Exploratory conversations with biodiversity-oriented civil society groups on the potential applications of gene drive-modified mosquitoes for malaria control in Tanzania.

Gene drive-modified mosquitoes (GDMMs) are gaining attention as sustainable tools to complement existing malaria control strategies. Their ability to self-propagate and spread through wild mosquito populations offers the promise of low-cost, long-lasting impact, but also raises ecological, ethical, and governance concerns. In this evolving debate, civil society organizations (CSOs) are pivotal actors in shaping dialogue, representing community concerns, and influencing policy decisions. This study examined the perspectives and recommendations of biodiversity-oriented CSOs on the governance, testing, and potential application of GDMMs for malaria control in Tanzania. An exploratory qualitative design was employed, involving eight in-depth interviews, one focus group discussion, and three large group discussions with representatives from ten biodiversity-focused CSOs in Tanzania. Participants were selected purposively based on prior involvement in national or regional dialogues related to biotechnology; and the discussions focused on concerns, uncertainties and needs associated with testing and potential use of GDMMs for malaria control, as well as the balance of prospective benefits against long-term environmental risks. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using NVivo 12 Plus. Participants expressed cautious support for research on GDMMs for malaria control but raised concerns about scientific uncertainty, limited local expertise, inadequate transparency, potential transboundary effects and technological dependency. They emphasized the importance of generating robust, context-specific evidence before considering any environmental releases of gene drives; and highlighted concerns over inadequate accountability, particularly the lack of clarity on who would assume responsibility if adverse outcomes arise. They also advocated for early, inclusive, transparent, and continuous engagement with both target communities and the broader public. Lastly, to ensure objective and impartial oversight, they recommended development of local expertise that is independent of technology developers and sponsors. The CSOs' perspectives were diverse but broadly aligned with the precautionary principle, calling for preventive action amid uncertainty, clear accountability, and the pursuit of safer alternatives. Although many expressed serious reservations about gene drive mosquitoes, there was a shared recognition that research on the technology is necessary, provided it is conducted under controlled, transparent, and auditable conditions. Overall, these exploratory discussions underscored the need for: (i) balanced dialogue between advocates and skeptics, (ii) robust ethical and regulatory frameworks covering the full life cycle of the technology, (iii) sustained community and stakeholder engagement from the early stages of research and development, (iv) enhancements of in-country capacity, and (v) national sovereignty in decision-making regarding GDMMs. Demonstrating and effectively communicating these elements will be as critical as ensuring their existence.