1 Introduction

Gene drive technology represents a groundbreaking advancement in genetic engineering, offering the potential to address significant global challenges such as vector-borne diseases, agricultural pests, and invasive species. By promoting the inheritance of specific genes at rates higher than those predicted by Mendelian genetics, gene drives can rapidly spread desired traits through wild populations (Raban et al., 2020; Bier, 2021; Kim et al., 2023). This technology has been heralded for its potential applications in public health, particularly in controlling diseases like malaria and Zika virus, as well as in conservation efforts to protect endangered species and manage ecosystems (Emerson et al., 2017; Collins, 2018).

However, the deployment of gene drive technology is not without its challenges. The potential for unintended ecological consequences and the risks associated with the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment necessitate a thorough examination of biosafety and ecological risks (Devos et al., 2021). Concerns include the possibility of gene drives spreading beyond target populations, disrupting ecosystems, and the ethical implications of altering entire species (Hayirli and Martelli, 2019; Amo et al., 2020). Addressing these risks is crucial to ensure that the benefits of gene drive technology can be realized without causing harm to the environment or human health.

This study focuses on the dual challenges of biosafety and ecological risks, and will explore the latest advances in gene drive research, potential applications and benefits of this technology, as well as strategies proposed to mitigate related risks. By integrating recent research findings, the aim is to provide information for future research directions and policy decisions, ensuring that gene drive technology can be responsibly and effectively developed and deployed.

2 Mechanisms of Gene Drive Technology

2.1 Explanation of gene drive mechanisms

Gene drive technology leverages molecular tools to bias the inheritance of specific genes, ensuring they are passed on to a higher proportion of offspring than would occur through traditional Mendelian inheritance. One of the most prominent mechanisms is the CRISPR-Cas9 system, which uses RNA-guided nucleases to create targeted breaks in DNA, allowing for the insertion of desired genetic elements (Collins, 2018). Another mechanism involves homing endonucleases, which are enzymes that recognize and cut specific DNA sequences, promoting the insertion of gene drive elements at these sites (Verkuijl et al., 2022). These technologies enable the spread of genetic modifications through populations, offering potential solutions for controlling vector-borne diseases, managing agricultural pests, and conserving ecosystems (Amo et al., 2020).

2.2 Types of gene drives

Gene drives can be categorized based on their operational characteristics and intended outcomes. Threshold-dependent gene drives require a certain frequency within a population to spread effectively, making them potentially safer as they are less likely to propagate uncontrollably (Overcash and Golnar, 2021). Self-limiting gene drives are designed to persist for a limited number of generations before their effects wane, providing a temporary solution to specific ecological or health issues. In contrast, self-sustaining gene drives are engineered to spread indefinitely through populations, which can be advantageous for long-term interventions but also raises significant biosafety and ecological concerns (Devos et al., 2021).

2.3 Current advancements and innovations in gene drive technology

Recent advancements in gene drive technology have focused on improving efficiency, safety, and controllability. Innovations such as the trans-complementing split-gene drive (tGD) separate the drive components into different alleles, reducing the risk of unintended spread by requiring the inheritance of multiple genetic elements to function. Additionally, small-molecule-controlled gene drives allow for external regulation of gene drive activity, providing a mechanism to halt or modulate their spread in response to environmental or experimental conditions (Amo et al., 2020). Mathematical modeling has also become a crucial tool in predicting the behavior of gene drives in natural populations, aiding in the design of more effective and safer gene drive systems (Graeff et al., 2021). These advancements highlight the ongoing efforts to balance the potential benefits of gene drives with the need to mitigate ecological and biosafety risks.

3 Potential Applications of Gene Drive

3.1 Use in controlling vector-borne diseases

Gene drive technology holds significant promise for controlling vector-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue. By leveraging CRISPR-based gene drives, scientists can introduce genetic modifications that either suppress the population of disease-carrying mosquitoes or render them incapable of transmitting pathogens. This approach has the potential to drastically reduce the incidence of these diseases, which continue to pose major public health challenges globally. However, the deployment of gene drives in natural settings requires careful consideration of ecological risks, including the potential for unintended spread to non-target populations and the evolution of resistance (Esvelt et al., 2014; Greenbaum et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2023).

3.2 Applications in agriculture

In agriculture, gene drives offer innovative solutions for pest management and the control of invasive species. By targeting specific pests, gene drives can reduce the reliance on chemical pesticides, which have adverse environmental and health effects. For instance, gene drives can be designed to suppress populations of agricultural pests such as the invasive Drosophila suzukii, thereby protecting crops and reducing economic losses (Romeis et al., 2020; Legros et al., 2021). Despite the potential benefits, the application of gene drives in agriculture raises significant environmental, social, and ethical concerns. These include the risk of gene drive organisms spreading beyond intended areas and affecting non-target species, necessitating robust regulatory frameworks and public engagement to ensure safe and acceptable use (Giese et al., 2019; Romeis et al., 2020).

3.3 Prospects for conservation efforts

Gene drives also present promising opportunities for conservation efforts. They can be used to control invasive species that threaten biodiversity or to introduce beneficial traits into endangered populations, thereby enhancing their survival and resilience. For example, gene drives could be employed to eradicate invasive rodents on islands, which are a major threat to native bird species (Rode et al., 2019; Devos et al., 2021). Additionally, gene drives could help restore ecosystems by promoting the spread of traits that enhance ecosystem functions (Figure 1). However, the ecological risks associated with gene drives, such as unintended effects on non-target species and ecosystems, must be thoroughly assessed. This requires a comprehensive understanding of gene drive dynamics and the development of strategies to mitigate potential adverse impacts (Kim et al., 2023).

Figure 1 Three different types of gene drives and their potential applications in conservation biology (Adopted from Rode et al., 2019)

4 Biosafety Concerns Associated with Gene Drive

4.1 Risks of unintended consequences and off-target effects

Gene drive technology, while promising, carries significant risks of unintended consequences and off-target effects. The primary concern is that gene drives are designed to spread a specific genetic modification through a population, potentially affecting entire ecosystems. This rapid spread can lead to unforeseen ecological impacts, such as the disruption of local species interactions and the potential for creating new ecological niches that could be exploited by other organisms (Heitman et al., 2016). Additionally, the precision of gene editing tools like CRISPR/Cas9 is not absolute, and off-target mutations can occur, leading to unintended genetic changes that may have harmful effects on non-target species or even the target species itself (Figure 2) (Yan and Finnigan, 2019). These risks necessitate rigorous biosafety assessments and the development of molecular safeguards to mitigate potential negative outcomes.

Figure 2 Genetic mechanism and potential applications of CRISPR based gene drive (Adopted from Nolan, 2020)

4.2 Potential for horizontal gene transfer and its implications

Another significant biosafety concern associated with gene drive technology is the potential for horizontal gene transfer (HGT). HGT refers to the movement of genetic material between organisms other than through vertical transmission (from parent to offspring). This phenomenon could result in the unintended spread of gene drive constructs to non-target species, potentially leading to ecological imbalances and the disruption of natural genetic diversity (Rode et al., 2019). The implications of HGT are profound, as they could result in the spread of engineered genes beyond the intended population, complicating efforts to control or reverse the gene drive's effects. This risk underscores the need for comprehensive ecological risk assessments and the development of containment strategies to prevent unintended gene flow (Krishnan and Gillum, 2017).

Gene drive technology, especially CRISPR based gene drive, has shown great potential in controlling vector organisms such as mosquitoes. However, biosafety remains a major obstacle to its widespread application. Gene drive may have unexpected impacts on ecosystems, especially by disrupting complex relationships between species, resulting in non target biological populations being affected. Gene drive may lead to horizontal gene transfer, where genes spread between different species, potentially resulting in unpredictable ecological consequences. The existing regulatory framework is difficult to fully cover the potential risks of gene drives. Therefore, in the research and deployment process, it is necessary to strengthen the emphasis on long-term ecological monitoring and risk assessment, and develop globally unified biosafety guidelines to ensure the controllability and safety of technology applications.

4.3 Regulatory challenges in ensuring biosafety during research and deployment

Ensuring biosafety during the research and deployment of gene drive technology presents numerous regulatory challenges. Current biosafety and biosecurity frameworks may not adequately address the unique risks posed by gene drives, which operate at the population level rather than the individual level. The lack of specific guidelines and regulatory information for gene drive research complicates the risk assessment process, as traditional biosafety measures may not be sufficient to contain the spread of gene drives (Krishnan and Gillum, 2017; Millett et al., 2020). Furthermore, the transboundary nature of gene drives, which can spread across national borders, necessitates international cooperation and harmonization of regulatory standards (Rabitz, 2021). Effective governance of gene drive technology requires adaptive risk management approaches that incorporate input from a diverse range of stakeholders, including scientists, biosafety officers, regulatory agencies, and the public (Lunshof and Birnbaum, 2017; Millett et al., 2020). This collaborative approach is essential to address the ethical, social, and legal considerations associated with gene drive research and to ensure that biosafety measures keep pace with technological advancements.

5 Ecological Risks of Gene Drive Technology

5.1 Impact on non-target species and ecosystem dynamics

Gene drive technology, while promising for controlling populations of pests and disease vectors, poses significant risks to non-target species and overall ecosystem dynamics. The potential for gene drive alleles to spill over from target to non-target populations could lead to unintended ecological consequences. For instance, differential-targeting gene drives, designed to limit spillover, may still result in gene drive fixation in non-target populations under certain conditions, thereby disrupting ecosystems (Greenbaum et al., 2019). Additionally, the rapid spread of gene drives can create strong eco-evolutionary feedbacks, profoundly affecting the dynamics and outcomes of gene drive releases (Kim et al., 2023). These unintended effects necessitate detailed analysis and careful design to mitigate risks to non-target species and maintain ecosystem balance.

5.2 Possibility of irreversible ecological changes

One of the most concerning risks associated with gene drive technology is the potential for irreversible ecological changes. Once released, gene drives can spread rapidly and uncontrollably, leading to permanent alterations in the genetic makeup of wild populations. This could result in the loss of biodiversity and the disruption of ecological functions. For example, the accidental release of a gene drive could cause irreversible damage to ecosystems, as the gene drive alleles replace wild-type alleles even if they convey a selective disadvantage (Tanaka et al., 2017). The long-term ecological impacts of such changes are difficult to predict and could have far-reaching consequences for ecosystem health and stability (Rode et al., 2019).

5.3 Long-term ecological monitoring and risk assessment

Given the potential for significant ecological impacts, long-term monitoring and comprehensive risk assessment are crucial components of gene drive technology deployment. Robust methods for predicting how gene drive systems will interact with ecosystems are essential for s.0afe implementation (Golnar et al., 2020). Existing regulatory frameworks for environmental risk assessment, such as those used for agricultural pest control, can provide valuable insights and pathways for evaluating the risks associated with gene drives (Romeis et al., 2020). However, these frameworks must be adapted to address the unique challenges posed by gene drives, including their potential for rapid spread and irreversible ecological changes. Continuous monitoring and adaptive risk management approaches are necessary to ensure that any adverse effects are detected early and mitigated effectively (Lunshof and Birnbaum, 2017).

6 Ethical and Societal Considerations

6.1 Public perception and ethical debates surrounding gene drive

Public perception and ethical debates surrounding gene drive technology are complex and multifaceted. The potential of gene drives to address significant public health and ecological issues is counterbalanced by concerns about their environmental, social, and ethical implications. For instance, the application of gene drives in agriculture has sparked debates about the potential for unintended ecological consequences and the ethical ramifications of altering natural populations (Courtier-Orgogozo et al., 2017; Gutzmann et al., 2017). Ethical discussions also focus on the broader implications of bypassing Mendelian inheritance, raising questions about the hubris of such technological interventions and the potential for unforeseen consequences. The ethical landscape is further complicated by the need to consider who should be involved in decision-making processes and how to balance the benefits and risks of gene drive technology (Callies, 2019; Kormos et al., 2022).

6.2 The role of public engagement and stakeholder involvement

Public engagement and stakeholder involvement are crucial in the development and deployment of gene drive technology. Effective engagement ensures that the voices of those who may be affected by gene drives are heard and considered. This includes local communities, policymakers, and other stakeholders who can provide valuable insights into the societal and ethical dimensions of gene drive research (Kormos et al., 2022). The co-development of gene drive technology with local stakeholders can help address concerns about marginalization and disempowerment, ensuring that the technology is developed in a way that is inclusive and equitable. Additionally, global frameworks and guidelines are needed to standardize engagement practices and ensure that ethical principles guide the research and application of gene drives (Millett et al., 2022).

6.3 Balancing scientific innovation with societal values and concerns

Balancing scientific innovation with societal values and concerns is a critical challenge in the field of gene drive research. While the technology holds promise for addressing complex issues such as vector-borne diseases and invasive species, it also raises significant ethical and societal questions. Researchers and policymakers must navigate the tension between advancing scientific knowledge and respecting societal values, which often involves addressing concerns about biosafety, ecological risks, and the potential for unintended consequences. Incorporating diverse perspectives and values into the governance of gene drive research can help ensure that the technology is developed responsibly and ethically. This includes adopting adaptive risk management approaches and engaging in continuous dialogue with a broad range of stakeholders to address the evolving challenges and opportunities presented by gene drive technology (Noble et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2023).

7 Case Study: Gene Drive in Malaria Control

7.1 Background on malaria and traditional control methods

Malaria remains a significant public health challenge, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, where it imposes substantial health and economic burdens. Traditional control methods have primarily focused on reducing mosquito populations through insecticide-treated bed nets, indoor residual spraying, and antimalarial drugs. However, these methods face limitations such as insecticide resistance and logistical challenges in widespread implementation (Gantz et al., 2015; Hayirli and Martelli, 2019). Despite these efforts, malaria continues to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths annually, necessitating the exploration of innovative control strategies.

7.2 Implementation of gene drive to reduce mosquito populations

Gene drive technology has emerged as a promising tool for malaria control by enabling the genetic modification of mosquito populations to either suppress their numbers or render them incapable of transmitting the Plasmodium parasite. Recent advancements have demonstrated the potential of CRISPR-based gene drives to spread antimalarial genes through mosquito populations with high efficiency. For instance, a gene drive system in Anopheles stephensi has shown nearly 99.5% efficiency in propagating anti-Plasmodium falciparum effector genes (James et al., 2018). Another study highlighted the use of antimicrobial peptides in Anopheles gambiae to retard Plasmodium development, thereby breaking the cycle of disease transmission (Figure 3) (Hoermann et al., 2022). These approaches aim to either reduce the mosquito population or make them refractory to the malaria parasite, offering a novel and potentially transformative method for malaria control (Nolan, 2020).

Figure 3 The gene driving strain producing AMP expression (Adopted from Hoermann et al., 2022) Image caption: (A) Schematic diagram shows the design and integration strategy of effect boxes encoding Magainin 2 and Melittin at endogenous gene loci Gam1 and CP (B) PCR analysis was performed on the genomic DNA of 15 merged homozygous Gam1-MM, MM-CP, or wild-type individuals (C) RT-PCR was performed on the midgut of wild-type (WT), Gam1-MM, and MM-CP mosquitoes (D) Next generation sequencing analysis of cDNA amplicons at splicing sites revealed predicted splicing results for strains Gam1-MM and MM-CP (Adopted from Hoermann et al., 2022)

7.3 Evaluation of biosafety and ecological risks in field trials

The deployment of gene drive mosquitoes in the field necessitates rigorous evaluation of biosafety and ecological risks. Concerns include the potential for unintended ecological consequences, such as the disruption of local ecosystems and the development of resistance in mosquito populations. A multidisciplinary working group has emphasized the importance of a step-wise testing approach, starting with confined laboratory studies and progressing to controlled field trials only after meeting stringent safety and efficacy criteria. This cautious approach aims to ensure that gene drive technologies are both safe and effective before widespread deployment. Additionally, broader public and scientific engagement is crucial to address ethical and regulatory challenges and to gain social acceptance for the use of gene drives in malaria control (Hayirli and Martelli, 2019). The ultimate goal is to develop a sustainable and ethically responsible strategy that can significantly reduce malaria transmission while minimizing ecological risks.

8 Regulatory Frameworks and International Policies

8.1 Overview of current regulatory frameworks governing gene drive research

The regulatory landscape for gene drive research is complex and multifaceted, involving various national and international frameworks. Current governance mechanisms include the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol, which provide platforms for international dialogue and policy development. Additionally, regional entities such as the African Union are developing specific frameworks to oversee gene drive organisms (Thizy et al., 2020). In the United States, the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition has contributed to governance by developing adaptive risk management approaches and emphasizing the need for regular technology horizon scanning (Millett et al., 2022). The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have also highlighted the importance of biosafety and ethical considerations in gene drive research (Heitman et al., 2016). Despite these efforts, there remains a significant need for comprehensive and harmonized regulatory frameworks that can address the unique challenges posed by gene drives (Rabitz, 2021).

8.2 International cooperation and guidelines for safe use of gene drive technology

International cooperation is crucial for the safe use of gene drive technology, given its potential for transboundary effects. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety serves as a focal point for international biotechnology regulation, emphasizing pre-release risk assessment and post-release monitoring. The World Health Organization and the International Union for Conservation of Nature also provide platforms for international dialogue and guideline development. Collaborative efforts are essential to ensure that gene drive research is conducted responsibly and that potential ecological and societal impacts are adequately addressed. The development of international guidelines, such as those proposed by the gene drive community for field trials, underscores the need for transparency, public accountability, and stakeholder engagement (Long et al., 2020).

8.3 Challenges in harmonizing regulations across different regions

Harmonizing regulations across different regions presents several challenges, primarily due to varying national policies and regulatory approaches. For instance, the biosafety regulatory frameworks in Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda, and Sweden differ significantly, influenced by regional policies and international guidelines. The European Union's precautionary approach to biosafety has also impacted regulatory practices in African countries, leading to delays in the adoption of gene technologies (Ongu et al., 2023). Additionally, the lack of specific guidelines for gene drive biosafety and the need for adaptive risk management approaches further complicate regulatory harmonization (Krishnan and Gillum, 2017). Addressing these challenges requires concerted efforts to develop unified regulatory standards that can accommodate regional differences while ensuring the safe and responsible use of gene drive technology.

9 Future Directions for Gene Drive Research and Development

9.1 Innovations to enhance biosafety and minimize ecological risks

The future of gene drive technology hinges on the development of innovative strategies to enhance biosafety and minimize ecological risks. Current research emphasizes the need for adaptive risk management approaches that incorporate a broad range of expertise and governance methods to address the unique challenges posed by gene drives. Advances in biocontainment systems, such as genetic circuit engineering and genome editing, are crucial for confining engineered organisms and preventing unintended environmental release (Lee et al., 2018). Additionally, incorporating ecological features into gene drive models is essential to realistically evaluate gene drive dynamics and potential outcomes, ensuring that ecological processes are considered in risk assessments. The development of sensitized gene drives that can be halted by specific compounds offers a promising method to control the spread of gene drives and mitigate potential ecological damage (Tanaka et al., 2017).

9.2 Strategies for reversible gene drives and controlled release

Reversible gene drives and controlled release mechanisms are critical for the responsible deployment of gene drive technology. Research has highlighted the importance of developing gene drives that can be reversed or controlled post-release to prevent irreversible ecological impacts (Tanaka et al., 2017). Strategies such as the use of sensitized drives, which can be stopped by finite-width barriers or specific compounds, provide a safeguard against accidental release and uncontrolled spread. Furthermore, the integration of dynamic models and quantitative tools can streamline empirical research and guide risk management, ensuring that gene drive systems interact safely with ecosystems (Golnar et al., 2020). Collaborative efforts involving scientists, biosafety officers, and ethics consultants are essential to maximize safety and scientific progress in gene drive experiments.

9.3 The future role of gene drive in addressing global challenges

Gene drive technology holds significant promise for addressing global challenges in public health, agriculture, and conservation. The potential applications of gene drives in controlling vector-borne diseases, such as malaria and Zika virus, could lead to durable and cost-effective strategies for reducing disease transmission and improving public health outcomes (Emerson et al., 2017). In agriculture, gene drives offer a novel approach to managing agricultural pests and invasive species, thereby enhancing food security and protecting biodiversity. Additionally, gene drives could play a crucial role in conservation biology by providing humane methods for eliminating invasive species from sensitive ecosystems. However, the successful implementation of gene drive technology requires robust governance frameworks and international cooperation to address biosafety, ethical, and societal concerns (Rabitz, 2021). As the technology advances, ongoing research and dialogue will be essential to harness its potential while mitigating risks.

10 Concluding Remarks

In this study, we explored the dual challenges of biosafety and ecological risks associated with the future of gene drive technology, emphasizing the transformative potential of gene drive in controlling vector borne diseases, agricultural pests, and invasive species, as well as the significant risks and ethical issues associated with its deployment. The rapid development of CRISPR based gene drives has shown promising results in laboratory environments, but the ecological and evolutionary dynamics of these technologies in natural environments are still largely theoretical and require further research. Potential unexpected ecological impacts and gene driven transmission across political boundaries require strong regulatory frameworks and comprehensive risk assessments.

To ensure responsible development and deployment of gene drive technology, we recommend taking several key actions. It is crucial to incorporate ecological features into gene drive models to realistically evaluate their dynamics and potential outcomes. Secondly, developing strategies and technologies for precise spatiotemporal control of gene drives is crucial for mitigating unintended consequences. We must work together and engage with different stakeholders, including scientists, policy makers, and the public, to promote transparent and inclusive discussions on the ethical and social impacts of gene drives.

Further research is needed to address the gaps in our understanding of gene drive systems, particularly in the context of their long-term ecological impacts and potential for resistance development. Ethical considerations should guide the research and deployment of gene drives, ensuring that the benefits to public health and the environment are balanced against the risks. Finally, robust regulatory oversight is imperative to manage the environmental and societal risks associated with gene drive technology, drawing on existing frameworks and developing new guidelines as necessary. By addressing these challenges, we can harness the potential of gene drives while safeguarding ecological integrity and public trust.

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to Dr. Jin for critically reading the manuscript and providing valuable feedback that improved the clarity of the text.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

The author affirms that this research was conducted without any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

Amo V., Bishop A., C., H., Bennett J., Feng X., Marshall J., Bier E., and Gantz V., 2020, A transcomplementing gene drive provides a flexible platform for laboratory investigation and potential field deployment, Nature Communications, 11.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13977-7
PMid:31953404 PMCid:PMC6969112

Bier E., 2021, Gene drives gaining speed, Nature Reviews, Genetics, 23(1): 5-22.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-021-00386-0
PMid:34363067 PMCid:PMC8344398

Callies D., 2019, The ethical landscape of gene drive research, Health Care Law and Policy eJournal. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12640
PMid:31389027

Collins J., 2018, Gene drives in our future: challenges of and opportunities for using a self-sustaining technology in pest and vector management, BMC Proceedings, 12.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12919-018-0110-4
PMid:30079101 PMCid:PMC6069294

Courtier-Orgogozo V., Morizot B., and Boëte C., 2017, Agricultural pest control with CRISPR‐based gene drive: time for public debate, EMBO Reports, 18: 878-880.

https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201744205
PMid:28512121 PMCid:PMC5452019

Devos Y., Mumford J., Bonsall M., Camargo A., Firbank L., Glandorf D., Nogué F., Paraskevopoulos K., and Wimmer E., 2021, Potential use of gene drive modified insects against disease vectors agricultural pests and invasive species poses new challenges for risk assessment, Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 42: 254-270.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2021.1933891
PMid:34167401

Emerson C., James S., Littler K., and Randazzo F., 2017, Principles for gene drive research, Science (New York N.y.), 358: 1135-1136.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9026
PMid:29191896 PMCid:PMC6510297

Esvelt K., Smidler A., Catteruccia F., and Church G., 2014, Concerning RNA-guided gene drives for the alteration of wild populations, eLife, 3.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03401
PMid:25035423 PMCid:PMC4117217

Gantz V., Jasinskiene N., Tatarenkova O., Fazekas A., Macias V., Bier E., and James A., 2015, Highly efficient Cas9-mediated gene drive for population modification of the malaria vector mosquito Anopheles stephensi, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112: E6736-E6743.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521077112
PMid:26598698 PMCid:PMC4679060

Giese B., Frieß J., Barton N., Messer P., Débarre F., Schetelig M., Windbichler N., Meimberg H., and Boëte C., 2019, Gene drives: dynamics and regulatory matters-a report from the workshop “Evaluation of Spatial and Temporal Control of Gene Drives”, April 4-5 2019 Vienna., BioEssays: News and Reviews in Molecular Cellular and Developmental Biology, e1900151.

https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201900151
PMid:31589334

Golnar A., Ruell E., Lloyd A., and Pepin K., 2020, Embracing dynamic models for gene drive management, Trends in Biotechnology.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.08.011
PMid:33010965

Graeff N., Jongsma K., Lunshof J., and Bredenoord A., 2021, Governing gene drive technologies: a qualitative interview study, AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 13: 107-124.

https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2021.1941417
PMid:34219621

Greenbaum G., Feldman M., Rosenberg N., and Kim J., 2019, Designing gene drives to limit spillover to non-target populations, PLoS Genetics, 17.

https://doi.org/10.1101/680744

Gutzmann N., Elsensohn J., Barnes J., Baltzegar J., Jones M., and Sudweeks J., 2017, CRISPR‐based gene drive in agriculture will face technical and governance challenges, EMBO Reports, 18.

https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201744661
PMid:28784603 PMCid:PMC5579356

Hayirli T., and Martelli P., 2019, Gene drives as a response to infection and resistance, Infection and Drug Resistance, 12: 229-234.

https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S187424
PMid:30666138 PMCid:PMC6336018

Heitman E., Sawyer K., and Collins J., 2016, Gene drives on the horizon, Applied Biosafety, 21: 173-176.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1535676016672631

Hoermann A., Habtewold T., Selvaraj P., Corsano G., Capriotti P., Inghilterra M., Kebede T., Christophides G., and Windbichler N., 2022, Gene drive mosquitoes can aid malaria elimination by retarding Plasmodium sporogonic development, Science Advances, 8.

https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abo1733
PMid:36129981 PMCid:PMC9491717

James S., Collins F., Welkhoff P., Emerson C., Godfray H., Gottlieb M., Greenwood B., Lindsay S., Mbogo C., Okumu F., Okumu F., Okumu F., Quemada H., Savadogo M., Singh J., Tountas K., and Touré Y., 2018, Pathway to deployment of gene drive mosquitoes as a potential biocontrol tool for elimination of malaria in sub-Saharan Africa: recommendations of a scientific working group, The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 98: 1-49.

https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.18-0083
PMid:29882508 PMCid:PMC5993454

Kim J., Harris K., Kim I., Shemesh S., Messer P., and Greenbaum G., 2023, Incorporating ecology into gene drive modelling., Ecology Letters 26 Suppl, 1: S62-S80.

https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.14194

Kormos A., Lanzaro G., Bier E., Santos V., Nazaré L., Pinto J., Santos A., and James A., 2022, Ethical considerations for gene drive: challenges of balancing inclusion power and perspectives, Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 10.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.826727
PMid:35127663 PMCid:PMC8814439 

Krishnan P., and Gillum D., 2017, Gene drive 101, Applied Biosafety, 22: 181-184.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1535676017731318

Lee J., Chan C., Slomovic S., and Collins J., 2018, Next-generation biocontainment systems for engineered organisms, Nature Chemical Biology, 14: 530-537.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41589-018-0056-x
PMid:29769737

Legros M., Marshall J., Macfadyen S., Hayes K., Sheppard A., and Barrett L., 2021, Gene drive strategies of pest control in agricultural systems: challenges and opportunities, Evolutionary Applications, 14: 2162-2178.

https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.13285
PMid:34603490 PMCid:PMC8477592

Long K., Alphey L., Annas G., Bloss C., Campbell K., Champer J., Chen C., Choudhary A., Church G., Collins J., Cooper K., Delborne J., Edwards O., Emerson C., Esvelt K., Evans S., Friedman R., Gantz V., Gould F., Hartley S., Heitman E., Hemingway J., Kanuka H., Kuzma J., Lavery J., Lee Y., Lorenzen M., Lunshof J., Marshall J., Messer P., Montell C., Oye K., Palmer M., Papathanos P., Paradkar P., Piaggio A., Rasgon J., Rašić G., Rudenko L., Saah J., Scott M., Sutton J., Vorsino A., and Akbari O., 2020, Core commitments for field trials of gene drive organisms, Science, 370: 1417-1419.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd1908
PMid:33335055

Lunshof J., and Birnbaum A., 2017, Adaptive risk management of gene drive experiments: biosafety, biosecurity, and ethics, Applied Biosafety, 22(3): 97-103.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1535676017721488

Millett P., Alexanian T., Palmer M., Evans S., Kuiken T., and Oye K., 2022, iGEM and gene drives: a case study for governance, Health Security, 20: 26-34.

https://doi.org/10.1089/hs.2021.0157

PMid:35020492 PMCid:PMC8892970

Noble C., Min J., Olejarz J., Buchthal J., Chavez A., Smidler A., DeBenedictis E., Church G., Nowak M., and Esvelt K., 2016, Daisy-chain gene drives for the alteration of local populations, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116: 8275-8282.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1716358116
PMid:30940750 PMCid:PMC6486765

Nolan T., 2020, Control of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes using gene drives, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 376.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0803
PMid:33357060 PMCid:PMC7776936

Ongu I., Olayide P., Alexandersson E., Zawedde B., and Eriksson D., 2023, Biosafety regulatory frameworks in Kenya Nigeria Uganda and Sweden and their potential impact on international RandD collaborations, GM Crops and Food. 14: 1-17.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2023.2194221
PMid:36987578 PMCid:PMC10072116

Overcash J., and Golnar A., 2021, Facilitating the conversation: gene drive classification., Health Security.

https://doi.org/10.1089/hs.2021.0109
PMid:34964654

Raban R., Marshall J., and Akbari O., 2020, Progress towards engineering gene drives for population control, Journal of Experimental Biology, 223.

https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.208181
PMid:32034041 PMCid:PMC7790193

Rabitz F., 2021, The international governance of gene drive organisms, Environmental Politics, 31: 949-968.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1959756

Rode N., Estoup A., Bourguet D., Courtier-Orgogozo V., and Débarre F., 2019, Population management using gene drive: molecular design models of spread dynamics and assessment of ecological risks, Conservation Genetics, 20: 671-690.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-019-01165-5

Romeis J., Collatz J., Glandorf D., and Bonsall M., 2020, The value of existing regulatory frameworks for the environmental risk assessment of agricultural pest control using gene drives, Environmental Science and Policy. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.02.016

Tanaka H., Stone H., and Nelson D., 2017, Spatial gene drives and pushed genetic waves, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114: 8452-8457.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1705868114
PMid:28743753 PMCid:PMC5559037

Thizy D., Coche I., and Vries J., 2020, Providing a policy framework for responsible gene drive research: an analysis of the existing governance landscape and priority areas for further research, Wellcome Open Research, 5.

https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16023.1
PMid:32954016 PMCid:PMC7477640

Verkuijl S., Ang J., Alphey L., Bonsall M., and Anderson M., 2022, The challenges in developing efficient and robust synthetic homing endonuclease gene drives, Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 10.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.856981
PMid:35419354 PMCid:PMC8996256

Yan Y., and Finnigan G., 2019, Analysis of CRISPR gene drive design in budding yeast, Access Microbiology, 1.

https://doi.org/10.1099/acmi.0.000059
PMid:32974560 PMCid:PMC7472540