Potential use of gene drive modified insects against disease vectors, agricultural pests and invasive species poses new challenges for risk assessment

References

• Alphey L. Genetic control of mosquitoes. Annu Rev Entomol. 2014;59:205–224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flores HA, O’Neill SL. Controlling vector-borne diseases by releasing modified mosquitoes. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018;16:508–518.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romeis J, Collatz J, Glandorf DCM, et al. The value of existing frameworks for the environmental risk assessment of agricultural pest control using gene drives. Environ Sci Pol. 2020;108:19–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feachem RGA, Chen I, Akbari O, et al. Malaria eradication within a generation: ambitious, achievable, and necessary. Lancet. 2019;394:1056–1112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). Ethics and vector-borne diseases: WHO guidance. 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/ethics-and-vector-borne-diseases.
   Google Scholar
• Ritchie SA, Staunton KM. Reflections from an old Queenslander: can rear and release strategies be the next great era of vector control? Proc R Soc B. 2019;286(1905):20190973.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). World malaria report 2019. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2019. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications-detail/world-malaria-report-2019.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). Position statement: evaluation of genetically modified mosquitoes for the control of vector-borne diseases. 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240013155.
   Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine (NASEM). Gene drives on the horizon: advancing science, navigating uncertainty, and aligning research with public values. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press; 2016. Available from: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17226/23405
   Google Scholar
• Entomological Society of America. ESA position statement on the importance of continued innovation in gene drive technology. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 2020. 113:486–487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lester PJ, Bulgarella M, Baty JW, et al. The potential for a CRISPR gene drive to eradicate or suppress globally invasive social wasps. Sci Rep. 2020;10:12398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alphey LS, Crisanti A, Randazzo F, et al. Standardizing the definition of gene drive. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117:30864–30867.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burt A, Trivers RL. Genes in conflict. Boston (MA): Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Burt A, Crisanti A. Gene drive: evolved and synthetic. ACS Chem Biol. 2018;13:343–346.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms. Scientific Opinion on the adequacy and sufficiency evaluation of existing EFSA guidelines for the molecular characterisation, environmental risk assessment and post‐market environmental monitoring of genetically modified insects containing engineered gene drives. EFSA J. 2020;18:6297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James S, Collins FH, Welkhoff PA, et al. 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. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018;98:1–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble C, Adlam B, Church GM, et al. Current CRISPR gene drive systems are likely to be highly invasive in wild populations. eLife. 2018;7:e33423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curtis C. Possible use of translocations to fix desirable genes in insect pest populations. Nat. 1968;218(5139):368–369.
   Google Scholar
• Leftwich PT, Edgington MP, Harvey-Samuel T, et al. Recent advances in threshold-dependent gene drives for mosquitoes. Biochem Soc Trans. 2018;46:1203–1212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Backus GA, Delborne JA. Threshold-dependent gene drives in the wild: spread, controllability, and ecological uncertainty. BioSci. 2019;69(11):900–907.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhole S, Lloyd AL, Gould F. Gene drive dynamics in natural populations: the importance of density-dependence, space and sex. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2020;51(1):505–531.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• KaramiNejadRanjbar M, Eckermann KN, Ahmed HMM, et al. Consequences of resistance evolution in a Cas9-based sex conversion-suppression gene drive for insect pest management. Proc Natl Acad Sci Usa. 2018;115(24):6189–6194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price TAR, Windbichler N, Unckless RL, et al. Resistance to natural and synthetic gene drive systems. J Evol Biol. 2020;33:1345–1360.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raban RR, Marshall JM, Akbari OS. Progress towards engineering gene drives for population control. J Exp Biol. 2020;223:jeb208181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James SL, Marshall JM, Christophides GK, et al. Toward the definition of efficacy and safety criteria for advancing gene drive-modified mosquitoes to field testing. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2020;20:237–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cong L, Ran FA, Cox D, et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science. 2013;339(6121):819–823.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberhofer G, Ivy T, Hay BA. Behavior of homing endonuclease gene drives targeting genes required for viability or female fertility with multiplexed guide RNAs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115:E9343–E9352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyrou K, Hammond AM, Galizi R, et al. A CRISPR–Cas9 gene drive targeting doublesex causes complete population suppression in caged Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;36:1062–1066.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt H, Collier TC, Hanemaaijer MJ, et al. Abundance of conserved CRISPR-Cas9 target sites within the highly polymorphic genomes of Anopheles and Aedes mosquitoes. Nat Commun. 2020;11:1425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Champer J, Yang E, Lee YL, et al. A CRISPR homing gene drive targeting a haplolethal gene removes resistance alleles and successfully spreads through a cage population. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117:24377–24383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammond A, Karlsson X, Morianou I, et al. Regulating the expression of gene drives is key to increasing their invasive potential and the mitigation of resistance. PLoS Genet. 2021;17:e1009321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gantz VM, Jasinskiene N, Tatarenkova O, et al. Highly efficient Cas9-mediated gene drive for population modification of the malaria vector mosquito Anopheles stephensi. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:E6736–E6743.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberhofer G, Ivy T, Hay BA. Cleave and Rescue, a novel selfish genetic element and general strategy for gene drive. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019;116:6250–6259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adolfi A, Gantz VM, Jasinskiene N, et al. Efficient population modification gene-drive rescue system in the malaria mosquito Anopheles stephensi. Nat Commun. 2020;11:5553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Champer J, Lee YL, Yang E, et al. A toxin-antidote CRISPR gene drive system for regional population modification. Nat Commun. 2020;11:1082.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kandul NP, Liu J, Bennett JB, et al. A confinable home and rescue gene drive for population modification. eLife. 2021;10:e65939.
   Google Scholar
• Terradas G, Buchman AB, Bennett JB, et al. Inherently confinable split-drive systems in Drosophila. Nat Commun. 2021;12:1480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaghton AK, Hammond A, Nolan T, et al. Gene drive for population genetic control: non-functional resistance and parental effects. Proc Royal Soc B. 2019;286:20191586.
   Google Scholar
• Simoni A, Hammond AM, Beaghton AK, et al. A male-biased sex-distorter gene drive for the human malaria vector Anopheles gambiae. Nat Biotechnol. 2020;38(9):1054–1060.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall JM, Raban RR, Kandul NP, et al. Winning the tug-of-war between effector gene design and pathogen evolution in vector population replacement strategies. Front Genet. 2019;10:1072.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall JM, Akbari OS. Can CRISPR-based gene drive be confined in the wild? A question for molecular and population biology. ACS Chem Biol. 2018;13:424–430.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman RM, Marshall JM, Akbari OS. Gene drives: new and improved. Issues Sci Technol. 2020;36:72–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez HMC, Bennett JB, Wu SL, et al. Modeling confinement and reversibility of threshold-dependent gene drive systems in spatially-explicit Aedes aegypti populations. BMC Biol. 2020;18:50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hay BA, Oberhofer G, Guo M. Engineering the composition and fate of wild populations with gene drive. Annu Rev Entomol. 2021;66:1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li M, Yang T, Kandul NP, et al. Development of a confinable gene drive system in the human disease vector, Aedes aegypti. eLife. 2020;9:e51701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster SH, Vella MR, Scott MJ. Development and testing of a novel killer-rescue self-limiting gene drive system in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Royal Soc B. 2020;287:20192994.
   Google Scholar
• Dhole S, Vella MR, Lloyd AL, et al. Invasion and migration of spatially self‐limiting gene drives: a comparative analysis. Evol Appl. 2018;11(5):794–808.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vella MR, Gunning CE, Lloyd AL, et al. Evaluating strategies for reversing CRISPR-Cas9 gene drives. Sci Rep. 2017;7:11038.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu X-RS, Bulger EA, Gantz VM, et al. Active genetic neutralizing elements for halting or deleting gene drives. Mol Cell. 2020;80:246–262.e4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heffel MG, Finnigan GC. Mathematical modeling of self-contained CRISPR gene drive reversal systems. Sci Rep. 2019;9:20050.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López Del Amo V, Leger BS, Cox KJ, et al. Small-molecule control of super-Mendelian inheritance in gene drives. Cell Rep. 2020;31:107841.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall JM, Vasquez VN. Field trials of gene drive mosquitoes: lessons from releases of genetically sterile males and Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes. In: Tyagi BK, editor. Eco-bio-social considerations for the safe application of genetically modified vectors to control malaria and dengue. Oxford University Press; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Buchman AB, Ivy T, Marshall JM, et al. Engineered reciprocal chromosome translocations drive high threshold, reversible population replacement in Drosophila. ACS Synth Biol. 2018;7:1359–1370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchman A, Marshall JM, Ostrovski D, et al. Synthetically engineered Medea gene drive system in the worldwide crop pest Drosophila suzukii. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115:4725–4730.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edgington MP, Alphey LS. Population dynamics of engineered underdominance and killer-rescue gene drives in the control of disease vectors. PloS Comput Biol. 2018;14:e1006059.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edgington MP, Alphey LS. Modeling the mutation and reversal of engineered underdominance gene drives. J Theor Biol. 2019;479:14–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edgington MP, Harvey‐Samuel T, Alphey L. Split drive killer-rescue provides a novel threshold-dependent gene drive. Sci Rep. 2020;10:20520.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble C, Min J, Olejarz J, et al. Daisy-chain gene drives for the alteration of local populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019;116:8275–8282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberhofer G, Ivy T, Hay BA. Gene drive and resilience through renewal with next generation Cleave and Rescue selfish genetic elements. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117:9013–9021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• North AR, Burt A, Godfray HCJ. Modelling the potential of genetic control of malaria mosquitoes at national scale. BMC Biol. 2019;17:26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• North AR, Burt A, Godfray HCJ. Modelling the suppression of a malaria vector using a CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive to reduce female fertility. BMC Biol. 2020;18:98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pham TB, Phong CH, Bennett JB, et al. Experimental population modification of the malaria vector mosquito, Anopheles stephensi. PLoS Genet. 2019;15:e1008440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carballar-Lejarazú R, Ogaugwu C, Tushar T, et al. Next-generation gene drive for population modification of the malaria vector mosquito, Anopheles gambiae. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117(37):22805–22814.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Champer J, Kim IK, Champer SE, et al. Performance analysis of novel toxin-antidote CRISPR gene drive systems. BMC Biol. 2020;18:27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Champer J, Zhao J, Champer SE, et al. Population dynamics of underdominance gene drive systems in continuous space. ACS Synth Biol. 2020;9:779–792.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kandul NP, Liu J, Buchman A, et al. Assessment of a split homing based gene drive for efficient knockout of multiple genes. G3 Genes Genom Genet. 2020;10:827–837.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez CHM, Wu SL, Bennett JB, et al. MGDrivE: a modular simulation framework for the spread of gene drives through spatially‐explicit mosquito populations. Methods Ecol Evol. 2020;11(2):229–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long KC, Alphey L, Bloss CS, et al. Core commitments for field trials of gene drive organisms. Sci. 2020;370:1417–1419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brossard D, Belluck P, Gould F, et al. Promises and perils of gene drives: navigating the communication of complex, post-normal science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019;116:7692–7697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deplazes-Zemp A, Grossniklaus U, Lefort F, et al. Gene drives: benefits, risks, and possible applications. Swiss Academies Factsheets. 2020;15:4.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts A, Paes de Andrade P, Okumu F, et al. Results from the workshop “problem formulation for the use of gene drive in mosquitoes. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017;96:530–533.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes KR, Hosack GR, Dana GV, et al. Identifying and detecting potentially adverse ecological outcomes associated with the release of gene-drive modified organisms. J Responsible Innov. 2018;5(sup1):S139–S158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon S, Otto M, Engelhard M. Synthetic gene drive: between continuity and novelty. EMBO Rep. 2018;19(5):e45760.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins CM, Bonds JA, Quinlan MM, et al. Effects of the removal or reduction in density of the malaria mosquito, Anopheles gambiae s.l., on interacting predators and competitors in local ecosystems. Med Vet Entomol. 2019;33:1–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rode NO, Estoup A, Bourguet D, et al. Population management using gene drive: molecular design, models of spread dynamics and assessment of ecological risks. Conserv Genet. 2019;20(4):671–690.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rode NO, Courtier-Orgogozo V, Débarre F. Can a population targeted by a CRISPR-based homing gene drive be rescued? G3: Genes, Genom Genet. 2020;10:3403–3415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teem JL, Ambali A, Glover B, et al. Problem formulation for gene drive mosquitoes designed to reduce malaria transmission in Africa: results from four regional consultations 2016–2018. Malar J. 2019;18:347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolezel M, Lüthi C, Gaugitsch H. Beyond limits – the pitfalls of global gene drives for environmental risk assessment in the European Union. BR. 2020;15:1–29.
   Google Scholar
• Smets G, Rüdelsheim P. Study on risk assessment application of annex I of decision CP 9/13 to living modified organisms containing engineered gene drives, on behalf of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. CBD/CP/RA/AHTEG/2020/1/4. 2020. Available from: https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/f22d/a5d7/850597e99231b7d0dd194c7f/cp-ra-ahteg-2020-01-04-en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Then C, Kawall K, Valenzuela N. Spatio‐temporal controllability and environmental risk assessment of genetically engineered gene drive organisms from the perspective of EU GMO regulation. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2020;16:555–568.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raybould A. Problem formulation and hypothesis testing for environmental risk assessments of genetically modified crops. Environ Biosafety Res. 2006;5:119–125.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Raybould A. Hypothesis-led ecological risk assessment of GM crops to support decision-making about product use. In Chaurasia A, Hawksworth DL, Pessoa de Miranda M, editors. GMOs. Topics in biodiversity and conservation. Vol 19. Switzerland (Cham): Springer International Publishing; 2020. p. 305–342.
   Google Scholar
• Wolt JD, Keese P, Raybould A, et al. Problem formulation in the environmental risk assessment for genetically modified plants. Transgenic Res. 2010;19:425–436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devos Y, Craig W, Devlin RH, et al. Using problem formulation for fit‐for‐purpose pre‐market environmental risk assessments of regulated stressors. EFSA J. 2019;17:e170708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adelman Z, Akbari O, Bauer J, et al. Rules of the road for insect gene drive research and testing. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35:716–718.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG). Report of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group. CBD/CP/RA/AHTEG/2020/1/5. 2020. Available from: https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/a763/e248/4fa326e03e3c126b9615e95d/cp-ra-ahteg-2020-01-05-en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Keiper F, Atanassova A. Regulation of synthetic biology: developments under the convention on biological diversity and its protocols. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020;8:310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms. Scientific Opinion on the Guidance on the risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified animals and animal health and welfare aspects. Efsa J. 2012;10:1–43.
   Google Scholar
• EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms. Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified animals. Efsa J. 2013;11:1–190.
   Google Scholar
• Devos Y, Gallani B, European Food Safety Authority, et al. Stakeholder workshop “Problem formulation for the environmental risk assessment of gene drive modified insects” (15 May 2019, Brussels). EFSA Support Publ. 2020;17:1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Devos Y, Bonsall MB, European Food Safety Authority, et al. Outcome of a public consultation on the draft adequacy and sufficiency evaluation of existing EFSA guidelines for the molecular characterisation, environmental risk assessment and post-market environmental monitoring of genetically modified insects containing engineered gene drives. EFSA Support Publ. 2020;17:1–315.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). Guidance framework for testing of genetically modified mosquitoes. 2014. Available from: https://www.who.int/tdr/publications/year/2014/guide-fmrk-gm-mosquit/en/.
   Google Scholar
• Redford KH, Brooks TM, Macfarlane NBW, et al., editors. Genetic frontiers for conservation: an assessment of synthetic biology and biodiversity conservation. Technical assessment. Gland (CH): IUCN; 2019. Available from: https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/48409.
   Google Scholar
• High-Level African Panel on Emerging Technologies (APET). Gene drives for malaria control and elimination in Africa. 2018. Available from: https://www.nepad.org/publication/gene-drives-malaria-control-and-elimination-africa.
   Google Scholar
• Devos Y, Bonsall MB, Firbank LG, et al. Gene drive-modified organisms: developing practical risk assessment guidance. Trends Biotechnol. 2020. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.11.015
   Google Scholar
• Reynolds JL. Governing new biotechnologies for biodiversity conservation: gene drives, international law, and emerging politics. Glob Environ Polit. 2020;20(3):28–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hokanson KE. When policy meets practice: the dilemma for guidance on risk assessment under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connolly JB, Mumford JD, Fuchs S, et al. Systematic identification of plausible pathways to potential harm via problem formulation for investigational releases of a population suppression gene drive to control the human malaria vector Anopheles gambiae in West Africa. Malar J. 2021;20(1):170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms. Applicability of the EFSA opinion on site‐directed nucleases type 3 for the safety assessment of plants developed using site‐directed nucleases type 1 and 2 and oligonucleotide‐directed mutagenesis. EFSA J. 2020;18:6299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golnar AJ, Ruell E, Lloyd AL, et al. Embracing dynamic models for gene drive management. Trends Biotechnol. 2021;39:211–214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu SL, Bennett JB, Sánchez CHM, et al. MGDrivE 2: a simulation framework for gene drive systems incorporating seasonality and epidemiological dynamics. PLoS Comput Biol. 2021;17:e1009030.
   Google Scholar
• Callaway E. ‘Gene drive’ moratorium shot down at UN biodiversity meeting. Nat Biotechnol. 2016. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.21216
   Google Scholar
• Callaway E. Ban on ‘gene drives’ is back on the UN’s agenda — worrying scientists. Nature. 2018;563:454–455.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown Z. Economic, regulatory and international implications of gene drives in agriculture. Choices. 2017;32:1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Hartley S, Thizy D, Ledingham K, et al. Knowledge engagement in gene drive research for malaria control. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13:e0007233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thizy D, Emerson C, Gibbs J, et al. Guidance on stakeholder engagement practices to inform the development of areawide vector control methods. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13:e0007286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelsey A, Stillinger D, Pham TB, et al. Global governing bodies: a pathway for gene drive governance for vector mosquito control. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020;103:976–985.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santos MR. Evaluating gene drive approaches for public benefit. In: Chaurasia A, Hawksworth DL, Pessoa de Miranda M, editors. GMOs. Topics in biodiversity and conservation. Vol. 19. Switzerland (Cham): Springer International Publishing; 2020. p. 421–437.
   Google Scholar
• Warmbrod KL, Kobokovich K, West R, et al. Gene drives: pursuing opportunities, minimizing risk. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University; 2020. (Johns Hopkins University Report on Responsible Governance (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Health Security). Available from: https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/pubs_archive/pubs-pdfs/2020/200518-Gene-Drives-Report.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Annas GJ, Beisel CL, Clement K, et al. A code of ethics for gene drive research. CRISPR J. 2021;4:19–24.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar