A cynical move is underway to promote a new, powerful, and troubling technology known as “gene drives” for use in conservation.
This is not just your everyday genetic modification, known as “GMO”; it is a radical new technology, which creates “mutagenic chain reactions” that can reshape living systems in unimaginable ways.
Gene drives represent the next frontier of genetic engineering, synthetic biology, and gene editing.
The technology overrides the standard rules of genetic inheritance, ensuring that a particular trait, delivered by humans into an organism’s DNA using advanced gene-editing technology, spreads to all subsequent generations, thereby altering the future of the entire species.
It is a biological tool with unprecedented power.
Yet, instead of taking time to consider fully the relevant ethical, ecological, and social issues, many are aggressively promoting gene-drive technology for use in conservation.
One proposal aims to protect native birds on Hawaii’s Kauai Island by using gene drives to reduce the population of a species of mosquito that carries avian malaria.
Another plan, championed by a conservation consortium that includes US and Australian government agencies, would eradicate invasive, bird-harming mice on particular islands by introducing altered mice that prevent them from producing female offspring.
Creating the “daughterless mouse” would be the first step toward so-called Genetic Biocontrol of Invasive Rodents (GBIRd), designed to cause deliberate extinctions of “pest” species like rats, in order to save “favoured” species, such as endangered birds.
The assumption underlying these proposals seems to be that humans have the knowledge, capabilities, and prudence to control nature.
The idea that we can – and should – use human-driven extinction to address human-caused extinction is appalling.
I am not alone in my concern.
At the ongoing International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress in Hawaii, a group of leading conservationists and scientists issued an open letter, entitled “A Call for Conservation with a Conscience,” demanding a halt to the use of gene drives in conservation.
I am one of the signatories, along with the environmental icon David Suzuki, physicist Fritjof Capra, the Indigenous Environmental Network’s Tom Goldtooth, and organic pioneer Nell Newman.
The discussions that have begun at the IUCN congress will continue at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in Mexico this December, when global leaders must consider a proposed global moratorium on gene drives.
Such discussions reflect demands by civil-society leaders for a more thorough consideration of the scientific, moral, and legal issues concerning the use of gene drives.
As I see it, we are simply not asking the right questions.
Our technological prowess is largely viewed through the lens of engineering, and engineers tend to focus on one question: “Does it work?” But, as Angelika Hilbeck, President of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) argues, a better question would be: “What else does it do?”
When it comes to the GBIRd project, for example, one might ask whether the “daughterless mouse” could escape the specific ecosystem into which it has been introduced, just as GMO crops and farmed salmon do, and what would happen if it did.
As for the mosquitos in Hawaii, one might ask how reducing their numbers would affect the endangered hoary bat species.
Ensuring that these kinds of questions are taken into account will be no easy feat.
As a lawyer experienced in US government regulations, I can confidently say that the existing regulatory framework is utterly incapable of assessing and governing gene-drive technology.
Making matters worse, the media have consistently failed to educate the public about the risks raised by genetic technologies.
Few people understand that, as MIT science historian Lily Kay explains, genetic engineering was deliberately developed and promoted as a tool for biological and social control.
Those driving that process were aiming to fulfil a perceived mandate for “science-based social intervention.”
Powerful tools like genetic modification and, especially, gene-drive technology spark the imagination of anyone with an agenda, from the military (which could use them to make game-changing bio-weapons) to well-intentioned health advocates (which could use them to help eradicate certain deadly diseases). They certainly appeal to the hero narrative that so many of my fellow environmentalists favour.
But the fact is that we have not created the intellectual infrastructure to address the fundamental challenges that gene drives – not to mention other powerful technologies – raise.
And now we are supposed to suspend our critical faculties and trust the techno-elites’ promise to use gene drives responsibly in the service of seemingly positive environmental goals.
No open public discussion is needed, apparently.
But why should we blindly believe that everything is under control?
In my view, the focus on using gene-drive technology for conservation is a ruse to gain public acceptance and regulatory cover.
Why expose something to public scrutiny and possible restraints when you can usher it in through the back door by pretending it will do some good? The risks are too obvious for gene-drive advocates to risk talking about them.
In my 20-plus years of researching and reporting on transgenic technologies, I thought I had seen the worst of the false promises and hype that they engender.
But gene drives are unlike anything we have witnessed, and amount to the ultimate test of our self-control.
Can we really trust science to guide us, or do we recklessly throw in our lot with technological “silver bullets” as the way forward?
Fortunately, we still have a choice.
The fact that gene drives can change the basic relationship between humanity and the natural world is both a challenge and an opportunity.
We can do now what we should have done a long time ago, with regard to both nuclear and transgenic technologies: start paying more attention to the dangers of human ingenuity – and more respect to the genius of nature. – Project Syndicate

*Claire Hope Cummings, author, broadcast journalist, and environmental lawyer, is the author of UNCERTAIN PERIL: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds.