TY - JOUR
T1 - Governing Gene Drive Technologies
T2 - A Qualitative Interview Study
AU - de Graeff, N.
AU - Jongsma, Karin R.
AU - Lunshof, Jeantine E.
AU - Bredenoord, Annelien L.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the division of Applied and Engineering Sciences of Dutch Research Council (NWO) under grant number 15804 of the research program ?Biotechnology and Safety? commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. We are grateful to all participants for their insights and contribution to this study. Moreover, we are grateful to Isabelle Pirson for her help in analyzing a part of the interviews.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Ethics
KW - gene drives
KW - gene editing
KW - governance
KW - qualitative research
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85109782927&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/23294515.2021.1941417
DO - 10.1080/23294515.2021.1941417
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85109782927
SN - 2329-4515
VL - 13
SP - 107
EP - 124
JO - AJOB Empirical Bioethics
JF - AJOB Empirical Bioethics
IS - 2
ER -