One of the most reliable ways to invite controversy is to discuss the spread of genetically modified traits into ‘wild’ populations, and indeed numerous regulations are designed to minimise this cross-pollination. But what if the spread of certain traits provided global benefits? Should we attempt to disseminate genes in the wild? How should we do it? Who makes the decisions? A first attempt at answering some of these questions comes in the form of the recent report from the United Kingdom’s House of Lords Science & Technology Committee: “Genetically Modified Insects” (also as a PDF).

The use of genetically modified insects to prevent the spread of pathogenic diseases

The report can be split into three areas: population suppression (the release of large numbers of sterile insects to crowd out the fertile ones); population replacement (introducing genes or gene drives which will spread a desired trait throughout the wild population); and resistance management (preventing the onset of resistance to these traits).These techniques were mostly examined in light of controlling mosquitoes, which act as hosts for diseases such as Malaria, Dengue, Chikungunya, and West Nile Fever, the first two of which threaten almost half of the world’s population. The single vector species involved in these diseases, combined with the requirement for low cost solutions, leads to interest in ‘self-perpetuating’ treatments such as population replacement. These requirements also underlie livestock diseases such as Bluetongue and Equine infectious anaemia, as well as agricultural pests such as the Diamondback moth (which destroys crops such as canola and broccoli).A large part of the impetus for this report comes from work by Oxitec, a British biotech company developing male ‘sterile’ mosquitoes. These include Aedes aegypti (whose female mosquitoes can carry dengue fever), all of whose offspring will die in the larval stage; and Aedes albopictus (the Asian tiger mosquito) for whom all female offspring are flightless and cannot mate. Releasing large numbers of these mosquitoes, the theory goes, will ‘dilute’ the amount of normal reproduction occurring and lead to large numbers of non-viable offspring. As well as developing mosquitoes for improved population health, Oxitec also targets agricultural pests. In this arm of the company they produce sterile versions of the Diamondback moth, the Pink Bollworm (a cotton pest), the Mediterranean and Mexican fruit flies (which attack various fruits) and the Olive Fly (which, surprisingly enough, infests olive groves).Oxitec itself is one of the only GM-Insect companies worldwide, and their potential value was underlain by a $160 million USD acquisition by synthetic biology giant Intrexon earlier this year. To follow this example and build on the current technology lead, the report suggests further funding and assistance for the commercialisation of UK GM-Insect research via the Innovate UK and RCUK grant programmes.Despite this, a notable take-home message from the report is that, despite their potential, “GM insect technologies are currently in their infancy” – and thus would require significant expense to build up into a valuable market. The authors stress that the development of GM insect solutions should not occur at the expense of developing other ‘traditional’ insecticides. Their recommended approach was to further the “potential of GM insects as part of a complementary approach to pest and vector control management.”

The inquiry and associated report contains a summation of information provided by numerous experts within the field. Interestingly, the report itself notes that “individuals and groups who are sceptical of the merits of GM technologies did not engage with our inquiry…it was puzzling that they did not wish for their voices to be heard.” Nonprofits such as Genewatch UK have previously expressed concerns at some of Oxitec’s insect release plans, it is thus somewhat surprising that these groups did not become involved in providing testimony to the Committee.

Having said this, attitudes within the EU towards GM technology and the regulation thereof made for a significant proportion of the overall publication. The authors noted “that the principal and overwhelming barrier to the fulfilment of commercial potential…was the EU regulatory regime.” EU regulation is far too complex to explain in this post, but can perhaps be best summarised as Very Complicated And Politically Dangerous Indeed. Extension of EU regulations designed for GM Crops leads to confusion in scope and application, and this lies in part behind the eventual rejection of Oxitec’s attempt to trial their insects after a multi-year application process.

The authors finish by noting several improvements which could be made in the current UK and EU system. This includes simplification of regulations, (such that GM technology be regulated based on the final trait, rather than the method by which that trait is introduced); further public communication (to explain the reasoning behind GM Insect strategies) and to move ahead with a full field trial of the modified insects.

The regulations in this field are unlikely to change anytime soon (though the much-wagered-upon Brexit may surprise us all), but this report will probably act as the impetus for a UK-based field trial of genetically modified insects by Oxitec. Time will tell.