gene drives are an emerging technology with tremendous potential to impact public health, agriculture, and conservation. While gene drives can be described simply as selfish genetic elements (natural or engineered) that are inherited at non-Mendelian rates, upon closer inspection, engineered gene drive technology is a complex class of biotechnology that uses a diverse number of genetic features to bias rates of inheritance. As a complex technology, gene drives can be difficult to comprehend, not only for the public and stakeholders, but also to risk assessors, risk managers, and decisionmakers not familiar with gene drive literature. To address this difficulty, we describe a gene drive classification system based on 5 functional characteristics. These characteristics include a gene drive's objective, mechanism, release threshold, range, and persistence. The aggregate of the gene drive's characteristics can be described as the gene drive's architecture. Establishing a classification system to define different gene drive technologies should make them more comprehensible to the public and provide a framework to guide regulatory evaluation and decisionmaking.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Justin Overcash
- Justin Overcash, PhD, is an Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Science Fellow, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, MD
| | - Andrew Golnar
- Andrew Golnar, PhD, is an APHIS Science Fellow, Wildlife Services, Fort Collins, CO
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
de Graeff N, Jongsma KR, Lunshof JE, Bredenoord AL. Governing Gene Drive Technologies: A Qualitative Interview Study. AJOB Empir Bioeth 2021; 13:107-124. [PMID: 34219621 DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2021.1941417] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Gene drive technologies (GDTs) bias the inheritance of a genetic element within a population of non-human organisms, promoting its progressive spread across this population. If successful, GDTs may be used to counter intractable problems such as vector-borne diseases. A key issue in the debate on GDTs relates to what governance is appropriate for these technologies. While governance mechanisms for GDTs are to a significant extent proposed and shaped by professional experts, the perspectives of these experts have not been explored in depth. METHODS A total of 33 GDT experts from different professional disciplines were interviewed to identify, better understand, and juxtapose their perspectives on GDT governance. The pseudonymized transcripts were analyzed thematically. RESULTS Three main themes were identified: (1) engagement of communities, stakeholders, and publics; (2) power dynamics, and (3) decision-making. There was broad consensus amongst respondents that it is important to engage communities, stakeholders, and publics. Nonetheless, respondents had diverging views on the reasons for doing so and the timing and design of engagement. Respondents also outlined complexities and challenges related to engagement. Moreover, they brought up the power dynamics that are present in GDT research. Respondents stressed the importance of preventing the recurrence of historical injustices and reflected on dilemmas regarding whether and to what extent (foreign) researchers can legitimately make demands regarding local governance. Finally, respondents had diverging views on whether decisions about GDTs should be made in the same way as decisions about other environmental interventions, and on the decision-making model that should be used to decide about GDT deployment. CONCLUSIONS The insights obtained in this interview study give rise to recommendations for the design and evaluation of GDT governance. Moreover, these insights point to unresolved normative questions that need to be addressed to move from general commitments to concrete obligations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N de Graeff
- Department of Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Karin R Jongsma
- Department of Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Jeantine E Lunshof
- Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.,Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Center for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.,European Research Institute for the Biology of Ageing (ERIBA), University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Annelien L Bredenoord
- Department of Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Hartley S, Smith RDJ, Kokotovich A, Opesen C, Habtewold T, Ledingham K, Raymond B, Rwabukwali CB. Ugandan stakeholder hopes and concerns about gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control: new directions for gene drive risk governance. Malar J 2021; 20:149. [PMID: 33726763 PMCID: PMC7968178 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-021-03682-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2020] [Accepted: 03/03/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The African Union’s High-Level Panel on Emerging Technologies identified gene drive mosquitoes as a priority technology for malaria elimination. The first field trials are expected in 5–10 years in Uganda, Mali or Burkina Faso. In preparation, regional and international actors are developing risk governance guidelines which will delineate the framework for identifying and evaluating risks. Scientists and bioethicists have called for African stakeholder involvement in these developments, arguing the knowledge and perspectives of those people living in malaria-afflicted countries is currently missing. However, few African stakeholders have been involved to date, leaving a knowledge gap about the local social-cultural as well as ecological context in which gene drive mosquitoes will be tested and deployed. This study investigates and analyses Ugandan stakeholders’ hopes and concerns about gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control and explores the new directions needed for risk governance. Methods This qualitative study draws on 19 in-depth semi-structured interviews with Ugandan stakeholders in 2019. It explores their hopes for the technology and the risks they believed pertinent. Coding began at a workshop and continued through thematic analysis. Results Participants’ hopes and concerns for gene drive mosquitoes to address malaria fell into three themes: (1) ability of gene drive mosquitoes to prevent malaria infection; (2) impacts of gene drive testing and deployment; and, (3) governance. Stakeholder hopes fell almost exclusively into the first theme while concerns were spread across all three. The study demonstrates that local stakeholders are able and willing to contribute relevant and important knowledge to the development of risk frameworks. Conclusions International processes can provide high-level guidelines, but risk decision-making must be grounded in the local context if it is to be robust, meaningful and legitimate. Decisions about whether or not to release gene drive mosquitoes as part of a malaria control programme will need to consider the assessment of both the risks and the benefits of gene drive mosquitoes within a particular social, political, ecological, and technological context. Just as with risks, benefits—and importantly, the conditions that are necessary to realize them—must be identified and debated in Uganda and its neighbouring countries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Hartley
- University of Exeter, Northcote House, Queen's Drive, Exeter, EX4 4QJ, UK.
| | - Robert D J Smith
- Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Chisholm House, High School Yard, Edinburgh, EH1 1LZ, UK
| | - Adam Kokotovich
- Department of Forestry & Environmental Resources, Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7565, Raleigh, NC, 27695-7565, USA
| | - Chris Opesen
- Makerere University, PO Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda
| | - Tibebu Habtewold
- Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, London, SW7 2AZ, UK
| | - Katie Ledingham
- University of Exeter, Northcote House, Queen's Drive, Exeter, EX4 4QJ, UK
| | - Ben Raymond
- University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Treliever Road, Penryn, TR10 9FE, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|