Seite - 113 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

René Descartes who has apostrophized man as “master of nature”. Or do we see humankind embedded into nature and as a partner of all life on earth? Albert Schweitzer´s principle respect for life could be cited in this respect: “I am life that wants to live in the middle of life that wants to live”. (Schweitzer 1966) How should WE decide? What seems to be an acceptable and well-founded ethical position? Scientists have to reflect about such questions and not only about their purely scientific tasks and challenges. Even more, the normative debate, argumentation and position finding with respect to gene drive R&D is a challenge for us all as citizens of the planet earth. The whole fabric of risks, uncertainties and ignorance, possible dramatic consequences of mutagenic chain reactions have to be considered within the normative discourse. Is gene drive research and development directed on practical use a responsible undertaking? Is the malaria challenge a sufficient argument to invest into this kind of research? Who is entitled to change nature in a way that it could irreversibly affect all life on earth? A single researcher, the scientific community, an agency, a nation? Do we have to anticipate already a race between WHO´s malaria elimination programme 2030 and Bill Gates´ heavily funded dream of releasing anti-mosquito gene drives before 2030? (He believes that already in three to five years gene drives could be used in the wild, neglecting the probably long-lasting regulative procedures? Why the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is investing 100 million US dollars in gene drive technology? Why early stage assessment We know all the old formula, which is stubbornly preserved in the scientific community: “First let us research and develop technology, thereafter we will see, thereafter society can decide”. The example of gene drive R&D demonstrates (again) that this is not anymore tenable. It would be a breakneck approach to proceed further based on that principle. When a gene drive technology against malaria transmitting mosquitos seems to be mature – and that could be soon the intuition of several involved researchers and founders – it is too late for serious reflection and discourse. Then it is barely possible anymore to deny its use in a region with serious malaria burden. The hope for some advantages will cover up all concerns over possible or anticipatable negative side effects or long term consequences. Science and (global) society are at the crossroad. We have to find suitable ways so that the direction of scientific-technological progress is scrutinized before it takes place. Kevin Esvelt, who is seriously involved in gene drive research, is cited with the following: “We need to recognize that the answer to the question whether we should use a gene drive in a particular instance - `no´ has to be an acceptable answer.”(Nature Biotechnology 2015) And: “Scientists must accept the possibility that society could say no, halting gene drive research entirely.” (Harvard Magazine, May-June 2016). Yes, that has to be debated – now. Prospective Technology Assessment is necessary to provide input for this important discourse inside and outside science. Note: more elaborated considerations and also more references can be found in (Liebert and Wölcher 2017) and (Liebert 2018). 113