Genetically engineered (GE) insects, such as the GE OX513A Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, have been designed to suppress their wild-type populations so as to reduce the transmission of vector-borne diseases in humans. Apart from the ecological and epidemiological uncertainties associated with this approach, such biotechnological approaches may be used by individual governments or the global community of nations to avoid addressing the underlying structural, systemic causes of those infections... We discuss here key ethical questions raised by the use of GE mosquitoes, (...) with the aim of fostering discussion between the public, researchers, policy makers, healthcare organizations, and regulatory agencies at the local, national, and international levels. We affect that goal by outlining a procedural approach to decision-making about the use of the “biotechnology” that goes beyond “community engagement.” The protocol we advocate for entails informed deliberations and decision-making at the community level. It is designed to ensure that the voices of the marginalized and vulnerable groups that would be disproportionately affected by the decision are heard during the community-wide discussions. Moreover, we make the case that the values embedded in the risk assessment should be identified so that the community can make an informed decision about the use of GE insects. In addition, we advocate for the involvement of a variety of actors whose responsibility would be to ensure that the community has the opportunity to make an informed decision based on deliberations about the use of the “biotechnology.”. (shrink)

The discovery of CRISPR/cas9 has opened new avenues in gene editing. This system, usually considered as molecular scissors, permits the cutting of the DNA at a targeted site allowing the introduction of new genes or the removal or the modification of existing ones. The genome-editing, involving gene drive or not, is then considered with a strong interest in a variety of fields ranging from agriculture to public health and conservation biology. Given its controversial aspects, it is then no surprise that (...) actors in biodiversity conservation do express conflicting views on this emerging and disruptive technology. The positions are ranging from a request for a moratorium to the will to test and deploy it in strategies aiming at eradicating invasive species of mammals on islands. Reviewing some of its recent developments brings light on the conflicts of interest, the financial support, and lobbying currently occurring in this growing field of biotechnology. While an optimistic view on the use of gene drive for ecosystem conservation was first promoted by several molecular biologists, the risks and uncertainties associated have now led to some reservations. Overall, the eventual use of this novel approach for conservation raises concerns related to the engagement of the public, the communication between scientists, and the public and the risk of a manufactured consent. There are also a series of essential ethical and philosophical questions on the relations we have with Nature that needs to be answered. (shrink)