Governing Gene Drive Technologies: A Qualitative Interview Study

References

• Abelson, J., P. G. Forest, J. Eyles, P. Smith, E. Martin, and F. P. Gauvin. 2003. A review of public participation and consultation methods. Deliberations about deliberation: Issues in the design and evaluation of public consultation processes. University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Research Working Paper 41 (June), 1–10. http://vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/compareparticipation.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Adelman, Z., O. Akbari, J. Bauer, E. Bier, C. Bloss, S. R. Carter, C. Callender, A. C.-S. Denis, P. Cowhey, B. Dass, et al. 2017. Rules of the road for insect gene drive research and testing. Nature Biotechnology 35 (8):716–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3926.Rules.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adelman, Z. N., D. Pledger, and K. M. Myles. 2017. Developing standard operating procedures for gene drive research in disease vector mosquitoes. Pathogens and Global Health 111 (8):436–47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/20477724.2018.1424514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akbari, O. S., H. J. Bellen, E. Bier, S. L. Bullock, A. Burt, G. M. Church, K. R. Cook, P. Duchek, O. R. Edwards, K. M. Esvelt, et al. 2015. BIOSAFETY. Safeguarding gene drive experiments in the laboratory. Science (New York, N.Y.) 349 (6251):927–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac7932.Safeguarding.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alphey, L. S., A. Crisanti, F. Randazzo, and O. S. Akbari. 2020. Opinion: Standardizing the definition of gene drive. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 117 (49):30864–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2020417117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AU & NEPAD. 2017. Gene drives for malaria control and elimination in Africa.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Academy of Science. 2017. Synthetic gene drives in Austrialia: Implications of emerging technologies. Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• Bartumeus, F., G. B. Costa, R. Eritja, A. H. Kelly, M. Finda, J. Lezaun, F. Okumu, M. M. Quinlan, D. C. Thizy, L. P. Toé, et al. 2019. Sustainable innovation in vector control requires strong partnerships with communities. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 13 (4):e0007204. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2):77–101. doi: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, S. R., and R. M. Friedman. 2016. Policy and regulatory issues for gene drives in insects, Workshop Report. No. August: 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• CSS, ENSSER & VDW. 2019. Gene drives. A report on their science, applications, social aspects, ethics and regulations. Bern & Berlin: Critical Scientists Switzerland (CSS), European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) & Vereinigung Deutscher Wissenschaftler (VDW). doi: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10364.95369.
   Google Scholar
• De Graeff, N., K. R. Jongsma, and A. L. Bredenoord. 2021. Experts’ moral views on gene drive technologies: A qualitative interview study. BMC Med Ethics 22 (1):25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00588-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Graeff, N., K. R. Jongsma, J. Johnston, S. Hartley, and A. L. Bredenoord. 2019. The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: A systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 374 (1772):20180106. doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degeling, C., S. M. Carter, and L. Rychetnik. 2015. Which public and why deliberate? A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research. Social Science & Medicine (1982) 131:114–21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.03.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emerson, C., S. James, K. Littler, and F. Randazzo. 2017. Principles for gene drive research. Science (New York, N.Y.) 358 (6367):1135–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9026.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esvelt, K. M., A. L. Smidler, F. Catteruccia, and G. M. Church. 2014. Concerning RNA-guided gene drives for the alteration of wild populations. eLife 3 (e03401):1–21. doi: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03401.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, S. W., and M. J. Palmer. 2018. Anomaly handling and the politics of gene drives. Journal of Responsible Innovation 5 (sup1):S223–S42. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1407911.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finda, M. F., N. Christofides, J. Lezaun, B. Tarimo, P. Chaki, A. H. Kelly, N. Kapologwe, P. Kazyoba, B. Emidi, and F. O. Okumu. 2020. Opinions of key stakeholders on alternative interventions for malaria control and elimination in Tanzania. Malaria Journal 19 (1):1–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-020-03239-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gantz, V. M., N. Jasinskiene, O. Tatarenkova, A. Fazekas, V. M. Macias, E. Bier, and A. A. James. 2015. Highly efficient Cas9-mediated gene drive for population modification of the malaria vector mosquito Anopheles stephensi. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (49):E6736–43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521077112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gautier, L., I. Sieleunou, and A. Kalolo. 2018. Deconstructing the notion of ‘global health research partnerships’ across Northern and African contexts. BMC Medical Ethics 19 (S1):13–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0280-7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Harris, J., L. Croot, J. Thompson, and J. Springett. 2016. How stakeholder participation can contribute to systematic reviews of complex interventions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 70 (2):207–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2015-205701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartley, S., R. D. J. Smith, A. Kokotovich, C. Opesen, T. Habtewold, K. Ledingham, B. Raymond, and C. B. Rwabukwali. 2021. Ugandan stakeholder hopes and concerns about gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control: New directions for gene drive risk governance. Malaria Journal 20 (1):1–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-021-03682-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hennink, M. M., B. N. Kaiser, and V. C. Marconi. 2017. Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research 27 (4):591–608. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IRGC. 2015. IRGC guidelines for emerging risk governance. guidance for the governance of unfamiliar risks. Lausanne. https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/228053/files/GuidelinesforEmergingRiskGovernance.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• James, S., F. H. Collins, P. A. Welkhoff, C. Emerson, H. C. J. Godfray, M. Gottlieb, B. Greenwood, S. W. Lindsay, C. M. Mbogo, F. O. Okumu, et al. 2018. Pathway to deployment of gene drive mosquitoes as a potential biocontrol tool for elimination of malaria in sub-Saharan Africa: Recommendations of a scientific working group†. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 98 (6_Suppl):1–49. doi: https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.18-0083.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jongsma, K., and P. Friesen. 2019. The challenge of demandingness in citizen science and participatory research. The American Journal of Bioethics 19 (8):33–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1619867.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kofler, N., and R. I. Taitingfong. 2020. Advances in genetic engineering test democracy’s capacity for good decision-making. Boston Globe, November 9. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/11/09/opinion/advances-genetic-engineering-test-democracys-capacity-good-decision-making/.
   Google Scholar
• Kolopack, P. A., and J. V. Lavery. 2017. Informed consent in field trials of gene-drive mosquitoes. Gates Open Research 1:14–2. doi: https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.12771.1.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuzma, J. 2020. Engineered gene drives: Ecological, environmental, and societal concerns. In GMOs: Implications for biodiversity conservation and ecological processes, ed. A. Chaurasia, D. L. Hawksworth, and M. P. de Miranda, 371–400. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Kuzma, J., F. Gould, Z. Brown, J. Collins, J. Delborne, E. Frow, K. Esvelt, D. Guston, C. Leitschuh, K. Oye, et al. 2018. A roadmap for gene drives: Using institutional analysis and development to frame research needs and governance in a systems context. Journal of Responsible Innovation 5 (sup1):S13–S39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1410344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvale, S. 1994. InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Ledingham, K., and S. Hartley. 2021. Transformation and slippage in co-production ambitions for global technology development: The case of gene drive. Environmental Science & Policy 116:78–85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long, K. C., L. Alphey, G. J. Annas, C. S. Bloss, K. J. Campbell, J. Champer, C.-H. Chen, A. Choudhary, G. M. Church, J. P. Collins, et al. 2020. Core commitments for field trials of gene drive organisms. Science (New York, N.Y.) 370 (6523):1417–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd1908.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marchant, G. E., K. W. Abbott, and J. E. Brown, eds. 2013. Innovative governance models for emerging technologies. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Matenga, T. F. L., J. M. Zulu, J. H. Corbin, and O. Mweemba. 2019. Contemporary issues in north-south health research partnerships: Perspectives of health research stakeholders in Zambia. Health Research Policy and Systems 17 (1):7–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0409-7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• NASEM. 2016. Gene drives on the horizon: Advancing science, navigating uncertainty, and aligning research with public values. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/23405.
   Google Scholar
• Neuhaus, C. P. 2018. Community engagement and field trials of genetically modified insects and animals. The Hastings Center Report 48 (1):25–36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.808.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neve, P. 2018. Gene drive systems: Do they have a place in agricultural weed management? Pest Management Science 74 (12):2671–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.5137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble, C., B. Adlam, G. M. Church, K. M. Esvelt, and M. A. Nowak. 2018. Current CRISPR gene drive systems are likely to be highly invasive in wild populations. eLife 7:1–30. doi: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.33423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowotny, H. 2003. Dilemma of expertise. democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy 30 (3):151–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780461.
   Google Scholar
• Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2012. Emerging biotechnologies: Technology, choice and the public good. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=31748397&site=ehost-live.
   Google Scholar
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2021. Technology governance. http://www.oecd.org/sti/science-technology-innovation-outlook/technology-governance/#:∼:text=Technologygovernancecanbedefined,operationoftechnologyinsocieties.
   Google Scholar
• Oye, K. A., K. Esvelt, E. Appleton, F. Catteruccia, G. Church, T. Kuiken, S. B. Y. Lightfoot, J. McNamara, A. Smidler, and J. P. Collins. 2014. Biotechnology. Regulating gene drives. Science (New York, N.Y.) 345 (6197):626–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254287.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratt, B., and J. de Vries. 2018. Community engagement in global health research that advances health equity. Bioethics 32 (7):454–63. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12465.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratt, B., and A. A. Hyder. 2017. Fair resource allocation to health research: Priority topics for bioethics scholarship. Bioethics 31 (6):454–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rehmann-Sutter, C., R. Porz, and J. L. Scully. 2012. How to relate the empirical to the normative: Toward a phenomenologically informed hermeneutic approach to bioethics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics: CQ: The International Journal of Healthcare Ethics Committees 21 (4):436–47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180112000217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds, J. L. 2020. Governing new biotechnologies for biodiversity conservation: Gene drives, international law, and emerging politics. Global Environmental Politics 20 (3):28–48. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00567.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson, H. S. 1990. Specifying norms as a way to resolve concrete ethical problems. Philosophy & Public Affairs 19 (4):279–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RIVM. 2016. Gene drives policy report. RIVM Letter Report. Vol. 0023. Bilthoven. https://www.rivm.nl/dsresource?objectid=46b949bd-f34f-4206-8859-2b01d1db4dae&type=org&disposition=inline.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, A., P. P. De Andrade, F. Okumu, H. Quemada, M. Savadogo, J. A. Singh, and S. James. 2017. Results from the workshop "problem formulation for the use of gene drive in mosquitoes". The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 96 (3):530–3. doi: https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.16-0726.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudenko, L., M. J. Palmer, and K. Oye. 2018. Considerations for the governance of gene drive organisms. Pathogens and Global Health 112 (4):162–81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/20477724.2018.1478776.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santos, M. 2020. Evaluating gene drive approaches for public benefit. In GMOs. Implications for biodiversity conservation and ecological processes, ed. A. Chaurasia, D. L Hawksworth, and M. P. de Miranda. 421–437. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, N. 2017. Between promise and skepticism: The global south and our role as engaged intellectuals. The Global South 11 (2):18–38. doi: https://doi.org/10.2979/globalsouth.11.2.02.
   Google Scholar
• Sollie, P. 2009. On uncertainty in ethics and technology. In Evaluating new technologies - methodological problems for the ethical assessment of technology developments, ed. Paul Sollie & Marcus Düwell, vol. 3, 141–58. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Sustainability Council of New Zealand. 2018. A constitutional moment. Gene drives and international governance. http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/AConstitutionalMoment_September2018.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• TDR. 2014. Guidance framework for testing genetically modified mosquitoes. Switzerland: TDR/World Health Organization, Geneva 159. http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/Output/197475/Default.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Teem, J. L., A. Ambali, B. Glover, J. Ouedraogo, D. Makinde, and A. Roberts. 2019. Problem formulation for gene drive mosquitoes designed to reduce malaria transmission in Africa: Results from four regional consultations 2016–2018. Malaria Journal 18 (1):1–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-019-2978-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thizy, D., I. Coche, and J. de Vries. 2020. Providing a policy framework for responsible gene drive research: An analysis of the existing governance landscape and priority areas for further research. Wellcome Open Research 5 (July):173. doi: https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16023.1.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thizy, D., C. Emerson, J. Gibbs, S. Hartley, L. Kapiriri, J. Lavery, J. Lunshof, J. Ramsey, J. Shapiro, J. A. Singh, et al. 2019. Guidance on stakeholder engagement practices to inform the development of area-wide vector control methods. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 13 (4):e0007286. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. 1982. How medicine saved the life of ethics. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 25 (4):736–50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1982.0064.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turnhout, E., T. Metze, C. Wyborn, N. Klenk, and E. Louder. 2020. The politics of co-production: Participation, power, and transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42 (2018):15–21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, M., and C. Martinez-Vargas. 2020. Epistemic governance and the colonial epistemic structure: Towards epistemic humility and transformed south-north relations. Critical Studies in Education:1–16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1778052.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. 2020. Ethics and vector borne diseases: WHO guidance. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/978924001273-8.
   Google Scholar