Sarah Hartley's research while affiliated with University of Exeter and other places

Uganda may host the world’s first field trials of gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control. Global North discourses pre-suppose African publics have access to information about gene drive and are ready to make decisions about its governance. We explore assumptions about the availability of this information in Uganda. We find a paucity of information available combined with a strong desire for information from lay publics. We discuss these findings in the context of Ugandan information infrastructures and political sensitivities to genetic technologies. If Ugandans are to decide about gene drive, they need independent information about the science to underpin engagement.

As engineered gene drive technologies continue to advance, many actors are actively considering how environmental risk assessments (RAs) for gene drive organisms should be conducted, and how stakeholder engagement opportunities should be provided. There is, however, a lack of clarity concerning what constitutes engagement on gene drive RA and, furthermore, what forms of engagement already exist around gene drive RA. To address this gap, we reflect on the actions of a risk assessor (the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA) and a gene drive developer (Target Malaria) to understand: 1) the RA-related decisions that each are making concerning gene drive technology for mosquitoes and other harmful insects, 2) the existing role of engagement in those decisions, and 3) the implications for our understandings of engagement and RA. We found, first, that both EFSA and Target Malaria have already made many RA-related decisions, even though any preparation and evaluation of a formal RA for gene drive mosquitoes remains far off. This finding supports the idea that gene drive RA involves multiple processes and decisions in different forms across the entire technology and regulatory development process. Second, we found that both EFSA and Target Malaria have already integrated engagement into their respective RA-related decisions in different ways, reflecting their different roles. We conclude by considering how EFSA and Target Malaria could improve their existing RA-related engagement by explicitly considering disciplinary diversity and worldview diversity in their related decision making.

Gene drive is an emerging biotechnology with applications in global health, conservation and agriculture. Scientists are preparing for field trials, triggering debate about when and how to release gene-drive organisms. These decisions depend on public understandings of gene drive, which are shaped by language. While some studies on gene drive communication assume the need to persuade publics of expert definitions of gene drive, we highlight the importance of meaning-making in communication and engagement. We conducted focus groups with humanities and science teachers in the United Kingdom and United States to explore how different media framings stimulated discussions of gene drive. We found diversity in the value of these framings for public debate. Interestingly, the definition favoured by gene drive scientists was the least popular among participants. Rather than carefully curating language, we need opportunities for publics to make sense and negotiate the meanings of a technology on their own terms.

There has been growing attention in recent years on the potential reconfiguration of responsible innovation (RI) to increase its relevance for global challenges in the Global South. This reconfiguration will require a broad and empowered role for social scientists. Yet RI has been preoccupied with public and stakeholder inclusion, rather than social science inclusion. We probe this gap through a case study of the social sciences in the development of gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control in Mali and Uganda. Our data reveals potential diverse roles and future research agendas for the social sciences. We outline some challenges facing the social sciences in this space and ways to promote and support them. Lastly, we argue that RI’s predilection for reflexive and critical social science obscures a richer repertoire of social science roles that are an imperative and fundamental part of efforts to address global challenges in the Global South.

Building on an exercise that identified potential harms from simulated investigational releases of a population suppression gene drive for malaria vector control, a series of online workshops identified nine recommendations to advance future environmental risk assessment of gene drive applications.

Plant genome editing has the potential to become another chapter in the intractable debate that has dogged agricultural biotechnology. In 2016, 107 Nobel Laureates accused Greenpeace of emotional and dogmatic campaigning against agricultural biotechnology and called for governments to defy such campaigning. The Laureates invoke the authority of science to argue that Greenpeace is putting lives at risk by opposing agricultural biotechnology and Golden Rice and is notable in framing Greenpeace as unethical and its views as marginal. This paper examines environmental, food and farming NGOs’ social and ethical concerns about genome editing, situating these concerns in comparison to alternative ethical assessments provided by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, a key actor in this policy debate. In doing so, we show that participant NGOs and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics share considerable concerns about the social and ethical implications of genome editing. These concerns include choices over problem/solution framing and broader terminology, implications of regulatory and research choices on consumer choice and relations of power. However, GM-engaged NGOs and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics diverge on one important area: the NGOs seek to challenge the existing order and broaden the scope of debate to include deeply political questions regarding agricultural and technological choices. This distinction between the ethical positions means that NGOs provide valuable ethical insight and a useful lens to open up debate and discussion on the role of emerging technologies, such as genome editing, and the future of agriculture and food sovereignty.KeywordsAgricultural biotechnologyPlant genome editingNGOs

Gene drive technology is an emerging biotechnology with the potential to address some of the most intractable global biodiversity conservation issues. Scientists are exploring potential gene drive applications for managing invasive species and building resilience in keystone species threatened by climate change. The possibility to use gene drive for these conservation purposes has triggered significant interest in how to govern its development and eventual applications. This includes a plethora of documents prescribing governance principles, which can be a sensible response to the governance gap created by emerging technologies and help shore up legitimacy. We conducted qualitative documentary analysis to examine the range and substance of principles emerging in the governance of conservation gene drive. Such analysis aimed to better understand the aspirations guiding these applications and how scientists and other experts imagine their responsibility in this field. We found a collection of recommendations and prescriptions that could be organised into a set of seven emerging principles intended to shape the governance of gene drive in conservation: broad and empowered engagement; public acceptance; decision-making informed by broad ranging considerations, state and international collaboration; ethical frameworks; diverse expertise; and responsible self-regulation by developers. We lay bare these emergent principles, analyzing the way in which they are valued, prioritized, and their strengths and weaknesses. By identifying these prescriptive principles, stakeholders can further interrogate their merits and shortcomings and identify more concrete ways that governance frameworks might embody them.

Public engagement and responsible innovation are strongly emphasised in gene drive research, together with the goal of addressing societal challenges, notably, malaria and environmental conservation. We aim to explore whether public engagement is used to ‘open up' or ‘close down' opportunities to shape gene drive research. Drawing on interviews with gene drive developers and stakeholders, we investigate how the public communication of gene drive is conceived. We find that traditional closing-down tendencies remain, but that there are new and encouraging opening-up approaches. Consistent with responsible innovation thinking, these frame gene drive as multifaceted, context-dependent and requiring deeper deliberation. We also identify a third ‘leaving ajar’ approach that seeks to engage with and respond to local communities and modify technological applications to be more acceptable. Innovation system constraints may well temper current aspirations to open up; framing public conversations around understandings of public good could offer a way forward.

Gene drive technology is a nascent biotechnology with the potential to purposefully alter or eliminate a species. There have been broad calls for engagement to inform gene drive governance. Over the past seven years, the gene drive community has been developing risk assessment guidelines to determine what form future gene drive risk assessments take, including whether and how they involve engagement. To explore who is developing these guidelines and how engagement in risk assessment is being prescribed, we conduct a document analysis of gene drive risk assessment guideline documents from 2014 to 2020. We found that a narrow set of organizations have developed 10 key guideline documents and that with only one exception the documents prescribe a narrow, vague, or completely absent role for engagement in gene drive risk assessment. Without substantively prescribed engagement in guidelines, the relevance, rigor, and trustworthiness of gene drive risk assessment and governance will suffer.

Gene drive is a controversial biotechnology for pest control. Despite a commitment from gene drive researchers to responsibility and the key role of the media in debates about science and technology, little research has been conducted on media reporting of gene drive. We employ metaphor and discourse analysis to explore how responsibility is reflected in the coverage of this technology in the U.S., U.K., and Australian press. The findings reveal a rhetorical strategy of trust-building by evoking the moral attributes of gene drive researchers. We discuss the implications of these findings for the communication of new technologies.