Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Ethical lessons from a tale of two genetically modified insects

Nature Biotechnology volume 35, pages 713–716 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

To the Editor:

Genetically modified (GM) insects have arrived. Engineered mosquitoes have already been deployed in countries that regularly face outbreaks of mosquito-borne diseases1. Many hope that genetically modified insects and pests will prove to be 'greener', more cost-effective solutions to public health and agricultural threats. But how can their safety and efficacy be tested? Several recent papers and reports offer ways of mitigating risks of field trials to animals, humans, and the environment2,3,4,5,6. Nearly all agree that public engagement is a necessary component of rolling out this new biological technology. A key outstanding ethical question remains: what level of control should community members and other stakeholders have over the decision to release GM insects as part of a field trial?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Annotated timeline of proposed A. aegypti field trial.
Figure 2: Annotated timeline of proposed field trial of the moth Plutella xylostella.

References

  1. Winskill, P. et al. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 9, e0004156 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Oye, K.A. et al. Science 345, 626–628 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Resnik, D.B. Dev.World Bioeth. 14, 37–46 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Caplan, A.L. et al. EMBO Rep. e201541337 (2015).

  5. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Gene Drives on the Horizon: Advancing Science, Navigating Uncertainty, and Aligning Research with Public Values (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2016).

  6. World Health Organization/Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases and the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health. The Guidance Framework for Testing Genetically Modified Mosquitoes (WHO/TDR, Geneva, Switzerland, 2014) http://www.who.int/tdr/publications/year/2014/guide-fmrk-gm-mosquit/en/

  7. World Health Organization. Situation Report: Zika Virus, Microcephaly, Guillain-Barre Syndrome http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/253604/1/zikasitrep20Jan17-eng.pdf?ua=1 (20 January 2017).

  8. Zalucki, M.P. et al. J. Econ. Entomol. 105, 1115–1129 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lopez, W. & Miller, J.R. J. Law Med. Ethics 30 Suppl, 135–138 (2002).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Murphy, E.A., Post, G.B., Buckley, B.T., Lippincott, R.L. & Robson, M.G. Annu. Rev. Public Health 33, 209–224 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fernandez-Cornejo, J. et al. Pesticide Use in US Agriculture: 21 Selected Crops, 1960–2008 (USDA Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, 2014). https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/43854/46734_eib124.pdf?v=41830

  12. Rowe, G. & Frewer, L. Sci. Technol. Human Values 30, 251–290 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Enserink, M. Science 330, 1030–1031 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Subbaraman, N. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 9–11 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Florida Keys Mosquito Control District. Latest Information on the proposed Oxitec GM Mosquito Project. http://keysmosquito.org/oxitec-ox513a-trial/

  16. Shaw, D. Finger Lakes Times http://www.fltimes.com/news/experiment-station-defends-moth-trials/article_cae7ecf2-1ffd-11e5-9d1b-6b73566a4ed8.html (1 July 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  17. US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology Regulatory Services. National Environmental Policy Act Decision and Finding of No Significant Impact (USDA, Washington, DC, 2014). https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/13_297102r_fonsi.pdf

  18. Greenberg, M. et al. Risk Anal. 35, 1959–1968 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Van den Brink, P.J. et al. Mar. Freshw. Res. 67, 429–439 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Adalja, A. et al. PLoS Curr. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1371/currents.outbreaks.1c39ec05a743d41ee39391ed0f2ed8d3 (2016).

  21. Hatfield, K. GEN: Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News http://www.genengnews.com/gen-exclusives/historic-nantucket-weighs-use-of-disruptive-technology/77900678 (13 June 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Quinn, S.C. Am. J. Public Health 94, 918–922 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cohen, J. in Political Philosophy in the Twenty-First Century (eds. Cahn, S.M. & Talisse, R.B.) 217–235 (Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Carolyn P Neuhaus

    Present address: Present address: The Hastings Center, Garrison, New York, USA.,

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Medical Ethics, NYU School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA

    Carolyn P Neuhaus & Arthur L Caplan

Authors
  1. Carolyn P Neuhaus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arthur L Caplan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carolyn P Neuhaus.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neuhaus, C., Caplan, A. Ethical lessons from a tale of two genetically modified insects. Nat Biotechnol 35, 713–716 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3927

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3927

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing