What if you could get rid of the mosquitoes that carry Zika virus? All of them. An entire species.
Would it be right to do?
What if the gene-editing process known as “gene drives” could modify a species of mice on an island so that only male offspring are produced, effectively setting in motion an irreversible extinction and protecting a species of bird?
What if a tool already existed, dubbed the CRISPR-CAS9, that would simply give “technicians the ability to intervene in evolution, to engineer the fate of an entire species, to dramatically modify ecosystems, and to unleash large-scale environmental changes?”
These are the questions being debated now at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature conference in Hawaii.
The procedure goes way beyond genetically modifying organisms, which, while still controversial, is becoming more common. It includes modifying corn seed to make it resistant to various diseases.
Claire Hope Cummings, an environmental lawyer, is just one of many signatories to a letter that openly calls for “conservation with a conscience” and warns against such manipulation.
The letter, which includes the signatures of luminaries such as environmental icon David Suzuki, physicist Fritjof Capra, organic pioneer Nell Newman and Tom Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental Network, is blunt, “Given the obvious dangers of irretrievably releasing genocidal genes into the natural world, and the moral implications of taking such action, we call for a halt to all proposals for the use of gene drive technologies, but especially in conservation.”
Cummings explained in a blog post, “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.”
Investigate the growing trend of blending human and machine, called “transhumanism,” at the WND Superstore.
Reduced to layman’s terms, gene drives provide a way for scientists to control what otherwise would have been a random process at the gene level. For example, scientists could designate that every offspring is male.
“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,” Cummings wrote.
“It is a biological tool with unprecedented power.”
For example, she noted, one plan is 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 U.S. 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 ‘favored’ species, such as endangered birds.”
She urged people to consider the possible impact.
“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.”
She said she’s not alone in her concern, as the letter signed by many reveals.
“We believe that a powerful and potentially dangerous technology such as gene drives, which has not been tested for unintended consequences nor fully evaluated for its ethical and social impacts, should not be promoted as a conservation tool,” the letter said.
Signers include experts from Ecuador, Mexico, Nigeria, the U.S., Germany, Indian, Britain, Canada and Malaysia.
“The assumption of such power is a moral and ethical threshold that must not be crossed without great restraint,” they warn.
They write they are alarmed “that some conservation organizations have accepted funding for and are promoting the release of engineered gene drive organisms into the wild.”
“They propose to use extinction as a deliberate tool, in direct contradiction to the moral purpose of conservation organizations, which is to protect life on earth. We are also concerned about the potential use of gene drives by the military and in agriculture. We note that current regulatory schemes are not capable of evaluating and governing this new technology.”
They warn the plan is “irretrievably releasing genocidal genes into the natural world.”
According to AFP, even those who first advocated for the efforts are now expressing caution.
“As a scientist who worked on it, I am particularly concerned because we scientists are ultimately morally responsible for all the consequences of our work,” said Kevin Esvelt of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“It should be a requirement that no one gets to build a gene drive or any technology designed to alter the shared environment in a laboratory without making their proposals public first. If something goes wrong in the laboratory, it can affect people outside the laboratory.”
He continued, “That means if you do it behind closed doors – as is traditional in science – then you are not giving people a voice in a decision that might affect them.”
The report also included concerns expressed by Chris Farmer, a program director in Hawaii for the American Bird Conservancy. He’s concerned because 38 forest birds in the state already have gone extinct because of disease.
One particular problem is malaria carried by mice and harming other species.
“One of the scariest things of working on conservation in Hawaii is there is no way to save these birds from malaria,” he said. Without using gene drives, “we are choosing to let these species go extinct.”
But AFP reported Floyd Reed of the University of Hawaii said a single small release could expand.
“These should be treated extremely cautiously. And there are other types of population modification genetic technology that are safer, geographically self-limiting, and reversible,” he said.
At the Civil Beat blog, Nathan Eagle wrote, “With gene drives, scientists can edit genes at the level of their individual DNA bases so that it’s no longer random what trait gets passed on to the offspring, which could allow people to control entire populations of species.”
Steve Rissing, a biology professor at Ohio State, wrote just last month, “We might be able to exploit our knowledge of these mechanisms to eliminate mosquito populations that carry Zika, Dengue or Chikungunya viruses. We might rescue endangered species by eliminating invasive competitors. But we also might make these situations worse with no ability to reverse the effects once released into the environment.”
He continued: “What don’t we know? What if a gene drive starts to drive the wrong gene? What if it jumps to a closely related, but non-target species? What if an even worse disease vet or an invasive species replaces the one we eliminated?”
“Why should we blindly believe that everything is under control?” continued Cummings.
“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 possibly 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.”
Investigate the growing trend of blending human and machine, called “transhumanism,” at the WND Superstore.
WND recently reported on a move by the federal government to fund research to investigate the injecting animal embryos with human stem cells, creating half-human half-animal hybrids.
The National Institutes of Health announced the agency is requesting public comment on expanding the kind of experimentation that could create “chimeras.”
Carrie D. Wolinetz, NIH’s associate director for science, announced in a blog post that the agency is requesting public comment on expanding fund said the development of “these types of human-animal organism … holds tremendous potential for disease modeling, drug testing, and perhaps eventual organ transplant.”
“I am confident that these proposed changes will enable the NIH research community to move this promising area of science forward in a responsible manner.”
Meanwhile, this kind of experimentation is not just going on in the U.S.
Experiments involving genetically engineered animals have nearly tripled in Germany in the past 10 years, driven by a burgeoning global industry that involves inventing and patenting genetically altered species for scientific research, says a new study commissioned by Germany’s Green Party and conducted by the research group Testbiotech.