Seite - 104 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

an organism, the degrees of freedom of its genomic information and the potential to bias the inheritance of respective (artificial) traits, the technological power has to be rated as high. The technological range on the other hand scores as high due to the gene drive’s capability of self- replication/propagation, the possibility to spread geographically and invasively penetrate populations. A major distinction in the technological range can be made between self-limiting and self-sustaining drives. However, between individual gene drive techniques further distinctions are possible: The intensity of intervention (i.e. mass and frequency) is high for technologies like RIDL and X-Shredder that require mass releases and low for those that do not, as e.g., Medea and CRISPR/Cas-based Drives. The depth of intervention is high for technologies like X-Shredder and CRISPR/Cas that confer a self-sustaining drive, permanently altering wild type populations, and moderate for self-limiting drives like MEDEA and RIDL. With regard to the reliability and failure probability, in particular resistance formation is a major issue that limits the effectivity of CRISPR/Cas-based drives. But evolutionary changes on the level of DNA may in general be a source of unforeseen effects and therefore hamper the intended impacts of SPAGEs. For corrective actions, wild type releases to outcompete the altered SPAGE organisms are considered for both RIDL techniques. With regard to CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene drives, there are considerations for a rescue drive to remedy the genetic alterations and currently there are plans for anti-gene drives that utilize a chemical killing-off only the GDOs [12], [24]. So far, only for X-Shredder there is no way to remedy the gene drive. But it has to be noted that most of the discussed options for corrective action are not proven so far and limited to theoretical speculation and models. Concluding Remarks The purpose of this article is to raise awareness toward reasons for concern and potential benefits of the emerging gene drive technologies. There is still time to act and influence the design and development paths. We face a great challenge in our responsibility towards our ecosphere and all its residents. Therefore, we need to be careful in the alterations we extract upon the environment and be vigilant of adverse effects that might follow rash interventions into complex systems. The precautionary principle is dependent on reasons for concern. Some of which have been presented here. These reasons for concern should also be considered in the next step concerning the regulation of these newly emerging technologies that possess a new quality beyond anything that is currently practiced in genetic engineering. Funding The GeneTip project is funded by the German Federal Ministry for Education Research (BMBF). References [1] D. Collinridge, The social control of technology. London u.a.: Pinter u.a., 1982. [2] L. Alphey, “Genetic control of mosquitoes,” Annual review of entomology, vol. 59, pp. 205– 24, 2014. [3] A. Burt, “Site-Specific Selfish Genes as Tools for the Control and Genetic Engineering of Natural Populations.,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 270, no. 1518, pp. 921–928, May 2003. 104