I think it almost went unnoticed, but a few weeks ago a decision was sort of made on gene drives. A gene drive means the releasing of a genetically modified organism into the environment with the intention of these genes spreading through the entire population. At issue are tests in an effort to introduce a fatal gene into wild populations of mosquitoes that carry malaria.
While it sounds wonderful, the idea of ridding the world of a horrible disease like malaria, this isn’t likely to happen. It’s just not logical to think evolution in mosquitoes can be simply stopped in this way, without some potentially very dangerous adaptation on the part of the mosquitoes themselves or other organisms in their natural environment. There is really no scientific justification for attempting to do this. It’s also outrageous to play with people’s sense of using technology to help people, when there’s no proof or even a reasonable suggestion this technology could really benefit anyone in the long run.
The reality is, backed by money from wealthy families, there is an effort to create an ever expanding technology of fixing nature with genetic engineering. Once the malaria mosquitoes are gone, and some other problem emerges, a new technology will be introduced to deal with this new threat, and so on and so on.
This is the same logic, and even the same people, responsible for the cycles of destruction in commercial agriculture. This is where a pest appears, and a chemical is developed to combat it. A new pest takes the place of the old one, and a stronger chemical is developed to deal with this new pest. Then genetic engineering is used instead of chemicals, and the pests evolve to over come this. It’s a losing battle, and it threatens the extinction of life on earth.
Interestingly enough, the gene drive technology is regulated by the Cartagena Protocol, which is part of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which includes the Nagoya Protocol, which is where all the problems of OSSI are from. Okay, got that?
The Decision
Just what was the decision on gene drives? Here is an excerpt from a convention document marked ‘Draft‘:
9. Calls upon Parties and other Governments, taking into account the current uncertainties regarding engineered gene drives, to apply a precautionary approach, in accordance with the objectives of the Convention, and also calls upon Parties and other Governments to only consider introducing organisms containing engineered gene drives into the environment, including for experimental releases and research and development purposes, when:
(a) Scientifically sound case-by-case risk assessments have been carried out;
(b) Risk management measures are in place to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects, as appropriate;
(c) Where appropriate, the “prior and informed consent”, the “free, prior and informed consent” or “approval and involvement” of potentially affected indigenous peoples and local communities is sought or obtained, where applicable in accordance with national circumstances and legislation
Draft
decision
submitted by the Chair
of Working Group
II
Just to give you an idea of how opaque the whole process is, I couldn’t find this document in the list of official documents on the CBD website, but rather it showed up in Google. There’s no apparent way to confirm if this text was actually adopted, or further modified before being adopted.
Looking at the text, does it support the use of gene drives or restrict it? There is some further documentation on the CBD website on what gaining consent of indigenous people really means, but it really seems there are a lot of excuses not to do this, for example according to local legislation or circumstances. It would appear to authorize gene drives if the other criteria of risk assessment and risk management are met.
This resolution is being hailed by a number of environmental and farmers groups as a significant step forward, but I’m aware of many of these groups receiving funding from the same sources as OSSI is funded and generally have very undemocratic internal structures which suppress the opinions and freedom of expression of the members. While they’re publicly supporting a moratorium on gene drives, it’s almost certain they’re doing the opposite behind the scenes, especially as they seem to be involved in negotiating the text of the resolutions.
This is not democracy. In fact this is one of the most undemocratic mechanisms I have ever seen, and if the sole purpose of the Convention on Biological Diversity is to justify and legitimize the use of gene drives, there’s no reason for it to exist.
