Gene drives are a new biotechnology development that allow humans the unprecedented capability to profoundly alter or even drive to extinction entire populations or whole species of organisms. Are they a valued tool for conservation? Or are they more likely to fail, make matters worse, and fall into the hands of those who seek profit-making at all cost? Or will they be used for military applications?

This page serves as a platform to gather and share critical perspective on gene drives. Below you will find recent resources and further information on the subject, including videos, briefings and campaigning tools. This page will grow as resistance to gene drive technologies does, so come back regularly! You can also find contact information below for the Civil Society Working Group on Gene Drives, should you wish to get in touch or find out more.

Five key decisions for COP 13 & COP-MOP 8

December 2016

Synthetic biology describes the next generation of biotechnologies that attempt to engineer, re-design, re-edit and synthesize biological systems, including at the genetic level. Synthetic biology goes far beyond the first generation of ‘transgenic’ engineered organisms. Predicted to be almost a 40 billion dollar (US) market by 2020, industrial activity in synthetic biology is rapidly exploding as new genome editing tools and cheaper synthesis of DNA make it easier and faster to genetically re-design or alter biological organisms.

Synthetic biology threatens to undermine all three objectives of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) if Parties fail to act on the following 5 key issues:

1. Operational Definition. It’s time for the CBD to adopt an operational definition of synthetic biology.

2. Precaution: Gene drives. Gene drives pose wide ecological and societal threats and should be placed under a moratorium.

3. Biopiracy: Digital Sequences. Synthetic biology allows for digital theft and use of DNA sequences – this must be addressed by both the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol.

4. Socio-economic Impacts: Sustainable Use. The CBD needs a process to address impacts of synthetic biology on sustainable use of biodiversity.

5. Cartagena Protocol: Risk Assessment. Parties to the COP-MOP 8 need to clearly move forward with elaborating risk assessment guidance on synthetic biology.

EPISODE DESCRIPTION

“Genetic engineering is passé. Today, scientists aren’t just mapping genomes and manipulating genes, they’re building life from scratch - and they're doing it in the absence of societal debate and regulatory oversight."

- Pat Mooney, Executive Director of ETC Group, whose mission is to access the consequences and impacts of new technologies.

Our two guests are: Claire Hope Cummings, author of Uncertain Peril: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds. Her concerns are how gene drives are proposed for use in conservation (Island Conservation’s daughterless mouse) and the whole idea of the eradication of the female (daughterless anything) and anything people need to know about the regulatory issues - most notably that there is no regulatory response to these new developments and the response to GMOs was terribly inadequate and facilitated widespread contamination, among other risks which are still a problem.

Jim Thomas is a Research Programme Manager and Writer at ETC Group, located in Ottawa, Canada. His background is in communications, writing on emerging technologies and international campaigning. For the seven years previous to joining ETC Group Jim was a researcher and campaigner on Genetic Engineering and food issues for Greenpeace International - working in Europe, North America, Australia/New Zealand and South East Asia. He has extensive experience on issues around transgenic crops and nanotechnologies has written articles, chapters and technical reports in the media and online. Trained as a historian to look back at the history of technology, Jim is now busy communicating the future of technology.

Biologische Landwirtschaft in Afrika ist produktiv, wirtschaftlich und ressourcenschonend

The safety of such genome-editing techniques relies on two premises: 1) Changes only in the intended places and 2) Only the changes intended. However, off-target effects may occur, and the more off-target activity there is, the more likely unintended and potentially adverse effects might arise. In addition, the DNA modification that results may show large variation, with many knowledge gaps remaining.

The author calls for proper regulation and mandatory risk assessment for genome-edited products. It is crucial that regulators ask for experimental evidence to address potential adverse effects of genome-editing techniques in order to avoid a vacuum in the risk assessment of such organisms.

Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety will meet in Cancún, Mexico from 4th to 17th December, where the issue of synthetic biology, of which genome-editing is a supporting technology, will be discussed. It is critical that the biosafety and risk assessment aspects of genome-editing techniques are considered, so as to ensure that robust and comprehensive regulatory oversight is provided for synthetic biology.

The European Union should apply strict approval standards to new generations of gene-edited crops similar to those for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Germany's junior environment minister said on Tuesday.

Gene-editing technology such as CRISPR/Cas9 allows scientists to edit genes by using biological "scissors" which can find and replace selected stretches of DNA.

Disease-resistant pigs and field crops are being developed but there have been calls for the new techniques to be subjected to the strict approval system for GMO plants.

The German government, traditionally skeptical of GMOs and other biotech food, is still formulating its policy toward the new generation of gene-edited agricultural products.

"It is important that GMO approval criteria should be applied here," junior environment minister Jochen Flasbarth told Reuters.

This is because the changes in the plants can have a significant impact and the possibly to turn back changes may not be available without a strict approval process, he said.

The EU is also still considering whether to class gene-edited plants as genetically modified. Supporters of the new technology maintain this is unneeded as no extra genes are added to the crops.

Carlsberg claims barley and beer as its invention

17 November 2016

In 2016, the European Patent Office (EPO) granted three patents to the Danish brewery, Carlsberg. The patents cover barley plants derived from conventional breeding, their usage in brewing as well as the beer brewed thereof. In a joint letter, several civil society organisations are now calling on Carlsberg to drop these patents. They consider the patents to be an abuse of patent law and in conflict with the interests of consumers.

“There should be no patents on beer and barley. Breeding plants and brewing beer are not inventions, but based on centuries-old tradition,” says Erling Frederiksen from Friends of the Earth in Denmark (NOAH). “Carlsberg should make it clear that they just want to produce good beer and are not acting against the interests of citizens and consumers. We do not want corporate control of our food or patent monopolies. No matter whether they are held by Monsanto, Bayer or Carlsberg.”

The letter to Carlsberg is supported by: Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerliche Landwirtschaft, AbL (Germany), Arche Noah (Austria), BioAustria (Austria), Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz, BUND, Friends of the Earth (Germany), Frøsamlerne/Danish Seed Savers (Denmark), Die Freien Bäcker (Germany), GAIA - Environmental Action and Intervention Group (Portugal), GeneWatch UK (Great Britain), Gesellschaft für ökologische Forschung (Germany), IG Saatgut (Germany), IG Nachbau (Germany), NOAH – Friends of the Earth (Denmark), No Patents on Life! (Germany), Plataforma Transgénicos Fora, PTF (Portugal), PublicEye (Switzerland), ProSpecieRara (Switzerland), Pro Regenwald (Germany), Safe our Seeds, SOS (Germany), Sambucus (Germany), SWISSAID (Switzerland), Umweltinstitut München (Germany), Utviklingsfondet / The Development Fund (Norway), Verband Katholisches Landvolk e.V. (Germany), WeMove (EU), Zivilcourage Miesbach (Germany).

OPINION: Should the Seed vault on Svalbard collect and preserve GMO-seeds?

By: Fern Wickson, GenØk - Centre for Biosafety

Biotechnology is rapidly evolving through developments in genome editing and synthetic biology, giving birth to new forms of life.

This technology has already given us genetically modified (GM) plants that produce bacterial pesticides, GM mosquitos that are sterile and GM mice that develop human cancers.

Now, new biotechnological techniques are promising to deliver a whole host of new lifeforms designed to serve our purposes – pigs with human organs, chickens that lay eggs containing cholesterol controlling drugs, and monkeys that develop autism. The possibilities seem endless.

But do these genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have conservation value?

The biodiversity of life on earth is globally recognised as valuable and in need of protection. This includes not just wild biodiversity but also the biodiversity of agricultural crop plants that humans have developed over thousands of years.

But what about the synthetic forms of biodiversity we are now developing through biotechnologies? Does anyone care about this synbiodiversity?

It’s a question I was compelled to ask while conducting research into the Svalbard Global Seed Vault (SGSV).

A frozen ‘Noah’s Ark’ for seeds

(.....)

How do we care for GM crops?

The model of freezing seeds in genebanks and backing up those collections at the SGSV is one way to conserve biodiversity. Another, however, is the approach of continuing to cultivate them in our agricultural landscapes.

While this model of conservation has generated and maintained the biodiversity of traditional crop varieties for thousands of years, there is now a significant shift taking place. More than 90% of traditional crop varieties have now disappeared from our fields and been replaced by genetically uniform modern varieties cultivated in large-scale monocultures. Meaning, there may be no GM crops frozen in the SGSV, but there are plenty in the ground.

So this leaves me questioning what it is we really cherish? Are we using our precious agricultural resources to expand the diversity of humanity’s common heritage?

Or are we rather placing our common heritage on ice while we expand the ecological space occupied by privately owned inventions? And who cares about synbiodiversity anyway?

Fern Wickson, Senior Scientist & Program Coordinator, GenØk - Centre for Biosafety

The Center for Food Safety celebrated a huge victory in Sonoma County, California, on Wednesday when voters approved a measure that will prohibit genetically engineered crops from being planted in the county. The passage of the Sonoma County Transgenic Contamination Ordinance, better known as Measure M, will protect local and organic growers and producers who choose not to plant GMO seed.

European governments need to ensure new rules of interpretation become legally binding

3 November 2016 / In a long awaited explanatory statement, the EU Commission takes the view that plants and animals that are obtained by means of “essentially biological” breeding are non-patentable. This statement is in strong contradiction to the current practice of the European Patent Office (EPO), which has already granted more than 100 patents on conventional breeding, e.g. on tomatoes and broccoli.

The international coalition No Patents on Seeds! has for many years been demanding that these patents are stopped. With the support of many thousands of supporters, they have filed petitions and oppositions. They are seriously concerned about the increasing monopolisation of the seed and food production. The organisations in the international coalition are now calling on the political decision-makers to ensure that the EPO fully adopts the EU statement, and the rules for the interpretation of patent law become legally binding.