For all the promise of gene editing technologies, there remain profound concerns about the potential unintended consequences of releasing gene-edited organisms into the environment. In Science, a Yale-led team argues for new global governance to assure a neutral and informed evaluation of these benefits and risks.
In Burkina Faso, the government is considering the use of genetically modified mosquitoes to eradicate malaria. In Nantucket, Mass., officials are looking at gene editing as a tool in the fight against Lyme disease. And scientists are using gene technology to adapt coral to changing ocean conditions from the Caribbean to the Great Barrier Reef.
Yet for all the breathtaking promise of these technologies, there remain profound concerns about the potential unintended consequences of releasing gene-edited organisms into the environment — and a lack of governance oversight.
In a new paper published in Science, an interdisciplinary group led by Yale researchers argues for new global governance to assure a neutral and informed evaluation of the potential benefits and risks of gene editing. They argue that the complex nature of these technologies requires, on a case-by-case basis, careful and judicious review — a decision-making process that must include local communities that would feel the biggest and most immediate effects.
“The biggest risk right now with this technology is the uncertainty associated with it,” said Natalie Kofler, an associate research scientist at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies (F&ES) and lead author of the paper.
“These technologies also have the potential to forever change the genetic makeup of species, or even drive certain species to extinction. ”— Natalie Kofler, associate research scientist and lead author
“In places like Burkina Faso, for instance, it is being touted as a silver bullet to get rid of malaria. But these technologies also have the potential to forever change the genetic makeup of species, or even drive certain species to extinction. Lack of global governance puts our planet at risk.”
The paper was inspired by the Editing Nature Summit, chaired by Kofler and hosted at Yale in the spring of 2017. During the two-day event, participants from a range of disciplines grappled with the ethical questions surrounding the development and deployment of gene editing technologies into the environment. Of critical importance, they concluded, are the questions of who gets to decide what technologies are used and the process by which they reach that decision.
The co-authors, who all participated in the summit, represent 12 different academic institutions and more than dozen disciplines, including ecology, genetics, philosophy, policy, and journalism.
In the paper, they looked in particular at CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) gene editing and other related technologies like gene drives, which are designed to spread genetic changes — including traits such as infertility — through populations of species.
But if these technologies have the potential to eliminate threats to public health or ecosystems, little is known about potential side effects, such as unwanted mutations and new evolutionary resistance.
“Formal safeguards are needed to ensure that these well-intentioned technologies don’t unintentionally spread globally to destroy ecosystems and human welfare and cultures that rely on them.”
— Oswald Schmitz, Oastler Professor of Population and Community Ecology and director of the Yale Institute for Biospheric Studies.
“There are many proposals to release gene-edited organisms into the wild and even actively drive them into the genomes of native wild populations to address a wide range of environmental issues,” said Oswald Schmitz, the Oastler Professor of Population and Community Ecology at F&ES and director of the Yale Institute for Biospheric Studies.
“But this is all proceeding at a heady pace with very little discussion with potentially affected communities. Formal safeguards are needed to ensure that these well-intentioned technologies don’t unintentionally spread globally to destroy ecosystems and human welfare and cultures that rely on them.”
Complicating the discussion is the fact that, in some cases, the proposed gene-editing strategies could mitigate very real public health threats, such as the life-or-death consequences of malaria in parts of Africa, said James Collins, the Virginia M. Ullman Professor of Natural History and the Environment at Arizona State University and co-author of the paper.
“The burden of those infectious diseases such as malaria or the Zika virus is a heavy one for communities to bear,” said Collins, who co-chaired a National Academy of Sciences committee that evaluated responsible use of gene editing technology. “And it’s a consideration that really has to be taken into account as individuals think about whether these technologies should be developed and then released into the environment. At the same time, in the area of unintended consequences, you really want to have done the very best work possible, the very best analysis possible, in terms of risk assessment.
“It’s just really so important that we give every consideration to what the larger implications would be of releasing these organisms,” he added. “It’s also vital that we rely on context and history to guide us in terms of being willing to move ahead with these important areas of research, but also that we do it in a way that is cautious, judicious, and transparent.
“That way, individuals and society can then make an informed judgment as to which of these technologies should be deployed and how that should be done.”
Receive an email update when we add a new ENVIRONMENTAL GENE EDITING article.
The Latest on: Environmental gene editing
via Google News
The Latest on: Environmental gene editing
- Opinion: The New Frontiers of Epigenetics on November 12, 2018 at 10:41 am
Incorporating these new epigenetic technologies when examining the multiple biological factors that regulate gene expression will better illuminate whether or how environmental factors and lifestyles ... […]
- The Applications and Ethics of Gene Editing on November 7, 2018 at 1:57 am
While the technical ability to do so exists, scientists still need to discuss and address both the ethics of editing and the safety of the organism in question, as well as the potential impact this ge... […]
- Only the USDA can unlock gene editing’s potential on November 6, 2018 at 6:30 am
The One Health idea recognizes the inextricable interconnections among all people, animals, plants and their shared environment ... of Agriculture (USDA). Gene editing in livestock holds exciting ... […]
- Scientists propose panel to guide gene-editing decisions regarding conservation on November 5, 2018 at 7:13 am
Nelson is a professor of environmental ethics and philosophy in the OSU College of Forestry. Gene editing refers to causing specific changes to an organism's DNA; an enzyme makes a snip in the DNA at ... […]
- The Gene Editing Is Out of the Bottle: No Interference-in-Fact Between Claimed Inventions on November 2, 2018 at 1:09 pm
In 2012, the University of California (UC) first applied for a patent on using CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, a gene-editing technology that enables scientists to m... […]
- Researchers call for cautious, inclusive evaluations on gene editing tech on November 1, 2018 at 12:07 pm
WASHINGTON, Nov. 1 (Xinhua) -- An interdisciplinary group led by Yale researchers called for global governance on gene editing to assure a neutral and informed evaluation of its potential benefits and ... […]
- Editing nature: Scientists call for careful oversight of environmental gene editing on November 1, 2018 at 11:03 am
In Burkina Faso, the government is considering the use of genetically modified mosquitoes to eradicate malaria. In Nantucket, Mass., officials are looking at gene editing as a tool in the fight ... […]
- Gene-edited organisms classified as GM in the EU: C-528/16 on October 31, 2018 at 5:47 pm
A Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra ... an advantage may be provided to UK-based parties over their EU competitors in developing gene editing technology. […]
- UTIA Awarded $7.5 Million To Lead Study Of Plants As Environmental Threat Detectors on October 31, 2018 at 7:54 am
CASB is the first university research facility dedicated to the use of gene editing and other synthetic biology methods ... mainly focus on engineering of plants for sensing and reporting environmenta... […]
via Bing News