Lessons learned from the introduction of genetically engineered crops: relevance to gene drive deployment in Africa.


Journal

Transgenic research
ISSN: 1573-9368
Titre abrégé: Transgenic Res
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9209120

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 2022
Historique:
received: 01 07 2021
accepted: 04 02 2022
pubmed: 12 5 2022
medline: 31 5 2022
entrez: 11 5 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The application of gene drives to achieve public health goals, such as the suppression of Anopheles gambiae populations, or altering their ability to sustain Plasmodium spp. infections, has received much attention from researchers. If successful, this genetic tool can contribute greatly to the wellbeing of people in regions severely affected by malaria. However, engineered gene drives are a product of genetic engineering, and the experience to date, gained through the deployment of genetically engineered (GE) crops, is that GE technology has had difficulty receiving public acceptance in Africa, a key region for the deployment of gene drives. The history of GE crop deployment in this region provides good lessons for the deployment of gene drives as well. GE crops have been in commercial production for 24 years, since the planting of the first GE soybean crop in 1996. During this time, regulatory approvals and farmer adoption of these crops has grown rapidly in the Americas, and to a lesser extent in Asia. Their safety has been recognized by numerous scientific organizations. Economic and health benefits have been well documented in the countries that have grown them. However, only one transgenic crop event is being grown in Europe, and only in two countries in that region. Europe has been extremely opposed to GE crops, due in large part to the public view of agriculture that opposes "industrial" farming. This attitude is reflected in a highly precautionary regulatory and policy environment, which has highly influenced how African countries have dealt with GE technology and are likely to be applied to future genetic technologies, including gene drives. Furthermore, a mistrust of government regulatory agencies, the publication of scientific reports claiming adverse effects of GE crops, the involvement of corporations as the first GE crop developers, the lack of identifiable consumer benefit, and low public understanding of the technology further contributed to the lack of acceptance. Coupled with more emotionally impactful messaging to the public by opposition groups and the general tendency of negative messages to be more credible than positive ones, GE crops failed to gain a place in European agriculture, thus influencing African acceptance and government policy. From this experience, the following lessons have been learned that would apply to the deployment of gene drives, in Africa:It will be important to establish trust in those who are developing the technology, as well as in those who are making regulatory decisions. Engagement of the community, where those who are involved are able to make genuine contributions to the decision-making process, are necessary to achieve that trust. The use of tools to facilitate participatory modeling could be considered in order to enhance current community engagement efforts.Trusted, accurate information on gene drives should be made available to the general public, journalists, and scientists who are not connected with the field. Those sources of information should also be able to summarize and analyze important scientific results and emerging issues in the field in order to place those developments in the proper context. Engagement should involve more opportunities for participation of stakeholders in conceptualizing, planning, and decision-making.Diversifying the source of funding for gene drive research and development, particularly by participation of countries and regional bodies, would show that country or regional interests are represented.Efforts by developers and neutral groups to provide the public and decisionmakers with a more thorough understanding of the benefits and risks of this technology, especially to local communities, would help them reach more informed decisions.A better understanding of gene drive technology can be fostered by governments, as part of established biosafety policy in several African countries. Developers and neutral groups could also be helpful in increasing public understanding of the technology of genetic engineering, including gene drives.Effective messaging to balance the messaging of groups opposed to gene drives is needed. These messages should be not only factual but also have emotional and intuitive appeal.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35545692
doi: 10.1007/s11248-022-00300-2
pii: 10.1007/s11248-022-00300-2
pmc: PMC9135826
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

285-311

Subventions

Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : OPP1210762
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

© 2022. The Author(s).

Références

Sci Rep. 2019 Sep 10;9(1):13047
pubmed: 31506595
GM Crops Food. 2020 Oct 1;11(4):215-241
pubmed: 32706316
Annu Rev Entomol. 2002;47:845-81
pubmed: 11729093
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Oct 9;98(21):11925-30
pubmed: 11559841
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Oct 9;98(21):11931-6
pubmed: 11559839
Heliyon. 2019 Feb 15;5(2):e01242
pubmed: 30815609
J Public Health Policy. 1998;19(2):160-83
pubmed: 9670700
GM Crops Food. 2021 Jan 2;12(1):71-83
pubmed: 32997586
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Mar 27;115(13):3320-3325
pubmed: 29531049
GM Crops Food. 2013 Jul-Dec;4(3):202-8
pubmed: 24281195
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Jan 5;118(1):
pubmed: 33443170
Malar J. 2021 Mar 29;20(1):170
pubmed: 33781254
Gates Open Res. 2021 Jan 29;5:19
pubmed: 33884362
Malar J. 2020 Apr 23;19(1):164
pubmed: 32321534
Appetite. 2020 Apr 1;147:104520
pubmed: 31751633
Lancet. 1999 Oct 16;354(9187):1353-4
pubmed: 10533866
Pest Manag Sci. 2012 Oct;68(10):1323-31
pubmed: 22865693
Malar J. 2021 Jan 21;20(1):53
pubmed: 33478519
Transgenic Res. 2020 Dec;29(5-6):575-586
pubmed: 33175304
Nat Biotechnol. 2003 Sep;21(9):1003-9
pubmed: 12949561
GM Crops. 2011 Jan-Mar;2(1):7-23
pubmed: 21844695
Ecol Appl. 2018 Jan;28(1):46-61
pubmed: 28922513
Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Nov;50(11):4221-31
pubmed: 22999595
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Dec 8;117(49):30864-30867
pubmed: 33208534
Science. 2008 Apr 25;320(5875):468-71
pubmed: 18436769
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jul 17;109(29):11652-6
pubmed: 22753493
Nature. 1999 May 20;399(6733):214
pubmed: 10353241
Malar J. 2010 May 14;9:128
pubmed: 20470410
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Feb 9;118(6):
pubmed: 33495361
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Mar 8;22(1):25
pubmed: 33685438
Transgenic Res. 2017 Jun;26(3):385-398
pubmed: 28432545
GM Crops Food. 2020 Oct 1;11(4):242-261
pubmed: 32706314
Dev World Bioeth. 2018 Jun;18(2):135-143
pubmed: 28470752
Nature. 1999 Aug 19;400(6746):702
pubmed: 10466713
Science. 2019 Aug 2;365(6452):449-451
pubmed: 31371602
Med Vet Entomol. 2019 Mar;33(1):1-15
pubmed: 30044507
BMC Proc. 2018 Jul 19;12(Suppl 8):11
pubmed: 30079102
Res Policy. 2020 Apr;49(3):103917
pubmed: 32255861
Environ Sci Eur. 2014;26(1):14
pubmed: 27752412
Malar J. 2014 Apr 23;13:154
pubmed: 24758165
Nature. 2012 Sep 27;489(7417):474
pubmed: 23025010
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Oct 9;98(21):11919-24
pubmed: 11559840
Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 24;10(1):5524
pubmed: 32210318
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017 Mar;96(3):530-533
pubmed: 27895273
Science. 2010 Oct 8;330(6001):222-5
pubmed: 20929774
Science. 2008 Sep 19;321(5896):1676-8
pubmed: 18801998
Nat Biotechnol. 2010 Apr;28(4):319-21
pubmed: 20379171
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 03;9(11):e111629
pubmed: 25365303
GM Crops Food. 2020 Jul 2;11(3):140-153
pubmed: 32008444
Ann Intern Med. 2002 Feb 19;136(4):312-9
pubmed: 11848729
GM Crops Food. 2019;10(2):90-101
pubmed: 31072184
PLoS One. 2019 Oct 2;14(10):e0222617
pubmed: 31577819
Malar J. 2021 Mar 16;20(1):149
pubmed: 33726763
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018 Jun;98(6_Suppl):1-49
pubmed: 29882508
Int J Epidemiol. 2000 Aug;29(4):730-3
pubmed: 10922352
Nat Biotechnol. 2010 Sep;28(9):896-7
pubmed: 20829820
Viruses. 2015 Jul 30;7(8):4254-81
pubmed: 26264020
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020 Sep;103(3):976-985
pubmed: 32748773
Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007 May;52(4):596-602
pubmed: 17356802
Int J Biol Sci. 2009 Dec 10;5(7):706-26
pubmed: 20011136
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 May 16;103(20):7571-6
pubmed: 16675554
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020 May 25;8:498
pubmed: 32528942
Gates Open Res. 2017 Dec 11;1:14
pubmed: 29355214
Plant Biotechnol J. 2020 Apr;18(4):887-888
pubmed: 31544299
Nat Biotechnol. 2017 Aug 8;35(8):716-718
pubmed: 28787415
Toxicol Sci. 2003 Jan;71(1):2-8
pubmed: 12520069
Sci Adv. 2016 Aug 31;2(8):e1600850
pubmed: 27652335
Science. 1999 Oct 22;286(5440):656
pubmed: 10577214
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Oct 9;98(21):11937-42
pubmed: 11559842
Malar J. 2019 Oct 15;18(1):347
pubmed: 31615576
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Oct 9;98(21):11913-8
pubmed: 11559838
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 27;12(7):e0181353
pubmed: 28749984
J Am Diet Assoc. 2006 Feb;106(2):285-93
pubmed: 16442880
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Oct 9;98(21):11908-12
pubmed: 11559837
Plant Biotechnol J. 2017 Oct;15(10):1227-1234
pubmed: 28710840

Auteurs

Hector Quemada (H)

Department of Biological Sciences, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, 49008, USA. hector.quemada@wmich.edu.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH