Stakeholder engagement to inform the risk assessment and governance of gene drive technology to manage spotted-wing drosophila.

Emerging biotechnologies, such as gene drive technology, are increasingly being proposed to manage a variety of pests and invasive species. As one method of genetic biocontrol, gene drive technology is currently being developed to manage the invasive agricultural pest spotted-wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii, SWD). While there have been calls for stakeholder engagement on gene drive technology, there has been a lack of empirical work, especially concerning stakeholder engagement to inform risk assessment. To help address this gap and inform future risk assessments and governance decisions for SWD gene drive technology, we conducted a survey of 184 SWD stakeholders to explore how they define and prioritize potential benefits and potential adverse effects from proposed SWD gene drive technology. We found that stakeholders considered the most important potential benefits of SWD gene drive technology to be: 1) Decrease in the quantity or toxicity of pesticides used, and 2) Decrease in SWD populations. Stakeholders were most concerned about the potential adverse effects of: 1) Decrease in beneficial insects, 2) Increase in non-SWD secondary pest infestations, and 3) Decrease in grower profits. Notably, we found that even stakeholders who expressed support for the use of SWD gene drive technology expressed concerns about potential adverse effects from the technology, emphasizing the need to move past simplistic, dichotomous views of what it means to support or oppose a technology. These findings suggest that instead of focusing on the binary question of whether stakeholders support or oppose SWD gene drive technology, it is more important to identify and assess the factors that are consequential to stakeholder decision making - including, for example, exploring whether and under what conditions key potential adverse effects and potential benefits would result from the use of SWD gene drive technology.

Articulating 'free, prior and informed consent' (FPIC) for engineered gene drives.

Recent statements by United Nations bodies point to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as a potential requirement in the development of engineered gene drive applications. As a concept developed in the context of protecting Indigenous rights to self-determination in land development scenarios, FPIC would need to be extended to apply to the context of ecological editing. Without an explicit framework of application, FPIC could be interpreted as a narrowly framed process of community consultation focused on the social implications of technology, and award little formal or advisory power in decision-making to Indigenous peoples and local communities. In this paper, we argue for an articulation of FPIC that attends to issues of transparency, iterative community-scale consent, and shared power through co-development among Indigenous peoples, local communities, researchers and technology developers. In realizing a comprehensive FPIC process, researchers and developers have an opportunity to incorporate enhanced participation and social guidance mechanisms into the design, development and implementation of engineered gene drive applications.

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.

Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation.

The world's biodiversity is in crisis. Synthetic biology has the potential to transform biodiversity conservation, both directly and indirectly, in ways that are negative and positive. However, applying these biotechnology tools to environmental questions is fraught with uncertainty and could harm cultures, rights, livelihoods, and nature. Decisions about whether or not to use synthetic biology for conservation should be understood alongside the reality of ongoing biodiversity loss. In 2022, the 196 Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity are negotiating the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework that will guide action by governments and other stakeholders for the next decade to conserve the worlds' biodiversity. To date, synthetic biologists, conservationists, and policy makers have operated in isolation. At this critical time, this review brings these diverse perspectives together and emerges out of the need for a balanced and inclusive examination of the potential application of these technologies to biodiversity conservation.

The Decision Phases Framework for Public Engagement: Engaging Stakeholders about Gene Editing in the Wild.

Some experts and advocates propose environmental biotechnologies such as genetic engineering, gene drive systems, and synthetic biology as potential solutions to accelerating rates of species loss. While these tools may offer hope for a seemingly intractable problem, they also present potential governance challenges for which innovative decision-making systems are required. Two of the perennial governance challenges include, when are broader stakeholder groups involved in these decisions and who exactly should be involved? We propose the decision phases framework-which includes research and development, regulatory review, and deployment, management, and monitoring-as a framework for identifying which stakeholders might be best suited for different phases throughout the innovation and deployment of emerging environmental biotechnologies for species protection.

Guiding Ethical Principles in Engineering Biology Research.

Engineering biology is being applied toward solving or mitigating some of the greatest challenges facing society. As with many other rapidly advancing technologies, the development of these powerful tools must be considered in the context of ethical uses for personal, societal, and/or environmental advancement. Researchers have a responsibility to consider the diverse outcomes that may result from the knowledge and innovation they contribute to the field. Together, we developed a Statement of Ethics in Engineering Biology Research to guide researchers as they incorporate the consideration of long-term ethical implications of their work into every phase of the research lifecycle. Herein, we present and contextualize this Statement of Ethics and its six guiding principles. Our goal is to facilitate ongoing reflection and collaboration among technical researchers, social scientists, policy makers, and other stakeholders to support best outcomes in engineering biology innovation and development.

Does the U.S. public support using gene drives in agriculture? And what do they want to know?

Gene drive development is progressing more rapidly than our understanding of public values toward these technologies. We analyze a statistically representative survey (n = 1018) of U.S. adult attitudes toward agricultural gene drives. When informed about potential risks, benefits, and two previously researched applications, respondents' support/opposition depends heavily (+22%/-19%) on whether spread of drives can be limited, non-native versus native species are targeted (+12%/-9%), or the drive replaces versus suppresses target species (±2%). The one-fifth of respondents seeking out non-GMO-labeled food are more likely to oppose drives, although their support exceeds opposition for limited applications. Over 62% trust U.S. universities and the Department of Agriculture to research gene drives, with the private sector and Department of Defense viewed as more untrustworthy. Uncertain human health and ecological effects are the public's most important concerns to resolve. These findings can inform responsible innovation in gene drive development and risk assessment.

Transgenes and transgressions: scientific dissent as heterogeneous practice.

Although scholars in science and technology studies have explored many dynamics and consequences of scientific controversy, no coherent theory of scientific dissent has emerged. This paper proposes the elements of such a framework, based on understanding scientific dissent as a set of heterogeneous practices. I use the controversy over the presence of transgenic DNA in Mexican maize in the early 2000s to point to a processual model of scientific dissent. 'Contrarian science' includes knowledge claims that challenge the dominant scientific trajectory, but need not necessarily lead to dissent. 'Impedance' represents efforts to undermine the credibility of contrarian science (or contrarian scientists) and may originate within or outside of the scientific community. In the face of impedance, contrarian scientists may become dissenters. The actions of the scientist at the center of the case study, Professor Ignacio Chapela of the University of California, Berkeley, demonstrate particular practices of scientific dissent, ranging from 'agonistic engagement' to 'dissident science'. These practices speak not only to functional strategies of winning scientific debate, but also to attempts to reconfigure relations among scientists, publics, institutions, and politics that order knowledge production.