Unkategorisiert
The need for horizon scanning and technology assessment to address the evolving nature of genetic engineering
This is an excerpt of a Briefing Paper by Third World Network published in June 2022
Introduction
The governance and regulation of advancing life and agricultural sciences is lagging behind technical innovations and our evolving understanding of the science underpinning genetic engineering technologies. Such technologies, mainly in the form of transgenic techniques, were first commercialized nearly three decades ago, though few traits have reached the market. With advances in science and technology, the field is attempting to explore new genetic engineering techniques that can expand the scope, applicability and depth of intervention.
New genetic engineering techniques, however, are evolving beyond the current scope of legal definitions, risk governance and consent mechanisms, with interventions increasingly moving towards ecosystem-wide projects for crop, human health and climate or biodiversity conservation interventions (Greiter et al., 2022; Heinemann, 2019; Sirinathsinghji, 2019). Such advances at the technical level are raising novel biosafety risks that urgently warrant updated assessment methodologies and regulations to address significant biosafety knowledge gaps and increasing levels of uncertainty about how these technologies will impact biodiversity and human health.
Moreover, thorough scrutiny of their potential limitations to alleviate the societal problems they are purported to address, and which existing living modified organisms (LMOs) have not been able to combat, is also needed. Indeed, many of the original concerns raised about LMO commercialization have been borne out, including efficacy problems and unintended agronomic and ecological effects resulting in repeated crop failures and economic damage, particularly for smallholder farmers (for example, see ENSSER, 2021; Kranthi & Stone, 2020; Luna & Dowd-Uribe, 2020; Wilson, 2021). While new technologies are being developed to address the problems that first-generation LMOs failed to solve, proponents are again hyping up the potential benefits and making blanket claims about safety.
In this context, it is imperative that horizon scanning and technology assessment are fully operationalized to protect biodiversity and human health from the new genetic engineering technologies, including synthetic biology, that are yet to be fully understood, and currently difficult, if not impossible, to control, reverse or recall from the environment following release.
(....)
Gene drive technologies
Gene drive technologies are a form of genetic engineering designed to skew inheritance of the engineered trait such that most, if not all, offspring will inherit the trait, with the aim of rapidly “driving” it through a population. Various applications have been proposed, with the most advanced and promoted being gene drive mosquitoes that aim to reduce vector-borne disease burden, such as malaria or dengue fever. The Target Malaria project aims to use gene drives to eliminate mosquito populations (population suppression) by spreading infertility or gender-bias traits, while other projects aim to alter transmission (population modification) of disease pathogens to humans. Agricultural applications such as the elimination of pests, as well as conservation applications such as the elimination of invasive species, are also envisaged (CSS et al., 2019).
Various molecular mechanisms are being deployed to achieve the driving characteristic, the most common being the use of genome editing technologies such as CRISPR systems. These are incorporated into the gene drive organism in order to carry out genetic engineering “live” inside wild organisms, “cutting and
pasting” transgenic DNA at each generation for perpetuity. Described as transferring the laboratory to the field (Simon et al., 2018), rather than the genetic engineering being performed in the laboratory where, in theory, it can be assessed for biosafety concerns, the continuing engineering process means that any
unintended effect cannot be ruled out prior to release.
Unintended effects at the molecular level have been widely documented with genome editing techniques such as those deployed for gene drives. These include on-target and off-target effects, novel protein production and cellular impacts (e.g., see Agapito-Tenfen et al., 2018; Biswas et al., 2020; Brunner et al., 2019; GeneWatch UK, 2021; Ihry et al., 2018; Kawall, 2019; Norris et al., 2020; Ono et al., 2019; Skryabin et al., 2020; Tuladhar et al., 2019), with next-generation effects (Zhang et al., 2018). These unintended effects may continue to occur or accumulate following release, and spread with unknown consequences with regard to their interaction with the environment, pathogens or humans who may be exposed to gene drive organisms and any pathogen within them. The evolutionary impacts of such nextgeneration effects are completely unknown, and raise novel challenges to risk assessment methodologies, as concluded by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety’s Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Risk Assessment and Risk Management (AHTEG, 2020).
Unlike existing LMOs, gene drives are designed to spread and persist. The ecological consequences of this are unknown, for example any potential impacts on the target organism’s wider food webs, or non-target organisms that are connected via gene flow to the target organism itself. Ecological effects may take decades to become visible, and are notoriously difficult to study. Using gene drives to remove invasive species can have unexpected detrimental effects if functional roles within ecosystems have been embedded (Lim & Traavik, 2007; Sirinathsinghji, 2020). Such interventions also introduce the risk that they may spread to the target organism within its native range, with potentially serious ecological harm.
Discussions around disease applications have also not given sufficient consideration to potential negative impacts on disease epidemiology. How any unintended or intended effect may impact on disease transmission is unknown and difficult to assess prior to release (Beisel & Boëte, 2013; Sirinathsinghji, 2020). For example, how the modifications may alter disease transmission, or pathogenicity of the target (or non-target) pathogen, particularly with population modification drives that will exert pressure on the pathogens to evolve around the modified trait. Most crucially, such risks, as partially acknowledged by developers (James et al., 2020), cannot be comprehensively assessed in the lab. Moreover, the capacity for vectors to transmit disease is mediated by wider environmental factors, e.g., bacterial symbionts in mosquitoes. How the genetic engineering process impacts on these factors is highly uncertain. Further, whether gene drives will positively impact disease epidemiology, even if they are capable of reducing mosquito numbers, is still questionable.
Finally, gene drives are currently irreversible, and there are no existing strategies to recall, reverse or mitigate a gene drive release. While there are proposals to release mitigating drive systems in response to a gene drive going awry, these only add uncertainty and complexity, with research recently demonstrating unintended genetic effects with some techniques in laboratory flies (Xu et al., 2020). How different genetic elements interact once multiple systems are released into the environment, with continued development of novel gene drive systems, adds yet more uncertainty and complexity that warrant horizon scanning to continually monitor such developments. New developments are also taking place in bacterial systems with applications for addressing antibiotic resistance and bacterial infections, by taking advantage of the natural processes of horizontal gene transfer in bacteria. These developments have thus far garnered little attention but require further monitoring.
Technology assessment that incorporates not only biosafety, but also suitability, ethical and political considerations, is needed. Issues around consent, particularly in obtaining the free, prior and informed consent of potentially affected IPLCs, are critical and part of the broader discussions around gene drives. Social, political and commercial determinants of disease need to be taken into account when weighing up potential costs and benefits of gene drive applications. A narrow focus on vector control may risk marginalizing key health determinants such as strengthening healthcare systems, access to treatments, poverty alleviation and wider sanitation interventions, which should be incorporated into the technology assessment discussions.
(....)
Conclusion
Genetic engineering technologies and their applications are rapidly evolving. They are, however, being framed by proponents as safe, necessary or even as falling outside of LMO definitions, in various attempts to avoid the scrutiny required to protect against potential risks to biodiversity. Emerging techniques such as genome editing that are being applied to crops, gene drive technologies, genetically engineered viruses, HEGAAs and more, pose a plethora of risks and unintended effects, which are already notably acknowledged in biomedical fields (Burgio & Teboul, 2020; Ledford, 2020; National Academy of Medicine (U.S.) et al., 2020).
Nonetheless, proponents are intending to release these technologies into the environment, with explicit intent to increase the scale and levels of intervention beyond agroecosystems, directly into wild species and ecosystems. Reduction of genetic diversity, even at the level of a single gene, can impact food webs and ecosystems, such that even without unintended effects of the genetic engineering process itself, the impacts of altering genes in open settings are unpredictable, with potential adverse effects (Barbour et al.,2022). Genetic changes by human activity can bypass the processes of evolution for their establishment and spread in nature (Heinemann et al., 2021), raising new levels of uncertainty and risk. Moreover, this will occur in the context of fundamental knowledge gaps around how such interventions will interact with complex, wild ecosystems.
Gene drives, RNAi and genetically engineered viruses are just a few examples of some technologies on the horizon or already reaching markets. More applications, including of synthetic biology, and new genetic technologies are in the pipeline.
It is imperative that there is:
- horizon scanning so that regulators and policy makers can keep abreast of the science, have information relevant for risk assessment and risk management, and thus be adequately prepared for whatever technologies are approaching; and
- technology assessment so that these new technologies can be robustly assessed, not just for their environmental and human health impacts, but also for their social, cultural and ethical implications. The CBD, as the near-universal legally binding treaty governing biodiversity, must therefore include and operationalize horizon scanning and technology assessment, including in its post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.
Interview with Dr. Sory
Gene Drives will most probably be released first to fight malaria. We therefore created this series of interviews with health care experts, researchers and civil society to amplify their voices and concerns around this technology.
How did you get involved with Gene Drives as a burkinabé epidemiologist?
Dr. Sory is an epidemiologist with 10 years of experience. Among others he has been the director of quality of the biggest hospital in Burkina Faso from 2016-2018, the focal point for non-transmittable diseases, member of the COVID 19 epidemic response unit and part of the Atlanta Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
His focus has always been on the big questions around public health. He got involved with Gene Drives when he headed a group of civil societies raising questions about the research conducted by Target Malaria. He eventually dropped out when the Regional Director of the Bobo Dioulasso Health Science Research Institute informed them about the release of genetically engineered mosquitoes on a too short notice. Seen that this did not give them any chance to react, he decided to leave the organization so as to not raise the impression that his group was consulted and agreed on that - seen that this was not the case at all. His main concerns back then and still nowadays around gene drive mosquitoes are that it is an untested technology whose indirect or direct impacts on human health and the environmental equilibrium cannot be predicted. He was never categorically against the release of gene drive mosquitoes, but asked for a transparent and precautionary step-by-step approach in order to properly assess all impacts.
How is the situation in Burkina Faso and what needs to be done?
Dr. Sory is positive about the existing malaria strategies in his country and the existing and upcoming measures to fight the disease.
Key to the success of the strategies is access to information, education and a change in behavior. There are strategies in Burkina Faso that are targeted towards children between 3 and 5 or pregnant women, but hygiene and sanitation remains a big problem. The upcoming vaccines seem promising to him and could be a valuable addition to the existing strategies. Furthermore, research on the efficacy and use of the artemisia plant could open new doors. Drugs are accessible in Burkina Faso and the government is subsidizing it for children under 5 and pregnant women.
What steps and approaches are needed?
A further game changer in the fight against malaria would be to involve sectors and ministries that are not dealing with health care, because malaria affects everything and in return is affected by malaria. Housing, education, agricultural practices, city planning, drainage systems, all these sectors should be involved in a holistique solution against malaria. The biggest obstacle for the disease still remains the “environmental hygiene” as Dr. Sory calls it. Everywhere the water stagnates, being it during rain or dry season. The grey water of households is flushed in the streets, there is no proper drainage system so water stagnates everywhere, which is the breeding ground for mosquitoes. When it rains the water remains literally everywhere. “We can invest billions of dollars in other measures, but if we do not resolve this issues, we won’t fight malaria.”, concludes Dr. Sory. This approach would also help in the fight against other diseases, seeing that other main mortality causes, such as diarrhea or lung diseases, result from low hygiene and sanitation standards.
What do you think about Gene Drives to fight malaria?
In regard to Gene drives Dr. Sory believes that there is not much incentive to approve a technology that affects the very basis of organisms when we cannot measure its impact, especially if there are already other solutions at hand that we could increase and support.
--
These are the interviews on the topic held so far with the following experts:
Andreas Wulf, physician and expert for global health policy at Medico International in the Berlin office, provides his views on the role of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in international health policy and his outlook on necessary conditions for the implementation of the human right to health in Africa.
Click here for the interview
Ali Tapsoba de Goamma, human rights activist, and spokesman for an alliance in Burkina Faso against the release of Gene Drive mosquitoes in his home country, on the malaria control measures implemented so far and the attitude of the local population towards the planned field trials with Gene Drive mosquitoes.
Click here for the interview
Pamela J. Weathers, professor and researcher at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, USA, on the efficacy and controversial safety of Artemisia tea infusions for treating or preventing malaria.
Click here for the interview
Lucile Cornet-Vernet, founder of La Maison de L’Artémisia, and Arnaud Nouvion describe the potential benefits of the Artémisia plant and state that more funding is needed to conduct clinical studies, proving once and for all that the plant is a great tool in the fight against malaria.
Click here and here for the interviews
More interviews to follow.
Interview with Lucile Cornet-Vernet
Gene Drives will most probably be released first to fight malaria. We therefore created this series of interviews with health care experts, researchers and civil society to amplify their voices and concerns around this technology.
How did you get to work on malaria and what are you doing?
Lucile Cornet-Vernet is the founder of “La Maison de l'Artemisia” (engl.: the house of artemisia) founded in 2012. After her friend, Alexandre Poussin, got severly sick from Malaria in Ethiopia and recovered due to a tea made from the artemisia plant she started on a one year research adventure, where she read through all the publications around artemisia and malaria, back then around 800, nowadays approximately 1500. She called doctors who worked with the plant and created a whole bibliography on the state of the art around artemisia curing malaria. She then decided to dedicate her entire work to that plant and created the first “Maison de l’Artémisia”, nowadays there are around 105 of them in 27 countries. They function as research and training centers, where especially vulnerable populations (low income or remote communities) get formations on how to grow, harvest and prepare the preventive or curative teas.
What plants are you working with and what about emerging resistances to Artemisinin?
Before they achieved this, Lucile reached out to an agronomist and they worked on adapting the seeds that originally came from the high plateaus of China to the African regions. Artemisia has a high genetic diversity. Lucile managed well to adapt the seeds to different climates.
Lucile works with two different plant varieties. The Artemisia afra and Artemisia annua. The second comes from China and has 23 different components against malaria. The first one is a bit less researched but has at least 10 components, contains no artemisinin and is a perennial bush, making it much easier for people to grow and sustain it. There has been some research published about the emergence of artemisinin resistance in south-east Asia. This does not threaten her project, says Lucile, seeing that artemisinin is only one component in the plant that fights the disease and that Artemisia afra for example does not even use that. Furthermore, this resistance has been observed for quite some time. Whereas in China, where Artemisia annua originally comes from and where the plant has been used over centuries (and is officially malaria-free since 2021) no resistance has been detected. Lucile furthermore describes the plants as “poli-therapeutical” due to their multiple anti-malarial components. That is more diverse than any drug on the market and makes it resistant to resistances.
Why isn't the plant the mainstream solution to malaria then?
The biggest obstacle to her work is that they lack funding to do large scale clinical tests with the plants, conducted by uncontestable doctors, so that the plant could be mainstreamed as a solution. Lucile has initiated a consortium with a dozen world-renowned research organizations, such as Institut Pasteur. This consortium evaluates the efficacy of artemisia and would conduct randomized tests, when funding comes in.
What makes malaria worse than most other diseases?
Lucile talks about the alarming effect malaria has on the whole continent. Apart from thousands of deaths that mostly hit the poorest, pregnant women and children, the disease creates a vicious cycle of poverty. Malaria can weaken people for a long time, which prevents farmers from sowing their seeds at the right point in time, mothers from selling their surplus on markets to generate an income or children from going to school. The world has set its mind on producing very cheap medicine against malaria, but families still have to afford the treatment, which in many cases is even wrongly produced and does not cure the people.
Lucile gives the example of the DRC, where 60% of the budget from the health ministry is spent on malaria control, keeping the country trapped.
What do you think about Gene Drives?
Regarding gene drives, Lucile does not see them as a solution. She has a quite clear stance against GMOs. She managed to adapt the Artemisia seeds to a whole continent, with different climates and ecosystems, without knocking in a gene for heat resistance. “Before doing something complicated, why not do it easy?” We can’t know what the effects of GDOs are, therefore she’d propose to rather work on the solutions we have at hand. Like the artemisia plant, that would give back the power to the people to treat themselves. The solution is effective, cheap, with a low carbon footprint and local.
____
Further videos: https://youtu.be/xI_dKFhojhM
The book published by Lucile: Artemisia | Actes Sud (actes-sud.fr)
--
These are the interviews on the topic held so far with the following experts:
Andreas Wulf, physician and expert for global health policy at Medico International in the Berlin office, provides his views on the role of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in international health policy and his outlook on necessary conditions for the implementation of the human right to health in Africa.
Click here for the interview
Ali Tapsoba de Goamma, human rights activist, and spokesman for an alliance in Burkina Faso against the release of Gene Drive mosquitoes in his home country, on the malaria control measures implemented so far and the attitude of the local population towards the planned field trials with Gene Drive mosquitoes.
Click here for the interview
Pamela J. Weathers, professor and researcher at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, USA, on the efficacy and controversial safety of Artemisia tea infusions for treating or preventing malaria.
Click here for the interview
Arnaud Nouvion, consultant La Maison de L’Artémisia, describes the potential benefits of the Artémisia plant and state that more funding is needed to conduct clinical studies, proving once and for all that the plant is a great tool in the fight against malaria.
Click here for the interview
More interviews to follow.
Interview with Arnaud Nouvion
Gene Drives will most probably be released first to fight malaria. We therefore created this series of interviews with health care experts, researchers and civil society to amplify their voices and concerns around this technology.
How is the financial situation around Malaria?
“It is great how much money is available these days to fight diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis or aids. The Global Fund has recently raised 14 billion dollars, from which a big chunk is dedicated to malaria. Most of the money is spent on nets, the newest medicine and the vaccin.”, says Arnaud Nouvion from the Maison de l’Artémisia (engl.: house of artemisia),
“I think that is great! Every money spent to fight malaria is well spent.”
What "solutions" are you working on?
He points out that there are also cheaper measures against the disease, such as the artemisia plant, that would “only” require 10 million dollars to proceed with clinical studies and prove once and for all if the plant works. This money would be needed to fulfill the requirements of the World Health Organization. There are a lot of renowned doctors and research institutes, such as l’Institut Pasteur or the University of Tübingen, that have joined forces in an international consortium to examine the benefits of the artemisia plant. But they still lack the funding to conduct their research. For pharmaceutical labs there is no incentive to work on the plant, because the main idea is that the plant would be easily available and cheap. Economically speaking it makes sense that no for-profit-company works on this. Labs are made to develop highly complicated medication and artemisia is not.
“Artemisia is the “praise of simplicity”, says Arnaud, “You simply boil a handful of the stem and the leaves for 10 minutes and you get your tea.”
This has been practiced in China for centuries. The nobel prize laureate Tu Youyou discovered in traditional medical books that artemisinin (an extract from the artemisia plant) could cure malaria.
Why have no philanthropists invested in that?
Arnaud Nouvion believes that this solution has not reached the philanthropes yet. Because if they’d discover that, it would be a “dream come true'' for them. This could have the biggest impact. It could save thousands of lives. Malaria is not the deadliest of the diseases, but it has the worst impact on the livelihoods of people. Nowadays there are thousands of hectares all over Africa where Artemisia is grown, in backyard gardens, by big companies or by farmers cooperatives. All are good, all work. “We have indications that it works, we just need the clinical studies to prove it once and for all and then maybe philanthropists might see it too.”, says Arnaud Nouvion, “when it comes to the correct dosing of artemisia, here again science would do its job. More research will lead to better treatment.”
He furthermore points out that Artemisia afra does not contain artemisinin, but does work against malaria, thereby even further decreasing the risk of creating resistances.
What do you think about Gene Drives?
Arnaud talks about Malaria as a really big wound, a blight, affecting many people. He sees a hierarchy of solutions. When comparing artemisia to gene drives it seems quite clear to him. On one hand he thinks, we have a cheap and easy solution that has been tested for hundreds of years and on the other hand we have an expensive, complicated and untested approach. He makes clear that he is not against novel solutions or that no money should be spent on research diversification, but that in this case the answer to the question: “which measure should be used first?”, is quite clear.
And what about the vaccine?
A vaccine against malaria would be great too. At the same time some obstacles have to be overcome, such as keeping the refrigeration chain up until the very remote areas and guaranteeing that children between zero and two years get four doses. When it comes to artemisia Arnaud is precautious in advising it for babies. Here again he points to the lack of clinical studies. He simply doesn’t know how it would affect babies, therefore he takes a precautionary approach and advises it only for older children.
La maison de l’Afrique will be hosting a webinar on the 25th that is also under the umbrella of “the praise of simplicity”. Three different approaches to fighting malaria will be presented. One speaker will talk about the use of artemisia, the other one about a repellent to be applied on the skin and the last one will present a trap to be placed around the house with an ecological insecticide. Three further “users” of these measures will talk about their experiences with it.
A mug of artemisia tea every morning during the rainy season and nobody dies from malaria anymore. Sounds too easy? Maybe we should try this first before using complicated and expensive approaches such as Gene drives?
--
These are the interviews on the topic held so far with the following experts:
Andreas Wulf, physician and expert for global health policy at Medico International in the Berlin office, provides his views on the role of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in international health policy and his outlook on necessary conditions for the implementation of the human right to health in Africa.
Click here for the interview
Ali Tapsoba de Goamma, human rights activist, and spokesman for an alliance in Burkina Faso against the release of Gene Drive mosquitoes in his home country, on the malaria control measures implemented so far and the attitude of the local population towards the planned field trials with Gene Drive mosquitoes.
Click here for the interview
Pamela J. Weathers, professor and researcher at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, USA, on the efficacy and controversial safety of Artemisia tea infusions for treating or preventing malaria.
Click here for the interview
Lucile Cornet-Vernet, founder of La Maison de L’Artémisia, describes the potential benefits of the Artémisia plant and state that more funding is needed to conduct clinical studies, proving once and for all that the plant is a great tool in the fight against malaria.
Click here for the interview
More interviews to follow.
IUCN debates the role of genetic engineering in nature conservation
Should nature conservationists back genetic engineering of wild species in order to counter the impact of human activity?
On Friday, 10.09.2021, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, IUCN, at its World Congress adopted a resolution (Res. 075) at its General Assembly in Marseille, initiating a three-year position-finding process on the role of synthetic biology in relation to nature conservation. A draft resolution is to be developed and put to a vote by the next World Conservation Congress in 2024.
Applications to be discussed in this process include both the synthetic production of nature-identical products in the laboratory as well as proposals to control pests using genetic engineering in agriculture, or the genetic manipulation of insects for the purpose of disease control in open environmental systems. Most controversially, proponents and developers of genetic engineering processes even propose gene drivesas a means for nature conservation, e.g. for eradicating invasive species.
Provisions of IUCN Resolution 075
Resolution 075, entitled "Development of an IUCN position on synthetic biology in relation to conservation" establishes an inclusive and participatory process within IUCN, with the aim of developing an IUCN position on the implications of the use of synthetic biology in conservation. The resolution states that until this IUCN position is formally adopted, IUCN must remain neutral (e.g. in international fora such as the CBD) on all aspects of synthetic biology, even if new evidence emerges during the process.
By passing important amendments to Resolution 075, international conservation representatives in Marseille recognized that there exist major data and knowledge gaps as well as unsolved ethical, social, cultural and ecological issues around the technologies developed to genetically engineer wild species. Resolution 075 stipulates that these uncertainties necessitate the application of the precautionary principle and must be taken into consideration by any position the IUCN may decide to take on the topic. For this reason, particular attention in the IUCN's effort of collaborative knowledge building will be paid to identifying knowledge gaps, data deficiencies and scientific uncertainties that make it impossible to assess the impacts of existing and potential future applications of synthetic biology (including gene drives) in the context of nature conservation. In particular, open questions and challenges in ecological, conceptual, legal, socio-economic, cultural and ethical terms will be formulated and compiled. In this regard IUCN members also agreed to prioritize the perspectives, knowledge and rights of Indigenous people’s and local communities in their deliberations on these technologies during the coming 3 years.
Mareike Imken, co-ordinator of the European Stop Gene Drives campaign welcomes the IUCNs commitment to the precautionary principle and its intention to foster increased understanding and debate among its members around the use of genetic engineering technologies for nature conservation purposes.
“A broad and inclusive IUCN discussion process will be crucial to raise awareness among IUCN members that the tampering with natural evolutionary rules in the application of gene drive technology will bring about a new dimension of intervening with – and irreversibly changing - the natural world that IUCN itself means to preserve.”
The contentious negotiations around this resolution at IUCN World Congress in Marseille were divided between civil society groups calling for the IUCN to not endorse environmental releases of synthetic biology applications, and pro-gene drive proponents who advocated for synthetic biology, including gene drives, to be accepted as a tool for nature conservation. One of the gene drive proponents, IUCN member Island Conservation, advocates to use gene drives to eradicate invasive mice on islands.
Civil Society press release here
To the adopted IUCN Resolution 075 here
###
On synthetic biology
The umbrella term synthetic biology is used to describe genetic engineering techniques that rebuild, resynthesize, or alter biological components or natural processes in ways that do not occur naturally. Applications of synthetic biology can either be used exclusively in closed systems/laboratories, or also aim to use them in open natural systems, using genetic engineering to alter wild species and ecosystems - for example, via the controversial process of gene drives.
History of the motion process in the IUCN
With IUCN Resolution “WCC-2016-Res-086” adopted at its Members’ Assembly in Hawaii 2016, the IUCN was tasked to develop a policy on Synthetic Biology and Biodiversity Conservation for adoption by 2020. However, both IUCN members and members of civil society organisations criticised the way this plan was carried out. They pointed out that there currently is insufficient awareness among IUCN members about the fundamental questions that such an IUCN position would raise. In addition, the IUCN assessment report “Genetic Frontiers for Conservation” which was largely drafted by boosters of the technology was criticized to provide an insufficient basis for the vote on such a policy.
Civil Society Briefing for IUCN Delegates for IUCN World Congress in English here
Civil Society Briefing for IUCN Delegates for IUCN World Congress in French here
Civil Society Briefing for IUCN Delegates for IUCN World Congress in Spanish here
Civil Society press release on the Start of the IUCN World Congress 2021 from 4.09.2021 in English here
---
Recommended reading:
ETC Group 2019: A review of the evidence for bias and conflict of interest in the IUCN report on synthetic biology and gene drive organisms.
Testbiotech 2019: Testbiotech comment on the IUCN report “Genetic frontiers for conservation, an assessment of synthetic biology and biodiversity conservation.
Bedenken zur Technologie und Ziele der Stop Gene Drive Kampagne
Interview mit Mareike Imken
Mareike Imken
Koordination der europäischen Stop Gene Drives Kampagne, Save our Seeds, Deutschland
Frau Imken, warum informiert die Stop Gene Drive Kampagne
über Möglichkeiten der Malariabekämpfung?
Im Rahmen der Stop Gene Drive Kampagne wollen wir Entscheidungsträger*innen und der breiten Öffentlichkeit helfen, die Risiken und Potenziale der Gene Drive Technologie im Unterschied zu alternativen Maßnahmen und Innovationen zur Malariabekämpfung einzuordnen. Zu diesem Zweck stellen wir im Laufe des Jahres 2021 verschiedene Ansätze und Perspektiven auf die Malariabekämpfung vor.
Was hat die Gene Drive Technologie mit Malaria zu tun?
Mit der Gene Drive Technologie soll die malariaübertragende Anopheles Mücke gentechnisch verändert bzw. ausgerottet werden. Vor allem die Bill & Melinda Gates Stiftung treibt die Erforschung dieser Gentechnologie im Rahmen ihres Programms „Target Malaria“ voran. Erste Feldversuche könnten in den nächsten 5 -10 Jahren in Burkina Faso, Mali Uganda und Ghana stattfinden.
Doch solche Freisetzungsversuche bergen hohe Risiken:
Bereits Freisetzungsversuche in kleinem Umfang könnten zur Folge haben, dass wildlebende Mückenpopulationen unwiderrufliche gentechnisch verändert oder ausgerottet werden. Die Konsequenzen für Umwelt, Artenvielfalt, Lebensmittelproduktion und die menschliche Gesundheit sind jedoch weder erforscht noch absehbar.
Was ist das Ziel der Stop Gene Drive Kampagne?
Mit der Stop Gene Drive Kampagne möchten wir eine breite gesellschaftliche Debatte über den fundamentalen Eingriff in die Natur anregen, der mit der Anwendung der Gene Drive Technologie verbunden wäre. Wir brauchen Zeit für eine solche Grundsatzdebatte anstatt in den nächsten Jahren vor vollendete Tatsachen gestellt zu werden.
Deshalb fordert ein breites Bündnis aus zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen in der EU und weltweit ein globales Moratorium für Freisetzungsversuche mit gentechnisch veränderten Gene Drive Mücken. Ein solches Moratorium würde der Menschheit Zeit verschaffen, um Mindestvoraussetzungen für die Nutzung einer solchen Hochrisikotechnologie zu erfüllen. Das heißt: Die Risiken der Technologie im Labor modellieren und sie gegen die Risiken und den Nutzen von alternativen Maßnahmen abwägen. Zusätzlich die bislang fehlenden internationalen Regularien und Entscheidungsverfahren etablieren.
Hier geht's zu den anderen Interviews.
Interview mit Dr. Andreas Wulf
Einfluss der Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation auf die globale Gesundheitspolitik
Die Gene Drive Technologie birgt hohe Risiken. Dennoch wird sie von der Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation als Lösung gegen Malaria propagiert. Anlässlich des Welt-Malaria-Tages startet die Stop Gene Drives Kampagne ein Projekt, das verschiedene Perspektiven auf Möglichkeiten der Malariabekämpfung aufzeigt.
In diesem Interview mit Dr. Andreas Wulf, Arzt und Referent für globale Gesundheit bei Medico International wollten wir erfahren, welche Bedingungen erfüllt sein müssen, um das Menschenrecht auf Gesundheit umsetzen zu können und welche Rolle die Bill & Melinda Gates Stiftung in der internationalen Gesundheitspolitik bei der Auswahl von Maßnahmen wie zur Malariabekämpfung spielt.
Herr Wulf, wer entscheidet über die Wahl von Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung der Malaria - welche Interessen setzen sich durch?
Der global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tb & Malaria ist zum weltgrößten Finanzgeber für Malaria Bekämpfung geworden, und stellt mehr als 50% der global verfügbaren Mittel für arme Länder bereit. Die Programme werden von den Ländern selbst entwickelt, und fokussieren auf klassische Public Health Maßnahmen (Gesundheitsaufklärung, Prävention durch Insektizide und Bettnetze gegen die Überträger-Mücken, rasche Diagnostik und Behandlung der Erkrankten mit wirksamen Kombinationsmedikamenten. Damit sind in vielen Ländern substantielle Erfolge bei der Zurückdrängung und in einzelnen auch der Eliminierung der Malaria zu verzeichnen und müssen unbedingt fortgesetzt werden.
Allerdings werden strukturelle Probleme bei der Bekämpfung wie dauerhafte Armutsbedingungen, bewaffnete Konflikte, die den Zugang zu betroffenen Gebieten unmöglich machen und aktuell auch die Unterbrechung von Programmen durch Covid19 Lockdowns und Grenzschließungen nicht durch solche Public Health Programme gelöst. Damit ist ein einseitiger Fokus auf eine technische „Ausrottung der Malaria“ problematisch, wenn er nicht die strukturellen Bedingungen mit in den Blick nimmt.
Wie schätzen Sie das Engagement der Gates-Stiftung in der internationalen Gesundheitspolitik allgemein und bezüglich der Bekämpfung von Malaria im Speziellen ein?
Die Gates Stiftung ist zu einem dominanten Akteur in der internationalen Gesundheitspolitik geworden nicht nur durch die enormen finanziellen Mittel, die sie für Forschung, Entwicklung und Umsetzung von Gesundheitsprogrammen einsetzt (sie ist z. B. der größte Geber des Polio-Ausrottungsprogramms der WHO), sondern besonders durch ihre strategischen Initiativen zur Förderung von öffentlich-privaten „Partnerschaften“ wie GAVI, die Impfstoff Allianz oder aktuell auch den Access to Covid19 Tools-Accelerators. Dabei besteht die große Gefahr, dass Interessenskonflikte zwischen privaten und öffentlichen Akteuren systematisch ausgeblendet werden, wie aktuell etwa an den Debatten um die Patente für Covid19 Impfstoffe zu sehen ist, bei der die Gates Stiftung aktiv die Interessen der großen Pharmaunternehmen verstärkt.
Die Tendenz der Gates Stiftung, technologische Lösungen für komplexe Gesundheitsprobleme zu bevorzugen, wird bei Malaria besonders deutlich: Sie fördert aktiv die Forschungen zur genetischen Modifizierung der Mücken (Gene Drive Strategie), um die Übertragung der Malaria Erreger zu blockieren. Problematischer noch: Sie sind vom Ziel einer möglichen Ausrottung der Malaria so überzeugt, dass sie andere Stimmen, die eher für einen möglicherweise realistischeren und community orientierten „Kontrollansatz“ plädieren, mit ihrer Dominanz in der Forschungsförderung verdrängen.
Welche Faktoren stehen dem Menschenrecht auf bestmöglichen Zugang zu Gesundheit in Afrika häufig entgegen? Welche Faktoren sind für die Prävention und Behandlung von Malariafällen relevant und müssten prioritär angegangen werden?
Grundsätzlich braucht es gute Lebensbedingungen, um Gesundheitsrechte individuell und kollektiv zu verwirklichen. Ernährung, Wohnverhältnisse, Einkommen und Arbeitsbedingungen, Frieden und der gerechte Zugang zu diesen für alle sind Schlüsselfaktoren, die weit über die Handlungsebene der Gesundheitssysteme hinausgehen und die – nicht nur in afrikanischen Ländern – massive Ungleichheiten bei der Realisierung von Gesundheit bedeuten. Unterernährung verschärft beispielsweise die Schwere von Malariaerkrankungen und die Gefahr daran zu sterben. Neben diesen „sozialen Determinanten der Gesundheit“ müssen für alle Menschen das Wissen um und die Verfügbarkeit von Prävention (Bekämpfung und Schutz vor Moskitos), Diagnostik (Schnelltests) und Behandlung (Medikamente, in schweren Fällen stationäre Behandlung) verfügbar sein, unabhängig von den finanziellen Möglichkeiten. Auch die physische Erreichbarkeit von vorzugsweise öffentlichen, kostenlos zugänglichen Gesundheitsdiensten, in denen Malariaprogramme integriert sind, ist in vielen afrikanischen Ländern ein Problem, die nicht nur mit technischen Methoden angegangen werden muss (z.B. wird an Drohneneinsätze zur Verteilung von Medikamenten und Tests geforscht), sondern vor allem eine systematische Stärkung und Unterstützung gemeindenaher Gesundheitsarbeiter*innen (Community Health Worker) nicht nur in entfernten ländlichen Gegenden, sondern auch in Armutsregionen der Megacities.
---
Weitere Interviews haben wir geführt mit:
Ali Tapsoba, Menschenrechtsaktivist und Sprecher eines Bündnisses in Burkina Faso gegen die Freisetzung von Gene Drive Mücken in seinem Heimatland, zu den bisher durchgeführten Maßnahmen zur Malariabekämpfung und die Einstellung der lokalen Bevölkerung zu den geplanten Feldversuchen mit Gene Drive Mücken.
Hier geht’s zum Interview
Pamela J. Weathers, Professorin und Forscherin am Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, USA, zu der Wirksamkeit und umstrittenen Sicherheit von Artemisia Tee-Aufgüsse zur Behandlung oder Vorbeugung von Malaria.
Hier geht’s zum Interview
Interview with Dr. Andreas Wulf
Gene drive technology carries high risks. Yet it is being promoted by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as a solution to malaria. On the occasion of World Malaria Day, the Stop Gene Drives campaign is launching a project that presents different perspectives on how to combat malaria.
In this interview with Dr Andreas Wulf, physician and global health officer at Medico International, we wanted to find out what conditions have to be met in order to implement the human right to health and what role the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation plays in international health policy in selecting measures such as those to combat malaria.
Who decides on the choice of measures to combat malaria - what interests prevail?
The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB & Malaria has become the world's largest donor of malaria control, providing more than 50% of the global funds available to poor countries. The programmes are developed by the countries themselves and focus on classic public health measures (health education, prevention by insecticides and bed nets against the mosquitoes, rapid diagnosis and treatment of the sick with effective combination drugs. As a result, many countries have seen substantial successes in the reduction of malaria, and in particular in the elimination of malaria, and it is essential to continue. However, structural problems in the fight, such as persistent poverty conditions, armed conflicts that make access to affected areas impossible, and currently the interruption of programmes by Covid19 lockdowns and border closures are not solved by such public health programs. Thus, a one-sided focus on a technical "eradication of malaria" is problematic if it does not take structural conditions into view.
How do you rate the Gates Foundation's commitment to international health policy in general and to the fight against malaria in particular?
The Gates Foundation has become a dominant player in international health policy not only through the enormous financial resources it promotes research, development and implementation of health programs (for example, it is the largest donor to the WHO polio eradication program), but especially through its strategic initiatives to promote public-private "partnerships" such as GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, and currently the access to Covid19 Tools Accelerators. There is a great danger that conflicts of interest between private and public actors will be systematically hidden, as is currently seen in the debates on patents for Covid19 vaccine, in which the Gates Foundation actively strengthens the interests of the large pharmaceutical companies.
The Gates Foundation's tendency to favor technological solutions to complex health problems is particularly evident in malaria: it actively promotes research into the genetic modification of mosquitoes (gene-drive strategy) to block the transmission of malaria pathogens. More problematic, they are so convinced of the goal of a possible eradication of malaria that they are displacing other voices who are more in favour of a possibly more realistic and community-oriented "control approach" with their dominance in research funding.
What factors often stand in the way of the human right to the best possible access to health in Africa? What factors are relevant for the prevention and treatment of malaria cases and should be addressed as a priority?
Basically, good living conditions are needed in order to realize health rights individually and collectively. Food, housing, income and working conditions, peace and fair access to them for all are key factors that go far beyond the level of action of health systems and which– not only in African countries – mean massive inequalities in the realisation of health. Malnutrition, for example, exacerbates the severity of malaria and the risk of dying from it. In addition to these "social determinants of health", all people must have the knowledge about and the availability of prevention (fighting and protection against mosquitoes), diagnostics (rapid tests) and treatment (medicines, inpatient treatment in severe cases), regardless of the financial possibilities. The physical accessibility of health services, preferably public, free of charge, in which malaria programs are integrated, is also a problem in many African countries, which must be addressed not only by technical methods (e.g. research on drone operations for the distribution of drugs and tests) but above all to systematically strengthen and support community health workers not only in remote rural areas but also in poverty regions of the megacities.
--
More interviews have been held with:
Ali Tapsoba de Goamma, human rights activist, and spokesman for an alliance in Burkina Faso against the release of Gene Drive mosquitoes in his home country, on the malaria control measures implemented so far and the attitude of the local population towards the planned field trials with Gene Drive mosquitoes.
Click here for the interview
Pamela J. Weathers, professor and researcher at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, USA, on the efficacy and controversial safety of Artemisia tea infusions for treating or preventing malaria.
Click here for the interview
Interview mit Ali Tapsoba
Die Gene Drive Technologie birgt hohe Risiken. Dennoch wird sie von der Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation als Maßnahme gegen Malaria propagiert. Anlässlich des Welt-Malaria-Tages startet die Stop Gene Drives Kampagne ein Projekt, das verschiedene Perspektiven auf alternative Möglichkeiten der Malariabekämpfung aufzeigt.
In diesem Interview mit Ali Tapsoba de Goamma, Umwelt- und Menschenrechtsaktivist in Burkina Faso, Präsident der Organisation Terre a Vie und Sprecher für ein ziviligesellschaftliches Bündnis aus 60 Organisationen gegen die Freisetzungsversuche mit Gene Drive Mücken in seinem Land, wollten wir von ihm erfahren, mit welchen Maßnahmen in Burkina Faso bislang gegen Malaria vorgegangen wurde. Außerdem ordnet er für uns ein, wie die lokale Bevölkerung und Öffentlichkeit in seinem Land auf die angekündigten Feldversuche mit Gene Drive Mücken reagiert.
Herr Tapsoba, welche Maßnahmen wurden ergriffen, um Malaria in Burkina Faso zu stoppen? Welche waren erfolgreich, welche nicht? Welche wurden noch nicht versucht? Welche zusätzlichen Maßnahmen wären in Burkina Faso erforderlich, um das Leiden an Malaria zu beenden?
Trotz der Bemühungen der Regierung ist Malaria nach wie vor die Hauptursache für Arztbesuche, Krankenhausaufenthalte und Todesfälle in Burkina Faso. Über den Verlust von Menschenleben hinaus wirkt sich Malaria auch auf die Wirtschaft aus, behindert die Produktivität und belastet das Gesundheitssystem erheblich.
Die Letalitätsrate der Malaria ist jedoch seit 2015 deutlich auf unter 1% gesunken.
Die wichtigsten Vektoren zur Übertragung der Krankheit sind die Mückenarten Anopheles gambiae und die Anopheles funestus.
Mögliche Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung der Malaria in Burkina Faso:
- Verteilungskampagne der MILDA (Moustiquaires Imprégnées d’Insecticide à Longue Durée d’Action, Insektizid-imprägnierte Moskitonetze mit langer Wirkungsdauer).
- Verwendung von Repelletien in geschlossenen Räumen und auf Kleidungsstücken.
- Praxis der TPI (Traitement Préventif Intermittent du paludisme, Intermittierende vorbeugende Behandlung von Malaria mit oraler Medikamenteneinnahme von Amodiaquin) und der CPS (Chimioprévention du Paludisme Saisonnier, Saisonalen Malaria-Chemoprävention. Hierbei werden die Malariamedikamente Sulfadoxin-Pyrimethamin und Amodiaquin verabreicht, um einer Infektion vorzubeugen.)
- Hygiene im Lebensumfeld: Errichtung von Kanalisationssystemen, Reinigung von Dachrinnen, Änderung der Methoden zur Wasserspeicherung.
- Larvenbekämpfung
- Das Besprühen von Innenräumen mit Insektiziden.
- Verteilung von routinemäßigen Moskitonetzen an schwangere Frauen und Kinder unter einem Jahr,
- Stärkung der Prävention für schwangere Frauen
Von diesen Methoden funktioniert bisher die Verteilungskampagne der MILDA, die Verwendung von Repellentien und die präventiven Behandlungsmethoden gut.
In geringerem Maße wurden jedoch die Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Hygienebedingungen, das Besprühen von Innenräumen mit Insektiziden und die Larvenbekämpfung umgesetzt. Diese drei Maßnahmen sowie die Verwendung von Heilpflanzen in der Präventiv- und Heilbehandlung als auch Bildungsmaßnahmen zur Verhaltensänderung sollten jedoch verstärkt angegangen werden.
Wie wird der Einsatz der Gene Drive Technologie in Ihrem Land im Vergleich zu anderen Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung von Malaria diskutiert? Versteht die lokale Bevölkerung, wie die Technologie funktioniert? Stimmt sie zu, diese Technologie zu testen / zu verwenden?
Gentechnisch veränderte Organismen (GVO) sind in Burkina Faso umstritten. Wissenschaftler*innen und Verbraucher*innen haben zum Beispiel gentechnisch veränderte Baumwolle abgelehnt.
Gene Drives, die sich noch nicht in der Anwendung befinden, sind ein umstrittenes Thema. Ein Bericht von Target Malaria über die Freisetzung von 6400 gentechnisch veränderten Mücken (keine Gene Drives) im Juli 2019 besagt, dass es nicht das Ziel war, Malaria zu bekämpfen, sondern zu testen, wie lange diese Moskitos leben, wie fähig sie sind, sich an die natürliche Umgebung anzupassen, und wie sie sich ausbreiten.
Die Bürger von Burkina Faso lehnen die künftige Nutzung dieser Technologie kategorisch ab. Der Widerstand hat es ermöglicht, eine Freisetzung im Jahr 2020 zu blockieren. Und wir werden eine Freisetzung auch weiter verhindern.
Die Menschen in Burkina Faso wissen nichts über Gene Drives. Selbst die Wissenschaftsgemeinschaft hat Schwierigkeiten, diese Technologie zu verstehen. Es gibt keine vorherige, freie und informierte Zustimmung zur Freisetzung von Gene Drives und es gibt keine Rechtsvorschriften zu diesem Thema in Burkina Faso.
Abschließend möchte ich sagen, dass Malaria zu einem Geschäftsmodell in Afrika geworden ist. Es ist eine Gesundheitsmafia, die der Pharmaindustrie und einigen Regierungen zugutekommt. Ich zweifle stark an den Statistiken, die von den Gesundheitsbehörden veröffentlicht wurden. Um Malaria in Afrika zu bekämpfen, genügt es, eine gute Politik der Hygienesanierung zu entwickeln, einen Plan für die ökologische Gestaltung der Städte und Dörfer zu erstellen, die Ökosysteme und die biologische Vielfalt zu erhalten, die Alphabetisierungsrate zu erhöhen und eine tugendhafte Regierungsführung in den Staaten zu gewährleisten.
Weitere Interviews haben wir geführt mit:
Andreas Wulf von Medico International, Referent im Berliner Büro für globale Gesundheitsfragen, der uns Auskunft gibt über die Rolle der Bill & Melinda Gates Stiftung in der internationalen Gesundheitspolitik und seine Sicht auf notwendige Bedingungen für die Umsetzung des Menschenrechts auf Gesundheit in Afrika darlegt.
Hier geht’s zum Interview
Pamela J. Weathers, Professorin und Forscherin am Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, USA, zu der Wirksamkeit und umstrittenen Sicherheit von Artemisia Tee-Aufgüsse zur Behandlung oder Vorbeugung von Malaria.
Hier geht’s zum Interview
---
Auf folgende Quellen bezieht sich Herr Tapsoba:
- World Health Organisation (2019). World Malaria Report 2019 World Health Organisation (2019).
- USAID President’s Malaria Initiative FY 2019 Burkina Faso Malaria Operational Plan
- USAID 2017: Financing of Universal Health Coverage and Family Planning - A Multi-Regional Landscape Study and Analysis of Select West African Countries: Burkina Faso
- Universal Health Partnership coverage (2019). http://uhcpartnership.net/country-profile/burkina-faso/(le lien est externe)(link is external)
- L’Économiste du Faso 2016
- https://www.la-croix.com/Sciences-et-ethique/Le-paludisme-lautre-epidemie-devastatrice-2020-07-17-1201105379
- https://www.jeuneafrique.com/654776/societe/burkina-controverse-autour-de-moustiques-ogm-contre-le-paludisme/
- https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2018/06/29/des-moustiques-ogm-contre-le-paludisme-le-projet-qui-fait-debat-au-burkina_5323380_3212.html
Interview with Ali Tapsoba
Gene drive technology carries high risks. Yet it is being promoted by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as a solution to malaria. On the occasion of World Malaria Day, the Stop Gene Drives campaign is launching a project that presents different perspectives on how to combat malaria.
Ali Tapsoba de Goamma is a human rights activist and spokesman for an alliance in Burkina Faso against the release of Gene Drive mosquitoes in his home country. In this interview with him we wanted to know which malaria control measures have benn implemented in his country so far. We also ask for his perception on the attitude of the local population towards the planned field trials with Gene Drive mosquitoes.
Mr. Tapsoba, which measures have been applied to stop Malaria in Burkina Faso? Which were successful, which not? Which have not yet been attempted? Which additional measures would be needed in Burkina Faso to end the suffering from Malaria?
Despite government efforts, malaria remains the leading cause of medical visits, hospital stays and deaths in Burkina Faso. Beyond loss of life, malaria also impacts the economy, hampers productivity, and places a significant burden on the health system.
However, the lethality rate of malaria has dropped significantly since 2015 to less than 1%.
The main vectors for transmission of the disease are the mosquito species Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles funestus.
Possible measures to combat malaria in Burkina Faso:
- Distribution campaign called MILDA, which included impregnated mosquito nets with long duration of action (MILDA =Moustiquaires Imprégnées d'Insecticide à Longue Durée d'Action, insecticide)
- Use of repellents indoors and on clothing.
- Intermittent preventive treatment of malaria with oral medication of amodiaquine (TPI, Traitement Préventif Intermittent du paludisme) and seasonal malaria chemoprevention (CPS, Chimioprévention du Paludisme Saisonnier). The antimalarial drugs sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine are administered to prevent infection.
- Hygiene measures: construction of sewerage systems, cleaning of gutters, modification of water storage methods.
- Larval control
- Indoor spraying with insecticides.
- Distribution of routine mosquito nets to pregnant women and children under one year of age,
- Strengthening prevention for pregnant women.
Of these methods, the MILDA distribution campaign, the use of repellents, and the preventive treatment methods are working well so far.
The measures to improve hygiene conditions, indoor spraying with insecticides, and larval control have been implemented to a lesser extent. However, these three measures as well as the use of medicinal plants in preventive and curative treatment as well as educational measures for behavioral change should be addressed more intensively.
How is the use of Gene Drive technology discussed in your country as compared to other measures to combat malaria? Does the local population understand how the technology works? Do they agree to testing/using this technology?
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are discussed controversially in Burkina Faso. For example, scientists and consumers have rejected genetically modified cotton.
Gene drives that are not yet in use are a contentious issue. A report by Target Malaria on the release of 6400 genetically modified mosquitoes in July 2019 states that the goal was not to fight malaria, but to test how long these mosquitoes live, how capable they are of adapting to the natural environment, and how they spread.
The citizens of Burkina Faso categorically oppose the future use of this technology. The resistance has made it possible to block a release in 2020. And we will continue to prevent a release. Local people in Burkina Faso know nothing about Gene Drives. Even the scientific community has difficulty understanding this technology. There is no free, prior and informed consent for the release of Gene Drives and there is no legislation on this issue in Burkina Faso.
In conclusion, malaria has become a business model in Africa. It is a health mafia that benefits the pharmaceutical industry and some governments. I strongly doubt the statistics published by the health authorities. To fight malaria in Africa, it is enough to develop a good policy of sanitation, create a plan for the ecological design of cities and villages, preserve ecosystems and biodiversity, increase literacy rates, and ensure virtuous governance in the states.
---
Further interviews have been conducted with:
Andreas Wulf of Medico International, officer in the Berlin office for global health issues, who gives us information about the role of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in international health policy and presents his view on necessary conditions for the implementation of the human right to health in Africa.
Click here for the interview
Pamela J. Weathers, professor and researcher at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, USA, on the efficacy and controversial safety of Artemisia tea infusions for treating or preventing malaria.
Click here for the interview
---
References provided by Mr. Tapsoba:
- World Health Organisation (2019). World Malaria Report 2019 World Health Organisation (2019).
- USAID President’s Malaria Initiative FY 2019 Burkina Faso Malaria Operational Plan
- USAID 2017: Financing of Universal Health Coverage and Family Planning - A Multi-Regional Landscape Study and Analysis of Select West African Countries: Burkina Faso
- Universal Health Partnership coverage (2019). http://uhcpartnership.net/country-profile/burkina-faso/(le lien est externe)(link is external)
- L’Économiste du Faso 2016
- https://www.la-croix.com/Sciences-et-ethique/Le-paludisme-lautre-epidemie-devastatrice-2020-07-17-1201105379
- https://www.jeuneafrique.com/654776/societe/burkina-controverse-autour-de-moustiques-ogm-contre-le-paludisme/
- https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2018/06/29/des-moustiques-ogm-contre-le-paludisme-le-projet-qui-fait-debat-au-burkina_5323380_3212.html