Page - 111 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

drives against so-called pest animals? Are various fruit flies or plague locust not already on the list? Also so-called invasive species (plants as well as animals), neophytes can be attacked, eventually eradicated. • What starts with the fight against malaria could end in a nature under complete management of humankind. Gene drives would dramatically change the way how humans act within nature. Humans will have a tool, then, to steer evolution deliberately, humans can decide, what species their like or dislike, which one have the right to survive in a given form etc. One of the young shooting-stars in the scientific scene (coming from the group around George B. Church), Kevin Esvelt, named already his new working group at MIT “Sculpting Evolution”. Another researcher, Andrea Crisanti, is cited with “we can edit nature”. Despite the far-reaching visions we are faced with huge unknowns of the complex, non-linear interactions in genetic transfer, living cells and organisms, populations, ecosystems, sensitive global life connections. • Gene drives are engineered selfish genetic elements designed to operate autonomously in nature. Other technologies are also underway in R&D to eventually work nature-like in nature (e.g. in the field of synthetic biology or autonomous robots). Jan Schmidt has coined the term late-modern technology (“nachmoderne Technik”) to identify a remarkable paradigm shift. (Schmidt 2015) This new type of technology is based on the concept of self-organisation and is linked to instabilities which have to be triggered in non-linear dynamical systems. The classic-modern type of technology was, in contrast to that, related to concepts of stability, linearization, predictability and controllability. But now non- linear features and capabilities are exploited and scientists and engineers are striving for self-replicating systems which have the potential of further evolutionary changes. However, this kind of built-in dynamics is provoking limitations with regard to the possibility of a stable construction and subsequent monitoring and control of such technologies. Alternatives to gene drives? Gene drives are highly invasive tools which can or should persist in nature. Should we rely on such technologies? If not, alternatives have to be considered. Several approaches are currently discussed, researched, validated and are partly in use (Alphey 2014). One example is the infection of mosquitos with Wolbachia bacteria which are maternally inherited and affect reproduction capabilities. That could therefore lead to strategies to suppress or replace mosquito populations. Another example of population suppression is the release of genetically modified mosquitos passing on dominant lethal factors to their offspring (RIDL). Another approach, which has been in use against major agricultural pest insects, is the sterile insect technique (SIT), where large numbers of the target insects are mass-reared, sterilized by radiation, and then released in order to negatively influence the reproduction of insect populations. Multiple releases of sufficient quantities of manipulated mosquitos are necessary in all these cases to obtain the wanted results. Such approaches must also be carefully assessed. To obey the precautionary principle is mandatory also for these technologies. But, in principle, one could say, that unpleasant risks and other ramifications of these technologies might be less severe than in the case of gene drives. 111