Gene Drives Are Not Worth The Risk

Basic illustration of the gene orientation in DNA 

A gene drive is the process of altering the genetic makeup of an organism by adding, modifying, or disrupting genes to impact future generations of that species. The first proposal of this idea was in 2003, however it was unknown at the time what the best method to use in making this idea a reality. In 2013 The Cas9/CRISPR gene-editing technique (altering genomes through cutting) was introduced as a relatively simple answer for the proposed question of “How do we alter genes to affect the future population of a species?” It is documented that as of 2014 there
have been successfully tested cells in over 20 species (which includes humans). It would appear that this quick advancement in gene alteration is safe and reliable if there has been all this success with a respectable amount of test subjects. These test subjects have only been tested to a degree, and the main purpose behind the gene drives has not been executed yet. The purpose for the development of these gene drives is to significantly alter a species to better mankind and the surrounding ecosystem. Gene drives are very fascinating when considering the possible diseases eradicated or species saved, however the thought of an accidental exposure within an ecosystem or using them as a malicious tool should halt the pursuit of making gene drives an acceptable practice through restrictions agreed upon by the scientific community and the government.

It is important to understand the possible benefits of gene drives in order to make an informed decision on whether we should proceed with them or not. There are a few main intentions to benefit ecology which are stated here in an eLIFE article “ RNA-guided gene drives could potentially prevent the spread of disease, support agriculture by reversing pesticide and herbicide resistance in insects and weeds, and control damaging invasive species”(Esvelt, Smidler, Catteruccia, Church, 2014).

Possible disease eliminated by gene drives

Malaria transmitted via mosquitoes is the best example proposed so far on how a gene drive can affect human health. There are over 650,000 deaths a year caused by malaria and over 200 million plagued by the fever that comes along with malaria. To relieve the world of this widespread disease would be a huge advancement by mankind and could be compared to the elimination of smallpox. It should be noted however that the methods used to eradicate these diseases are different and therefore cannot be approached in the same manner. Whereas smallpox was eliminated through vaccination, malaria would be approached by altering the genetic makeup of mosquitoes and having to wait years to see any progress through reproduction. In researching this topic it is commonly stated that “gene drives main benefit would be demolishing animal transmitted diseases such as the ones carried by mosquitoes.” When looking further, mosquitoes are the sole example researchers have provided for gene drives solving disease transmission. Not to take away from the impact of ridding mosquito transmitted diseases, but when considering the potential power of this technique it should have a greater imprint in the medical field than the current proposals.

Another benefit stemming from a gene drive that is currently in the early stages of evaluation is agriculture sustainability. New concepts are in the workings in attempt to take advantage of something potentially revolutionary in the agriculture field. The focal point so far in using the technique in agriculture is to alter populations to be more susceptible to pesticides and herbicides. As time elapses, crops evolve to become less impacted by these chemicals. The concept of sensitizing drives “might replace resistant alleles with their ancestral equivalents to restore vulnerability”(Esvelt et al, 2014). Because of the rate of reproduction in crops and the utilization of the sterile insect techniques it would be dangerous to release these drives in a current pesticide enforced population due to the possibility of rendering the pesticides ineffective. The approach that would then have to be taken is to release sensitizing drives in fields that are untreated by pesticides or herbicides and for them to spread to adjacent fields. From a different approach, instead of restoring genes to their original vulnerability, a gene could be replaced with one that is more sensitive to a compound in a pesticide, resulting in an increase of crop growth.

An issue that has been at hand throughout history is the preservation of endangered species. Explanations for extinctions include: climate change, hunting/fishing, invasive species, etc. An invasive species is a species that is not native to a particular area and is subject to cause harm to the environment. Rats are the largest invasive species that cause monetary damages and extinctions in the US.(Esvelt et al,2014) A solution to this problem could be achieved when looking at gene drives for the answer. Theories have proposed that native species could be the recipients of an immunization drive or on the other hand invasive species can be eradicated in the area through a local drive. The thought of this particular implication is innovative and delights the ears of conservationist (who have a powerful voice).

With all of the hype behind gene drives it easy to get carried away with all of the useful implications of the circulating topic. With any decision it is important to weigh the pros and cons, so with that being said I propose this scenario:

If gene drives became an accredited practice there would be mass use for various drives which would require the process to be available for distribution. Regulations would obviously be enforced on businesses and nations on their intent, but unfortunately not everyone is looking to help others. There will be a way that this technique, designed to better society, falls into the wrong hands, and at that point anything good that has come to fruition could easily be countered, begging the question: Is it worth it?

No it is not, and for a few reasons. The time it takes for a particular gene drive to permeate throughout a population is dependent on that species reproduction rate. It may take numerous years for a drive to show impact on a long living species and if the drive itself proves to be harmful ecologically there is little that can be done immediately. There are immunization drives that provide a reversal of the original drive, but within the interim the effects caused unto the ecosystem may be be irreversible.



An example of a delicately balanced ecosystem

Invasive species are the next group with an underlying problem. It is stated in the eLIFE article Concerning RNA-guided gene drives for the alteration of wild populations that there are two essential blockades in treating invasive species with drives which are: (1) There could be a rare mating event where a gene could endanger a similar species unqualified to take it. OR (2) A drive intended to control a foreign species could travel back to that species native habitat and cause problems such as: thriving environmentally, successful reproduction, foodchain balance, etc.

Human ramifications are interesting. Researchers have come to confident conclusions that humans will be unaffected by direct gene drives due to our long generations and medical technology to recognize the presence of gene drives. Yet as mentioned in Regulating Gene Drives “Rare individuals might experience an allergic reaction to peptides in the Cas9 protein if exposed to an affected organism”. It is also worth mentioning that society impacts science in what we deem fit to explore based on morals, ethics, and religion. It may seem trivial but what people view as ethically good or bad can determine how far gene drives progress.

In conclusion gene drives offer the world potential solutions in various areas of concern. The alteration of a gene in any organism can easily be viewed as unethical and will be met with criticism. Advancement should always be welcomed when proper research and outcomes are reviewed. It is because the unpredictability of gene drives in why they cannot be firmly pursued. From here the government will need to create new policies pertaining to testing for this unique technique which does not fall under current ones (ex. The Dual Use Research of Concern policy). The subject at hand should be pushed to the forefront of established powers such as the USDA, the NAS (National Academy of Sciences), and foreign nations. The drive technique should be widely discussed, but specific configuration for these genes should be not be publicized. Within these discussions the issue of containment for drives is important. It is evident that every scenario needs to be thought out before we proceed further on the topic, and even with seemingly flawless plans for a drive, there is always the possibility of an unforeseen variable. Ecology is not something that we can afford to experiment with arbitrarily and is why gene drives should be kept strictly in discussion for now.



Works Cited


"Driving Test." Nature 524, no. 7563 (2015): 5. Accessed September 24, 2015. doi:10.1038/524005b.


"Safeguarding Gene Drive Experiments in the Laboratory." Science AAAS349, no. 6251 (2015): 927-29. Accessed September 23, 2015. doi:10.1126/science.aac7932.


Gurwitz, D. "Gene Drives Raise Dual-use Concerns." Science 345, no. 6200 (2014): 1010. Accessed September 24, 2015. doi:10.1126/science.345.6200.1010-b.


Oliver, Keith, and Greene Wayne. "Jumping Genes Drive Evolution." ProQuest. September 29, 2009. Accessed September 24, 2015.


Esvelt, K. M., A. L. Smidler, F. Catteruccia, and G. M. Church. "Concerning RNA-Guided Gene Drives for the Alteration of Wild Populations." ELife 3 (2014): 21. Accessed September 24, 2015. doi:10.7554/eLife.03401.


Oye, K. A., K. Esvelt, E. Appleton, F. Catteruccia, G. Church, T. Kuiken, S. B.-Y. Lightfoot, J. Mcnamara, A. Smidler, and J. P. Collins. "Regulating Gene Drives." Science 345, no. 6197 (2014): 626-28. Accessed September 24, 2015. doi:10.1126/science.1254287.