Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35127663›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2022

Ethical Considerations for Gene Drive: Challenges of Balancing Inclusion, Power and Perspectives.

Ana Kormos, Gregory C Lanzaro, Ethan Bier, Vanilson Santos, Lodney Nazaré, João Pinto, Adionilde Aguiar Dos Santos, Anthony A James

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Long-term stability and performance of Cas9/guide RNA-based gene drives in anopheline mosquitoes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Rapid turnover of sex-determining architecture in invasive mussels.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Is Gene Drive Research Losing Traction?The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Ana KormosVector Genetics Laboratory, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Gregory C LanzaroVector Genetics Laboratory, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Ethan BierSection of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States.
Vanilson SantosMinistry of Defense, São Tomé, São Tomé and Príncipe.
Lodney NazaréUnited Nations Development Program, São Tomé, São Tomé and Príncipe.
João PintoVector Genetics Laboratory, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Adionilde Aguiar Dos SantosMinistry of Health, Delegacia de Saúde Distrital de Água Grande, São Tomé, São Tomé and Príncipe.
Anthony A JamesDepartment of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of California, Irvine, CA, Irvine, United States.
University of California, Davis · USUnited Nations Development Programme · USUniversidade Nova de Lisboa · PTUniversity of California, Irvine · USUniversity of California, San Diego · US

Funding

The mutagenic chain reaction: a method for autocatalyic gene disseminationR01GM117321 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI BIER, ETHAN · 2016 to 2024
$2.5M
Development of next-generation gene drive technologies for Anopheles population engineeringR01AI162911 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI BIER, ETHAN · 2021 to 2025
$2.3M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI162911NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM117321
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Progress in gene-drive research has stimulated discussion and debate on ethical issues including community engagement and consent, policy and governance, and decision-making involved in development and deployment. Many organizations, academic institutions, foundations, and individual professionals have contributed to ensuring that these issues are considered prior to the application of gene-drive technology. Central topics include co-development of the technology with local stakeholders and communities and reducing asymmetry between developers and end-users. Important questions include with whom to conduct engagement and how to define community acceptance, develop capacity-building activities, and regulate this technology. Experts, academics, and funders have suggested that global frameworks, standards, and guidelines be developed to direct research in answering these important questions. Additionally, it has been suggested that ethical principles or commitments be established to further guide research practices. The challenging and interesting contradiction that we explore here is that the vast majority of these conversations transpire with little or no input from potential end-users or stakeholders who, we contend, should ultimately determine the fate of the technology in their communities. The question arises, whose concerns regarding marginalization, disempowerment, and inequity should be included in discussions and decisions concerning how inequities are perceived and how they may be addressed? At what stage will true co-development occur and how will opinions, perspectives and knowledge held by low-income country stakeholders be applied in determining answers to the questions regarding the ethics being debated on the academic stage? Our opinion is that the time is now.

Indexed as

co-developmentengagementethicsgene driveresearch guidelinesresponsible research

Identifiers

PMID35127663
PMCPMC8814439
OpenAlexW4207073851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.