Anticipating complexity in the deployment of gene drive insects in agriculture

Baltzegar, Jennifer; Barnes, Jessica Cavin; Elsensohn, Johanna E.; Gutzmann, Nicole; Jones, Michael; King, Sheron; Sudweeks, Jayce

doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1407910

Cited by 36 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The considerable excitement that has been generated by recent and rapid developments in gene drive technology merits the attention of those concerned with agricultural weed (and pest) management . The need for technological and agroecological innovation in crop protection systems is great, and gene drive offers unprecedented power to directly manipulate the genomes of pest species to: (i) introduce and spread fitness‐reducing traits into wild pest populations to achieve population suppression, and/or (ii) sensitize (or re‐sensitize) populations to new (and existing) control techniques.…”

Section: Conclusion Perspectives and Next Stepsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, during the last 5 years, these discussions have been given increased fervour with the development of the CRISPR–Cas9 system for genome editing, and the recognized potential to adapt this technology to drive precisely edited genes through wild populations . Although the potential application of gene drive systems for the reversal of resistance to herbicides has been highlighted, to date, there is no systematic review of the potential applications and constraints of these systems for weed management. This article briefly considers the historical development of genetic control technologies for insect pests, including recent proofs of concept for synthetic gene drives that control insects vectoring human disease.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gene drive systems: do they have a place in agricultural weed management?

Neve

2018

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a pressing need for novel control techniques in agricultural weed management. Direct genetic control of agricultural pests encompasses a range of techniques to introduce and spread novel, fitness‐reducing genetic modifications through pest populations. Recently, the development of CRISPR–Cas9 gene editing has brought these approaches into sharper focus. Proof of concept for CRISPR–Cas9‐based gene drives has been demonstrated for the control of disease‐vectoring insects. This article considers whether and how gene drives may be applied in agricultural weed management, focusing on CRISPR–Cas9‐based systems. Population‐suppression drives might be employed to introduce and proliferate deleterious mutations that directly impact fitness and weediness, whereas population‐sensitizing drives would seek to edit weed genomes so that populations are rendered more sensitive to subsequent management interventions. Technical challenges relating to plant transformation and gene editing in planta are considered, and the implementation of gene drives for timely and sustainable weed management is reviewed in the light of weed population biology. The technical, biological, practical and regulatory challenges remain significant. Modelling‐based studies can inform how and if gene drives could be employed in weed populations. These studies are an essential first step towards determining the utility of gene drives for weed management. © 2018 The Author. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion Perspectives and Next Stepsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gene drive systems: do they have a place in agricultural weed management?

Neve

2018

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Proponents of the rapidly advancing field of engineered gene drives offer alternative solutions to complex challenges across multiple sectors. These include vector-borne diseases [1], biodiversity conservation [2], agricultural pest control [3], and security and defence [4]. Potential social and ecological implications of engineered gene drives are substantial across the interconnected realms of ecosystems, economies and cultures [5,6].…”

Section: Introduction: Exploring Free Prior and Informed Consent Formentioning

confidence: 99%

Articulating ‘free, prior and informed consent’ (FPIC) for engineered gene drives

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Each of these methods promises an alternative to pesticides and may be the key to drastically reducing human suffering and death due to vectored pathogens, but the risks of releasing GEOs into the wild are difficult to determine. These unknowns, coupled with unease regarding the use of genetically engineered crops [18] and the unwanted repercussions of Monsanto’s application of genetically engineered plants in the U.S. agriculture industry [19], have contributed to controversy surrounding the use of GEOs for vector control. Those who fear drastic unintended consequences and those who condemn genetic engineering as “messing with God’s plan” are either opposed to or deeply ambivalent about these technologies [20, 21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A typology of community and stakeholder engagement based on documented examples in the field of novel vector control

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDespite broad consensus on the importance of community and stakeholder engagement (CSE) for guiding the development, regulation, field testing, and deployment of emerging vector control technologies (such as genetically engineered insects), the types of activities pursued have varied widely, as have the outcomes. We looked to previous CSE efforts for clarity about appropriate methods and goals. Our analysis yielded a typology of CSE, and related vocabulary, that describes distinctions that funders, organizers, and scholars should make when proposing or evaluating CSE.MethodsWe compiled available formal documentation of CSE projects, starting with projects mentioned in interviews with 17 key informants. Major features of these examples, including the initiators, target groups, timing, goals, and methods were identified using qualitative coding. Based on these examples, subcategories were developed for a subset of features and applied to the identified cases of CSE in the documents. Co-occurrence of subcategorized features was examined for patterns.ResultsWe identified 14 documented examples CSE projects, which were comprised of 28 distinct CSE activities. We found no clear patterns with respect to timing. However, we found that grouping examples according to whether initiators or targets could enact the immediate desired outcome could help to clarify relationships between goals, methods, and targets.ConclusionBased on this analysis, we propose a typology that distinguishes three categories of CSE: engagement to inquire –where initiators are empowered to act on information collected through engagement with target groups; engagement to influence –where initiators engage to affect the actions of already-empowered target groups; and engagement to involve –where initiators engage to delegate authority to target groups. The proposed typology can serve as a guide for establishing the goals, identifying appropriate methods, and evaluating and reporting CSE projects by directing attention to important questions to be asked well before determining who to engage and how.

show abstract

Anticipating complexity in the deployment of gene drive insects in agriculture

Cited by 36 publications

References 53 publications

Gene drive systems: do they have a place in agricultural weed management?

Gene drive systems: do they have a place in agricultural weed management?

Articulating ‘free, prior and informed consent’ (FPIC) for engineered gene drives

A typology of community and stakeholder engagement based on documented examples in the field of novel vector control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About