To CRISPR or Not to CRISPR? Ethical Considerations in Gene-Editing Insects
To CRISPR or Not to CRISPR? Ethical Considerations in Gene-Editing Insects
Tags: CRISPR, Ethics, Gene editing, Other arthropodsBrendan Parent, Meghan Barrett, American Entomologist, 70:54-57. 2024.
Genetically modified corn has helped feed the world (Hernandes-Lopes et al. 2023). Genetically modified mosquitoes could help eliminate devastating diseases like malaria (Hammond and Galizi 2017). Plainly, gene editing can serve some important human interests. Still, many people object to it. While some concerns have little scientific validity, there are valid ethical concerns that should be addressed.
A concern many people share is the potential impact of genetically edited insects on the environment. Gene drives are “selfish” genetic elements that are transmitted to progeny at unusually high rates and thus spread rapidly through populations. As a result, they are capable of modifying an entire population or species. The most widely discussed use of gene drives is in the prevention of malaria, the leading cause of human illness and death in many parts of the world (CDC 2021), where gene drives could be used to control mosquito populations.
At present, however, there are no sure-fire strategies to “recall” a gene drive once it has been released (Hammond and Galizi 2017). Given the many unintended environmental impacts of other technological advancements and our uncertainties about the impacts of using gene drives (Ahmad et al. 2022), it makes sense to have similar concerns about this form of gene editing. Granted, it is possible that the extraordinary benefits to human life of such a gene drive, if successful, outweigh the risks of any unintended environmental consequences. This is particularly likely to be true if convincing measures like “terminator genes” can be employed to control genetically edited insect populations in the wild (Hammond et al. 2021). Given the serious promise and ethical concerns of this technology, the National Academy of Sciences has published guidelines for responsible research that include self-governance and government regulation, evaluating gene drives on a case-by-case basis (NASEM 2016). So, while risks of environmental harm are important, we can now see how they might not be decisive: first, the corresponding benefits might be very weighty; second, the risks might be mitigable.