Members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature have approved a motion that would prohibit research or trials using "gene drives":
Scientists from around the world are currently gathered in Hawaii for an international conservation congress, where they've spent the last week discussing the most pressing issues facing the environment today. One topic on the table is a form of genetic editing called "gene drive" technology, which can be used to alter — or even wipe out — entire species. And while some experts have argued that the practice could be a useful conservation tool, others have warned that its impact on the environment could be devastating should it get out control.
Members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which is holding its World Conservation Congress in Honolulu through Sept. 10, recently approved a motion that would prohibit the organization from supporting or endorsing any research or field trials on the use of gene drives until a comprehensive assessment of the technology's effects has been undertaken.
The motion is nonbinding and does not dictate the regulations that individual countries may choose to establish for themselves. But it does reflect a growing concern among both scientists and environmentalists about the technology's potential power to irrevocably alter species and reshape ecosystems. [...] In an open letter aimed at members of the IUCN, worried environmentalists expressed their concern about the technology's implications. "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," they wrote.
However, it's important to note that gene drive technology can take several different forms, and some are safer than others, said Floyd Reed, an associate professor of biology at the University of Hawaii. Reed's lab is currently involved in gene drive research on fruit flies, with plans to begin moving forward with mosquitoes next. Reed's research involves a genetic phenomenon known as "underdominance," which can be used to implement a type of drive system that potentially can be halted before it gets out of control. In this system, a trait's ability to spread is dependent on what percentage of the population has it to begin with.
Also at Phys.org (AFP).
(Score: 2, Disagree) by bradley13 on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:11AM
" a motion that would prohibit the organization from supporting or endorsing any research or field trials on the use of gene drives until a comprehensive assessment of the technology's effects has been undertaken."
Really. If that were seriously implemented, we could basically just close every research facility in the world. Instead, we could funnel all of our effort into increased bureaucracy. You'd need committees to assessments to allow you to increase the number of assessment committees.
This is why no one takes these organizations seriously: they are incapable of making serious proposals.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Zz9zZ on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:25AM
Sorry but technology like this has some serious implications, and I am glad the world is taking them seriously.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @05:50PM
Dude is a walking, walking argumentum ad populam.
Fitting for a racist.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:01PM
The only problem with that argument is that gene drives were originally discovered in the wild, and only later moved to the lab.
OTOH, the original use was (IIRC) for a fungus to attack its host in a way that would result in all descendants carrying the fungus. But it may have been a bacteria.
That said, spreading this kind of thing should definitely be considered carefully, and not just on a "do it because we can" basis.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:07PM
Thanks for the serious response. I'm rather surprised by the lack of movement on this story, I guess we need more emails/trump/politics...
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Derf the on Friday September 09 2016, @02:10AM
Right at the very thinnest end of the wedge, NZ could benefit enormously, environmentally and economically, with a driver gene inserted into the introduced possum species. This ex-Australian possum has been devastating to many native plant and bird species which had all evolved on islands without any browsing land mammals nor any egg steeling, chick eating predators of any kind. Without its own predators, we are finding ourselves spending $10's millions each year on trapping, shooting and large scale poisoning (we use 90% of the worlds 1080). This is one species that would be ideally undergoing a local (NZ wide) extinction which would be without ANY negative ecological by-products. There is no traffic in living possums leaving NZ, and when the last of the local possums die, the gene and it dangers dies with it.
BUT, those wedges, once they're sitting in a crack, they are almost irresistible to not give a bloody great whack! Hey, what about those ship rats, they kill LOTS of our birds!
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/201804139/rob-knight-engineering-pests [radionz.co.nz]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @03:39AM
And how would a driver gene really wipe out possums in NZ (and only in NZ) in practice? Quote wiki:
gene drives can be used not only to spread beneficial genetic modifications, but also detrimental ones as long the reproductive success is not reduced by more than 30%.
If that's true it won't work for wiping out possums.
To me a lot of such innovations are all about benefiting a very tiny minority. Proponents claim it will benefit the majority but that's as far as it goes. A few Prime Proponents stand to benefit greatly, so they try to convince everyone else with their "driver memes/propaganda" even though it's detrimental to the species as a whole.
Thus using their own logic and concept it's time to do such things more scientifically and rationally. Scientifically estimate the long-term non-bullshit benefits to humans (and the rest of the world/ecosystem if you're feeling more responsible), and estimate the risks, impacts and costs. You may find that a lot of these GM and other tech is just to make a few people very rich while the risks are borne by everyone else (the rich are rich enough to avoid their own product even if it ends up spewed everywhere).
If the benefits of potential technology are just to a tiny few while the risk is to many then people should go do other better stuff first. There's plenty of other things to do and it's not like we have infinite resources and time on this planet.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @07:27AM
Two step process. You have to let the species reproduce in order to spread the gene. This could be very useful by making a species susceptible to a specific attack. Wait a year or whatever, then use your targeted poison to wipe them out after the gene has spread.