Call for information regarding the development of an IUCN policy on synthetic biology in relation to nature conservation

Here is some recent correspondence I had detailing work conducted in Australia:

From: Wissing, Kirsty (Environment, Dutton Park) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, 22 May 2023 2:07 PM
To: Hoffmann, Ben (H&B, Darwin) <[email protected]>
Cc: Mankad, Aditi (Environment, Dutton Park) <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Indigenous perspectives and attitudes towards synthetic biology

Hi Ben,

Thanks for our conversation last week and for your interest in this work. Here is a bit more information about the social science work CSIRO is doing in the synbio/advanced engineering biology (AEB) space in general as well as my particular postdoc work considering Indigenous Australian perspectives on synbio.  I have also tacked on a bit of preliminary desktop research I did for the Ashmore Reef area as well in case helpful (this work was already done, so easy to forward on).   I am happy to provide more information/clarify now or down the track as relevant to your work.

Social science and synbio:

• Aditi (cc’d here), Lucy Carter and Liz Hobman, among others, have been doing some research into public perceptions on various synbio applications.  A lot of this work is now public so sharing some results here:
  • A national survey (>8,000 Australians) considering Public attitudes towards synthetic biology – Synthetic Biology Future Science Platform (csiro.au).  Case studies included:
    • Managing invasive species: Public perceptions of using synthetic biology to manage invasive pests (csiro.au)
    • Protecting endangered animals: Public perceptions of using synthetic biology to protect endangered animals (csiro.au)
    • Reducing pollution in waterways: Public perceptions of using synthetic biology to reduce pollution in waterways (csiro.au)
    • Reducing mosquito-borne diseases: Public perceptions of using synthetic biology to reduce mosquito-borne diseases (csiro.au)
    • Changing the property of natural fibres: Public perceptions of using synthetic biology to change the properties of natural fibres (csiro.au)
    • Preventing the culling of male chicks: Public perceptions of using synthetic biology to prevent the culling of male chicks (csiro.au)
    • Efforts to restore the Great Barrier Reef: Public perceptions of using synthetic biology to restore the Great Barrier Reef (csiro.au)
• Aditi, Liz and Lucy have also written a report considering gene drive technologies for pest management.  While noting your work will be different, the general findings may be of interest/relevance:
  • CSIRO 2022 'Public perspectives towards using gene drives for invasive species management in Australia'.pdf (pdf also attached to this email).
• More reports/articles/public materials for that consider social aspects of synbio can be found at Maximising Impact – Synthetic Biology Future Science Platform (csiro.au)

Indigenous Australian perspectives about synbio:

• As mentioned by phone, I am still undertaking research for my postdoc and so things are a work in progress. That said, the main focus of my postdoc has been in the Torres Strait – with a particular focus on the Central Islands – considering potential gene drive applications for pest management, among other possible applications.  I have attached a research participant information sheet to give you a bit of idea about this work (this is public for participants but more an FYI for you).
• While noting that your potential trial island may be on the other side of the continent and that there is huge cultural diversity between and within different Indigenous Australian groups/communities, I have co-authored (with Torres Webb, CSIRO’s Office of Indigenous Engagement) and submitted a journal article that about cross cultural considerations for future potential gene drive trials on islands, considering some Torres Strait Islander values and perspectives in particular.  I am happy to share this if it gets published, but in the meantime a few preliminary findings that are coming out of the research are around:
  • Concerns about cross-species/broader environmental contamination (as talked about by phone): including consumption by other species that migrate between islands, as well as concerns that totemic species might consume targeted invasive species, and the cultural implications of this.
  • Spiritual considerations: in terms of responsibilities to sacred sites and totemic species, but some concerns from Christian perpsectives have also been raised (note the Torres Strait has many churches and a long history of Christianity from missions).
  • Local autonomy and food security concerns: in relation to biosecurity policies (in the Torres Strait) which, some Traditional Owners have explained, have had an influence on ability to grow/rear certain foods, it was expressed that any synbio trial should be mindful of local autonomy and food security concerns should trials relate to growing/accessing certain foods.  
  • Local engagement: some people raised a wariness about researchers and scientists in the Torres Strait, with concerns that some pest eradication projects/practices can exclude opportunities for local engagement. Various Traditional Owners and residents with pest/environmental management experience encouraged planning for local engagement at the early stages of any intended gene drive trial.
  • Listening to local priorities for pest management: in the Torres Strait, it was noted that a lot of livelihood and other interests are directed towards the marine rather than terrestrial environment.  While noting that synbio applications in watery environments might be harder to contain than land (in the case of islands), there is a need to try and ensure science factors in local priorities, related to early engagement.

Preliminary desktop research for Ashmore Reef:

• It was interesting to hear that you are also considering Ashmore Reef as a potential future field trial site for pest management of ants. Noting the differences in approach from Owain Edward and co.’s work with rodents with which I am somewhat familiar, I previously did a preliminary desktop dig around for Owain’s project. I thought it might be worth sharing with you as well – please see the last bit of this email as well as the third attachment.  While all this information is public, if you do use the information for any planning could, please let me know just to be aware/stay in the loop.  Many thanks.

A preliminary (and very non-exhaustive) search for Ashmore and Cartier finds that:

Australian governance broadly

• A report at Ashmore Reef and Cartier Island Commonwealth Marine Reserves: Information for visitors (agriculture.gov.au) gives quite a lot of detail regarding Australian governance responsibilities, including that “Management responsibility for Ashmore and Cartier rests with the Australian Government through the Director of National Parks (the Director). The Director has delegated authority under the EPBC Act and EPBC Regulations to specific members of the Parks Australia Division of the Department of the Environment” (p.14).  Note that I have tried to order/summarise the key points of this 38 page report in the attached pdf, but see the original online document for key maps for this area.  
• In somewhat different information, the Federal Government’s Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts states that “[t]he Territory was accepted from Britain in 1933 and responsibility for the administration was transferred from the Northern Territory to the Commonwealth when self-government was instituted in the Northern Territory in 1978. Petroleum extraction activities in the area adjacent to the Territory are administered on behalf of the Commonwealth by the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy. Commonwealth laws, laws of the Northern Territory and Ordinances made by the Governor-General make up the body of law applicable in the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands.” (Ashmore and Cartier Islands | Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts)
• According to this same page, it seems to be classified in a similar tenure to the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory, the Indian Ocean Territories of Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Island, Jervis Bay Territory and Norfolk Island. (Ashmore and Cartier Islands | Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts). I imagine the fairly unique status was a key part of the decision making process, as there might be less/different regulatory hurdles if the Commonwealth is directly responsible, but Owain can likely speak more to this.  
• This area seems to be subject a Memorandum of Understanding as explained in Ashmore and Cartier Islands | Geoscience Australia (ga.gov.au) and  Ashmore Reef and Cartier Island Commonwealth Marine Reserves: Information for visitors (agriculture.gov.au) so this would likely need to be reviewed as part of any case study. 
• Ashmore and Cartier fall within the larger “Marine bioregional plan for the North-west Marine Region”: Marine bioregional plan for the North-west Marine Region - DCCEEW. I have yet to read through the plan in detail, but this would be good to consult if this potential case study progresses.

Aboriginal/other customary tenure implications (very preliminary, would likely need to follow up with more research)

• Whilst the rest of the waters around Ashmore Reef and Cartier Island fall within the Native Title Responsibilities of the Kimberley Land Council, this is a special area as shown here RATSIB_map.pdf (nntt.gov.au). 
• I’ll have to go through in more detail, but from a preliminary look over maps from the National Native Title Tribunal (Maps (nntt.gov.au), I can’t see state/territory or federal level tenure for Ashmore and Cartier Islands shown on the broader maps.  This may be due to its unique status under the Commonwealth, but it also might be because it is very small and so not featured on larger maps.  I would have to dig deeper to confirm the native title/state-territory Indigenous tenure status as there are definitely other examples of claims over islands as well as saltwater (albeit closer to Australia’s mainland).
  • A reference to cultural heritage in general (but not Aboriginal cultural heritage in particular) notes that ““the Director [of National Parks] intends to … continue the Australian Government presence in Ashmore and Cartier to ensure the protection of cultural items and sites is maintained and provide access to cultural heritage sites where appropriate.” (p.18, Ashmore Reef and Cartier Island Commonwealth Marine Reserves: Information for visitors (agriculture.gov.au)).
• The Memorandum of Understanding “sets out arrangements by which traditional fishers can access resources in Australia's territorial sea the region. This allows traditional Indonesian fishers to access parts of Ashmore for shelter, freshwater and to visit grave sites” (p.13, Ashmore Reef and Cartier Island Commonwealth Marine Reserves: Information for visitors (agriculture.gov.au)). This MoU would likely need to be considered in relation to any current or potential Aboriginal tenure implications and access rights etc.

I extend my gratitude for offering IUCN Member organizations and Commission members the chance to contribute vital scientific papers, reports, and indigenous knowledge concerning synthetic biology's role in nature conservation. I'm Carolina Torres Trueba, representing Island Conservation, an international NGO dedicated to eradicating invasive species and restoring fragile ecosystems on islands. The efficacy of invasive species removal in arresting habitat loss is well-documented. Presently, our tools for this task are either insufficient or technically and financially demanding. Exploring synthetic biology through research and development presents an opportunity to amplify our impact.

The policy development process set out by IUCN, and its emphasis on inclusivity and equity, is welcome.

IUCN WCC Resolution 123, sets the tone to “inform discussions, promote consultation and support improved understanding of synthetic biology and the direct and indirect impacts that this technology might have on biodiversity and its conservation, sustainable use, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources.” The process is ensuring stakeholders from different fields of expertise have the opportunity to express their priorities and concerns. Members of the Policy Development Working Group must ensure those are addressed in a scientific manner, considering both risks as benefits on a case-by-case basis; otherwise, they might close the door to tools that can/could help overcome current conservation challenges, for example IAS removal. Members of the WG should build on previous work undertaken on synthetic biology, including the IUCN report “Genetic frontiers for conservation: Assessment of Synthetic Biology and Biodiversity Conservation”, and the work taking place on other relevant fora, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the World Health Organization (WHO). optimizing resources. In addition, the WG should consider that many IUCN members are also members of those organizations, having participated in the negotiations and decisions taken in those fora.

References:

Genetic frontiers for conservation An assessment of synthetic biology and biodiversity conservation (IUCN, 2019).

CBDCOP 14 decision 14/19. Synthetic biology (cbd.int)

CBD–Synthetic Biology Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group reports. CBD/SYNBIO/AHTEG/2017/1/3  -,CBD/SYNBIO/AHTEG/2019/1/3 and CBD/CP/RA/AHTEG/2020/1/4

As mentioned before, the current tools at our disposal have fallen short in effectively addressing the numerous pressing conservation challenges we face, for example the effort at Midway Atoll, where the eradication of house mice was conducted and despite all best efforts, the project's team is still finding mice on the island. You can learn more at the following link: https://www.fws.gov/project/midway-atolls-seabird-protection-project

In this context, synthetic biology emerges as a dynamic and swiftly advancing scientific field that holds great promise. Its potential to counteract the ongoing trends of biodiversity loss is a ray of hope amid the escalating rate of species extinction and ecosystem decline over the past two decades. This alarming situation is exacerbated by the impact of climate change, posing severe threats to our planet's well-being.

While dedicated efforts have been exerted globally to curb biodiversity loss, the efficacy of some of these methods is hampered by issues of cost, replicability, and scalability. Innovations, particularly technological advancements, have emerged as our beacon of possibility to reverse these alarming trends. Synthetic biology, marked by its rapid growth, offers a promising avenue, including in the case of gene drive technologies.

While much of synthetic biology research in this field is still in its early stages, tangible positive applications have already begun to surface, ready to be harnessed for conservation purposes, as well noted in the IUCN report as well noted in the IUCN report “Genetic frontiers for conservation”. However, this doesn’t mean that other technologies should be put aside, such as the use of drones, artificial intelligence or even other synthetic biology tools, as there is no silver bullet to address the current environmental crisis. Lastly, it is important to acknowledge that research is vital to ensure the safety and effectiveness of these innovative tools, considering both their potential benefits and risks to make an informed and scientifically sound decision.

References:

Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services | IPBES secretariat

Genetic frontiers for conservation An assessment of synthetic biology and biodiversity conservation (IUCN, 2019).

Harnessing synthetic biology to enhance ocean health: Trends in Biotechnology (cell.com)

Harnessing synthetic biology for kelp forest conservation1 - Coleman - 2019 - Journal of Phycology - Wiley Online Library

Strange Natures: Conservation in the Era of Synthetic Biology- Strange Natures (yale.edu)

Process of Elimination, 2018  https://www.wired.com/story/crispr-eradicate-invasive-species/

Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation - ScienceDirect

Generation of Gene Drive Mice for Invasive Pest Population Suppression Generation of Gene Drive Mice for Invasive Pest Population Suppression | SpringerLink

Gene drives for vertebrate pest control: Realistic spatial modelling of eradication probabilities and times for island mouse populations Molecular Ecology | Molecular Genetics Journal | Wiley Online Library

Locally Fixed Alleles: A method to localize gene drive to island populations | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

Population genomics of invasive rodents on islands: Genetic consequences of colonization and prospects for localized synthetic gene drive - Oh - 2021 - Evolutionary Applications - Wiley Online Library

Is It Time for Synthetic Biodiversity Conservation?: Trends in Ecology & Evolution (cell.com)

Intended consequences statement The Society for Conservation Biology (wiley.com)

Biological control of invasive fish and aquatic invertebrates: a brief review with case studies (reabic.net)

Dear All,

My name is Aaron Roberts. I am an ethics and policy researcher in Canada at McMaster University’s Institute on Ethics & Policy for Innovation. I am trained in philosophy and completed a Ph.D. focusing on questions of ethics and policy for the research, development, and use of synthetic biology – particularly gene drive technology. I am also a member of the IUCN CEESP.

Thanks to the IUCN Council Programme and Policy Committee Res 123 Working Group for the opportunity to contribute to this policy development process and for making such an open and inclusive call for information, to Thomas Brooks for moderating, and to all other participants for their contributions.

Below, are some initial thoughts and resources intended as a constructive contribution towards this process to develop policy for the IUCN on synthetic biology in relation to nature conservation.

For starters, I support the contentions of Carolina Torres Trueba (above) that while “…ensuring stakeholders from different fields of expertise have the opportunity to express their priorities and concerns. Members of the Policy Development Working Group must ensure those are addressed in a scientific manner, considering both risks [and] benefits on a case-by-case basis”. No tool is appropriate to solving all problems, and often many tools are required for any given problem. So we ought to develop a policy that advises an approach which allows for nuance regarding contextual specificity (to the conservation goal/s, species, molecular construct, receiving environment, etc.), is scientifically informed, and considers the ethics (i.e. risks and potential benefits) of both implementation and non-implementation of synthetic biological tools that could help overcome major current conservation challenges; e.g., the removal of invasive alien species for the conservation of existing species and ecosystem sustainability.

I further agree with Ms. Torres Trueba that “Members of the WG should build on previous work undertaken on synthetic biology, including the IUCN report ‘Genetic frontiers for conservation: Assessment of Synthetic Biology and Biodiversity Conservation’, and the work taking place on other relevant fora, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the World Health Organization (WHO).” It is fortunate there are many sources of previous work, information, precedents, and examples for the Policy Development Working Group draw from. And they should, both because many of IUCNs member states are party to agreements under these other conventions and will seek for and benefit from harmony across these policies, but also because an international policy and regulatory space which is able to maintain relative mutual awareness and harmony across institutions and policies is thereby mutually strengthened rather than weakened by contradiction and incompatibility and the friction that unavoidably follows from this.

While the policy to be developed is for synthetic biology in reference to conservation broadly, gene drive mechanisms are mentioned as of specific note. Thus, it is also worthwhile to acknowledge that while no gene drive organisms have been released in the environment so far and no field evaluations are planned to take place before 2030, gene drive research is already regulated. International guidance for the risk assessment of LMOs is broadly adequate to gene drive organisms and many countries already have strong regulatory frameworks in place. Examples include the CBD’s Cartagena Protocol and related guidance, and from other publications and guidelines by WHO, EFSA, NASEM, and OGTR.

Uncertainty should not prevent research and use of conservation technologies derived from synthetic biology to continue. There is uncertainty in all decisions about future action, including those that involve action and non-action. Decision-makers should proceed with caution and on a case-by-case basis weighing the risks and potential benefits of such tools. The decision to proceed or not with the research and use of any technology should be based on scientific evidence in service to ethically prioritized values. The IUCN WCC Resolution 123 references The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development which evokes the “precautionary approach” on its principle 15 - “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” Which does not prevent the use of any tool where any uncertainties may exist, but rather says uncertainty should not prevent appropriate (and cost-effective) “measures” (i.e. action) to prevent environmental degradation.

The past two decades have seen a rapid acceleration in species loss and ecosystem degradation, further exacerbated by climate change. These trends pose a severe threat to our planet's well-being. Despite significant efforts to curb biodiversity decline, issues related to cost, replicability, and scalability have hindered the overall effectiveness of current approaches. To reverse these trends, we must turn to innovative solutions, including technological advancements.

Among these solutions, synthetic biology stands out as a promising and rapidly advancing field. While much of the research is in its early stages, several tangible positive applications already exist that could contribute to conservation efforts. One such avenue is gene drive technology, which offers the potential to address challenges like invasive alien species and malaria by providing solutions that are both large-scale and efficient in terms of cost and speed.

In addition to those suggested above and by others, I would add the following relevant references for consideration of the Policy Development Working Group.

From relevant policy-making bodies:

1. WHO (2022). Global guidance framework for the responsible use of the life sciences: mitigating biorisks and governing dual-use research. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240056107.

2. WHO (2021). Guidance framework for testing genetically modified mosquitoes, second edition. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240025233

3. EFSA (2020). Adequacy and sufficiency evaluation of existing EFSA guidelines for the molecular characterisation, environmental risk assessment and post‐market environmental monitoring of genetically modified insects containing engineered gene drives. EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Naegeli H, Bresson J, et al (2020) https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6297.

4. WHO (2020). WHO Position Statement: Evaluation of genetically modified mosquitoes for the control of vector-borne diseases. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240013155

5. WHO (2020). Ethics and vector-borne diseases: WHO guidance. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/336075

6. EFSA (2020). Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO); Naegeli H, Bresson JL, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E, Nogué F, Rostoks N, Sánchez Serrano JJ, Savoini G, Veromann E, Veronesi F, Bonsall MB, Mumford J, Wimmer EA, Devos Y, Paraskevopoulos K, Firbank LG. Adequacy and sufficiency evaluation of existing EFSA guidelines for the molecular characterisation, environmental risk assessment and post-market environmental monitoring of genetically modified insects containing engineered gene drives. EFSA J. 2020 Nov 12;18(11):e06297. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6297
    
7. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (2017). Technical evaluation of a potential release of OX513A Aedes aegypti mosquitoes on the island of Saba. https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2017-0087.pdf

8. IPBES (2019) Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services | IPBES secretariat. https://www.ipbes.net/node/35274

9. IUCN (2019). Genetic frontiers for conservation: Assessment of Synthetic Biology and Biodiversity Conservation https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2019-012-En.pdf

10. NASEM (2016). National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Gene Drives on the Horizon: Advancing Science, Navigating Uncertainty, and Aligning Research with Public Values. (National Academies Press, 2016). doi:10.17226/23405. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/23405/gene-drives-on-the-horizon-advancing-science-navigating-uncertainty-and

11. UN (1992). RIO DECLARATION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf

From the literature more broadly:

1. Leveraging a natural murine meiotic drive to suppress invasive populations (Gierus et al. 2022). https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2213308119  

2. Synthetically engineered Medea gene drive system in the worldwide crop pest Drosophila suzukii (Buchaman et al., 2018). https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1713139115

3. Gene drive strategies of pest control in agricultural systems: Challenges and opportunities (Legros et al., 2021) https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com/doi/full/10.1111/eva.13285#eva13285-bib-0055  

4. Environmental, Socio-economic, and Health Impact Assessment (ESHIA) for Gene Drive Organisms (ISAAA Inc. and Outreach Network for Gene Drive Research, 2022). https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/policybriefs/gdn2022/02/pdf/ISAAA-GDN-2022-02-Policy-Brief.pdf

5. Risk assessment of gene drive organisms (ISAAA and Outreach Network for Gene Drive Research, 2022). https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/policybriefs/gdn2022/pdf/ISAAA-GDN-2022-Policy-Brief.pdf

6. Systematic identification of plausible pathways to potential harm via problem formulation for investigational releases of a population suppression gene drive to control the human malaria vector Anopheles gambiae in West Africa (Connolly et al., 2021) https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-021-03674-6#Sec24

7. Recommendations for environmental risk assessment of gene drive applications for malaria vector control. (Connolly et al., 2022) https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-022-04183-w

8. Gene Drive-Modified Organisms: Developing Practical Risk Assessment Guidance - https://www.cell.com/trends/biotechnology/fulltext/S0167-7799(20)30310-3

9. Guidance on Uncertainty Analysis in Scientific Assessments. Committee, E. S. et al. EFSA Journal 16, e05123 (2018). https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5123

10. Review of gene drive modelling and implications for risk assessment of gene drive organisms. Frieß, J. L., Lalyer, C. R., Giese, B., Simon, S. & Otto, M. Ecological Modelling 478, 110285 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2023.110285  

11. Gene Drive Dynamics in Natural Populations: The Importance of Density Dependence, Space, and Sex. Dhole, S., Lloyd, A. L. & Gould, F. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 51, 505–531 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-031120-101013

Regards to All,

Aaron Roberts    

Dear IUCN colleagues,

Deutscher Naturschutzring (DNR) is the umbrella organisation for environmental, conservation and animal welfare NGOs in Germany, representing close to 100 organisations. My name is Lavinia Roveran and I am the coordinator for agriculture and biodiversity policy at DNR.

Please find below a compilation of resources we believe could be useful for the discussions of the IUCN’s position finding process on synthetic biology.

These resources include technical reports, accessible overviews, opinion pieces, and critiques. These materials reflect a variety of perspectives and voices, including those of scientists from biological and social subjects, government agencies, civil society organisations, as well indigenous peoples.

Thank you very much for collecting members’ input.

1. Boëte, Christophe. 2018. ‘Technoscience and Biodiversity Conservation’. Asian Bioethics Review 10 (4): 245–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/S41649-018-0071-Y/METRICS.
2. Brandt, Ruthi, Ellisabeth Bucking, Irina Castro, Doug Gurian-Sherman, Tamara Lebrecht, Lim Li Ching, Lim Li Lin, et al. 2019. Gene Drives: A Report on Their Science, Applications, Social Aspects, Ethics and Regulations. Critical Scientists Switzerland (CSS), European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), Vereinigung Deutscher Wissenschaftler (VDW). https://genedrives.ch/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Gene-Drives-Book-WEB.p….
3. Dolezel, Marion, Samson Simon, Mathias Otto, Margret Engelhard, and Wiebke Züghart. 2019. ‘Gene Drive Organisms: Implications for the Environment and Nature Conservation’. REPORT REP-0705. Vienna: EPA/ENCA Interest Group on Risk Assessment and Monitoring of GMOs. https://www.umweltbundesamt.at/fileadmin/site/publikationen/rep0705.pdf.
4. Environment Agency Austria (EAA), Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Germany (BfN), Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, Italy (ISPRA), and Federal Office for the Environment, Switzerland (FOEN). 2021. ‘Impacts of Gene Drive Organisms on the Environment and Nature Conservation’. https://era.org.mt/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/IG-GMO-Opinion-Paper-GDO-….
5. ETC Group. 2019. ‘Driving Under the Influence A Review of the Evidence for Bias and Conflict of Interest in the IUCN Report on Synthetic Biology and Gene Drive Organisms’. https://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/etc-iucn-dr….
6. IUCN French Committee. 2021. ‘The Future of Life: Our Values for Action’. https://uicn.fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/manifeste-ethique-en-web.pdf.
7. Noble, Charleston, Ben Adlam, George M Church, Kevin M Esvelt, and Martin A Nowak. 2018. ‘Current CRISPR Gene Drive Systems Are Likely to Be Highly Invasive in Wild Populations’. Edited by Michael Doebeli. ELife 7 (June): e33423. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.33423.
8. Sharatt, Lucy. 2021. ‘Gene Drives – Engineering the Wild’. Watershed Sentinel (blog). 13 July 2021. https://watershedsentinel.ca/articles/gene-drives-engineering-the-wild/.
9. Sharratt, Lucy. 2022. ‘“Fixing” Trees With Genetic Engineering’. Watershed Sentinel (blog). 30 November 2022. https://watershedsentinel.ca/articles/fixing-trees-with-genetic-enginee….
10. Sirinathsinghji, Eva. 2019. ‘Transferring the Laboratory to the Wild: An Emerging Era of Environmental Genetic Engineering’. Third World Network, Biosafety Briefing, , no. November 2019: 9.
11. Stop Gene Drives Campaign. 2022. ‘Gene Drives and Malaria’. 2022. https://www.stop-genedrives.eu/en/malaria/.
12. Taitingfong, Riley I. 2020. ‘Islands as Laboratories: Indigenous Knowledge and Gene Drives in the Pacific’. Human Biology 91 (3): 179–88. https://doi.org/10.13110/humanbiology.91.3.01.
13. Taitingfong, Riley Ilyse. 2021. ‘Editing Islands: (Re)Imagining Isolation in Gene Drive Science and Engagement’. UC San Diego. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1593t059.
14. Then, Christoph. 2021. ‘Testbiotech Comment on the IUCN Report “Genetic Frontiers for Conservation, an Assessment of Synthetic Biology and Biodiversity Conservation”’. 2021. https://www.testbiotech.org/system/files/Testbiotech%20report%20IUCN%20….
15. Wells, Mark, and Ricarda Steinbrecher. 2020. ‘Genetically Engineered Gene Drives: IUCN Report on Synthetic Biology Lacks Balance’. Critical Scientists Switzerland (CSS), European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), Vereinigung Deutscher Wissenschaftler (VDW/FGS). https://www.econexus.info/files/gene-drives-2021_critique-of-iucn-repor….
16. Wells, Mark, and Ricarda A. Steinbrecher. 2022. ‘Current and Proposed  Insect Targets for Gene Drive Development: A Horizon Scanning Survey’. EcoNexus.

Moderator's note: many thanks to all IUCN constituents' who have shared information in response to this call. One additional relevant document, issued by the IUCN Acting Director General and IUCN President on 2 August 2019, is also attached for reference.

statement_on_the_work_of_iucn_taskforce_on_synthetic_biology_and_biodiversity_conservation_-_2_august_2019.pdf510.64 KB

Dear all, 

I would like to salute the IUCN initiative to open this call for evidence to inform the IUCN policy process on synthetic biology. This call is an important part of the inclusive process called for in Resolution 123. These references, in particular the new ones published since 2019, will be an important part of the knowledge and evidence complementing the 2019 report Genetics Frontiers for Conservation, of which I am a proud author. I would like to offer also a shorter piece that provides some perspective on this 2019 report, authored by many of the IUCN task force members: 

- Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation, 2022

I don't want to repeat the excellent suggestions made by Ben Hoffman, Carolina Torres Trueba and Aaron Roberts, as well as the papers from Riley Taitingfong on indigenous people's perspectives, highlighted by Lavinian Roveran. 

When considering synthetic biology applications, the question of environmental risk assessment and socio-economic, cultural impact assessment is critical.  A variety of well-established methodologies, from environmental risk assessment to ESIA and SEA can help decision makers gather the information they need to decide on whether to allow a technology to be used. I would like to offer some references to illustrate this:

- Connolly, J.B., Mumford, J.D., Fuchs, S. et al. Systematic identification of plausible pathways to potential harm via problem formulation for investigational releases of a population suppression gene drive to control the human malaria vector Anopheles gambiae in West Africa. Malar J 20, 170 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-021-03674-6

- Connolly, J.B., Mumford, J.D., Glandorf, D.C.M. et al. Recommendations for environmental risk assessment of gene drive applications for malaria vector control. Malar J 21, 152 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-022-04183-w

- Devos et al, Gene Drive-Modified Organisms: Developing Practical Risk Assessment Guidance, Trends in biotechnology (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.11.015

- ISAAA and the Outreach Network For Gene Drive Research, environmental, socio-economic, and Health impact assessment (esHia) for Gene Drive organisms https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/policybriefs/gdn2022/02/pdf/ISAAA-GDN-2022-02-Policy-Brief.pdf 

On this issue of risk assessment, the outcomes of the online forum and of the AHTEG of the Cartagena protocol could provide useful references.

I would like to draw the attention that many papers mentioned here are focusing on engineered gene drive, which might reflect the dynamism in that field of research, both in terms of scientific and social sciences publications. However, that should not divert the working group from considering the wider scope of synthetic biology, of which engineered gene drives are just an example.

I would like to share a few articles showing the diversity of applications of synthetic biology, some directly for conservation and others not for conservation uses but that could have impacts on conservation, as well as some broader pieces on governance/regulation:

- Waltz, E. Publisher Correction: Bio-leather gears up to wow fashion industry. Nat Biotechnol 40, 799 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-022-01329-8 

- Nguyen, P.Q., Soenksen, L.R., Donghia, N.M. et al. Wearable materials with embedded synthetic biology sensors for biomolecule detection. Nat Biotechnol 39, 1366–1374 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-00950-3 

- Coleman, Goold, Harnessing synthetic biology for kelp forest conservation, Journal of phycology (2019)  https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.12888

- Keiper F and Atanassova A (2020) Regulation of Synthetic Biology: Developments Under the Convention on Biological Diversity and Its Protocols. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 8:310. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00310

Finally, sharing some references on the moral and ethical perspectives, which I think could be useful for the deliberations of the working group: 

- de Graeff, N., Jongsma, K.R. & Bredenoord, A.L. Experts’ moral views on gene drive technologies: a qualitative interview study. BMC Med Ethics 22, 25 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00588-5

- COGEM, On the nature of nature (2022)

Thank you again for this opportunity to contribute

Delphine Thizy