Public views about editing genes in wildlife for conservation

Abstract

Developments in CRISPR‐based gene‐editing technologies have generated a growing number of proposals to edit genes in wildlife to meet conservation goals. As these proposals have attracted greater attention, controversies have emerged among scientists and stakeholder groups over potential consequences and ethical implications of gene editing. Responsible governance cannot occur without consulting broader publics, yet little effort has been made to systematically assess public understandings and beliefs in relation to this new area of applied genetic engineering. We analyzed data from a survey of U.S. adults (n = 1600), collected by YouGov, and that examined respondents’ concerns about gene editing in animal and plant wildlife and how those concerns are shaped by cultural dispositions toward science and beliefs about the appropriateness of intervening in nature at the genetic level. On average, respondents perceived more risk than benefit in using these tools. Over 70% agreed that gene editing in wildlife could be “easily used for the wrong purposes.” When evaluating the moral acceptability of gene editing in wildlife, respondents evaluated applications to improve survival in endangered wildlife as more morally acceptable than applications to decrease abundance in a population or eliminate a population. Belief in the authority of scientific knowledge was positively related to favorable views of the benefits, risks, and moral acceptability of editing genes in wildlife. The belief that editing genes in wildlife inappropriately intervenes in nature predicted relatively more concern about risks and moral acceptability and skepticism about benefits. Given high levels of concern and skepticism about gene editing in wildlife for conservation among the U.S. public, a take‐it‐slow approach to making decisions about when or whether to use these tools is advisable. Early opinions, including those uncovered in this study, are likely to be provisional. Thus, consulting the public should be an ongoing process.

Examining the relationship between gene editing knowledge, value predispositions, and general science attitudes among U.S. farmers, scientists, policymakers, and the general public

“…Less is known about the public's views of gene editing for non-human applications, such as for farming and agriculture. One study found that most U.S. adults believed gene editing for wildlife conservation was more risky, citing that the technology may be misused by those who have bad intentions [Kohl et al, 2019].…”

“…Religiosity, which we define as the level of devotion one has to their religion, may influence attitudes toward science topics; for example, individuals may believe that gene editing is messing with God's creation [Walker and Malson, 2020], and subsequently may have negative attitudes toward science in general. Similarly, political ideology may influence science attitudes, where those who are more conservative may have more negative views toward science topics [Kohl et al, 2019;Newman, Nisbet and Nisbet, 2018].…”

Conservation pest control with new technologies: public perceptions

“…Building upon the limited quantitative studies to date that explore public attitudes towards genetic tools for conservation (Kohl et al 2019;MacDonald et al 2020) and the wider use for pest control for agricultural benefits (Jones et al 2019), our study used content analysis to gain insight into New Zealanders' perceptions of novel technologies for conservation. Eleven focus groups were conducted to explore three questions with regard to gene drive and two other forms of novel technologies for comparative purposes: the trojan female technique (Dowling et al 2015) and a pest-specific toxin (Campbell et al 2015).…”

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

“…The Pew Research Center also provides survey evidence from 2018 that 70% of U.S. adults viewed genetic engineering of mosquitoes for disease control as “an appropriate use of technology,” while 29% said it is “taking technology too far” ( 21 ). Kohl et al ( 22 ) investigate U.S. public attitudes toward the use of gene-editing tools, including in gene drives, in wildlife conservation and find that majorities perceive both risks and benefits of using these technologies in conservation. In terms of actual proposed releases of engineered insects, the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District conducted a nonbinding referendum in 2016 among residents of Monroe County, Florida, as part of a proposed trial release of a genetically engineered, nondrive Aedes aegypti mosquito developed by the company Oxitec.…”