BMC Medical Ethics 22 (1):1-15 (2021)

Abstract
BackgroundGene drive technologies promote the rapid spread of a particular genetic element within a population of non-human organisms. Potential applications of GDTs include the control of insect vectors, invasive species and agricultural pests. Whether, and if so, under what conditions, GDTs should be deployed is hotly debated. Although broad stances in this debate have been described, the convictions that inform the moral views of the experts shaping these technologies and related policies have not been examined in depth in the academic literature.MethodsIn this qualitative study, we interviewed GDT experts from different disciplines to identify and better understand their moral views regarding these technologies. The pseudonymized transcripts were analyzed thematically.ResultsThe respondents’ moral views were principally influenced by their attitudes towards the uncertainty related to GDTs; the alternatives to which they should be compared; and the role humans should have in nature. Respondents agreed there is epistemic uncertainty related to GDTs, identified similar knowledge gaps, and stressed the importance of realistic expectations in discussions on GDTs. They disagreed about whether uncertainty provides a rationale to refrain from field trials or to proceed with phased testing to obtain more knowledge given the harms of the status quo. With regards to alternatives to tackle vector-borne diseases, invasive species and agricultural pests, respondents disagreed about which alternatives should be considered feasible and sufficiently explored: conventional strategies or systematic changes to health care, political and agricultural systems. Finally, respondents held different views on nature and whether the use of GDTs is compatible with humans’ role in nature or not.ConclusionsThis interview study helps to disentangle the debate on GDTs by providing a better understanding of the moral views of GDT experts. The obtained insights provide valuable stepping-stones for a constructive debate about underlying value conflicts and call attention to topics that deserve further reflection. Further evaluation of these issues can facilitate the debate on and responsible development of GDTs.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1186/s12910-021-00588-5
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 60,920
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Spinning the Genome: Why Science Hype Matters.Timothy Caulfield - 2018 - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 61 (4):560-571.
Dimensions of Naturalness.Helena Siipi - 2008 - Ethics and the Environment 13 (1):pp. 71-103.

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Why Moral Expertise Needs Moral Theory.Michael Cholbi - 2018 - In Jamie Carlin Watson & Laura K. Guidry-Grimes (eds.), Moral Expertise: New Essays from Theoretical and Clinical Bioethics. Springer International Publishing. pp. 71-86.
Are Moral Philosophers Moral Experts?Bernward Gesang - 2010 - Bioethics 24 (4):153-159.
Practical Moral Codes in the Transgenic Organism Debate.D. R. Cooley, Gary Goreham & George A. Youngs - 2003 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (6):517-544.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-03-09

Total views
6 ( #1,087,945 of 2,439,316 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #113,568 of 2,439,316 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes