Posted on August 3, 2018 at 12:39 AM
Lyme disease is caused by a type of bacteria that lives in mice, which are considered a “reservoir” for the disease-causing agent. Ticks bite the mice, pick up the bacteria, and then infect people when they bite them. (Ticks are called the “vector” for the disease.)
If mice were immune to the bacteria, their immune systems would destroy them, and there’s be no reservoir, and no Lyme disease. If scientists genetically engineered mice to make them immune—for example, by editing their genes—they could make progress toward that goal. But to work, the mouse population would have to be predominantly made of bacteria-immune mice. That could be accomplished by using “gene drive,” an approach that would make the altered gene spread preferentially and rapidly in the population. However, doing that could alter the environment in unpredictable ways.
Because of the risks, scientists on the “Mice Against Ticks” project are determined that even if they succeed in genetically altering mice as suggested, they will not release those mice into the wild without full public awareness and approval. They are holding public meetings—specifically, in Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket—well in advance of the project coming to full fruition. And they are trying to figure out, with the public, what level of communication and acceptance constitutes public approval.
Similarly, scientists in New Zealand would like to use a form of gene drive to greatly reduce the population of rats, possums, and other destructive predators that are decimating the environment. And their public deliberations include seeking advice and, before taking action, buy-in from a network of Maori leaders. Those conversations are so sensitive that the Maori objected when the scientists published a “what-if” type of article discussing the issues raised by the technology. Among the concerns: some readers got the impression that gene editing of the animals was imminent, not hypothetical, as it still is. Some of the news coverage of the Nuffield Council’s recent deliberations about the potential acceptability of heritable human gene editing seemed, likewise, to create the impression that the birth of the first gene-edited human is upon us—which it is not, not quite yet.
The public discussions above are two commendable moves toward true public involvement in decision-making about gene editing. They were described in a recent Wall Street Journal article. If you have subscription access, by all means read it.
Comments are closed.