From consultation to participation: evidence and lessons for meaningful engagement in gene drive science
This version (Version 4) was created on 23 September 2026.
Update note: As the evidence base on gene drive engagement has expanded, this living review has been reorganised. Empirical studies examining how different publics, experts and stakeholder groups perceive gene drive technologies are now covered in a companion review, Stakeholder perspectives on gene drive technologies. This article retains its original title and focuses on how engagement is understood, designed and carried out in gene drive research.
Why community engagement matters in gene drive research
Few emerging biotechnologies have generated as much discussion about participation and decision-making as gene drives. Engineered gene drives could potentially contribute to malaria control, agricultural pest management and conservation, but their capacity to alter wild populations also raises ecological, ethical and governance questions that cannot be addressed by technical assessment alone (Boersma et al., 2023; Singh, 2019; Annas et al., 2021).
Much of the debate therefore turns on who should have a say in shaping gene drive research, and eventually in deciding whether an environmental release should take place.
This is particularly important because gene drive interventions are different from many conventional biomedical technologies. Their effects may extend beyond individual research participants to communities, landscapes and, potentially, across political borders. Traditional models based primarily on individual informed consent therefore provide only part of the answer (Singh, 2019; George et al., 2019).
No engineered gene drive organism has yet been released into the environment, but engagement is already taking place around potential applications. The literature has increasingly shifted away from asking whether engagement is necessary and towards more difficult questions: when should it begin? Who should participate? What information is needed? How much influence should participants have? And how can engagement remain meaningful as research moves from laboratories towards possible field testing?
There is broad agreement that engagement should be early, inclusive and sustained. Putting those principles into practice, however, is much less straightforward (Thizy et al., 2019; Normandin et al., 2022).
From information sharing to meaningful participation
Providing accurate information is an essential part of engagement, but information by itself does not create participation.
Hartley and colleagues (2024), studying discussions around gene drive in Uganda, described a situation of “information poverty”: people may be interested in participating in debates about emerging technologies while lacking access to sufficiently independent, accessible and locally relevant information. This creates an important imbalance. If researchers, developers or a small number of technical experts remain the principal sources of knowledge, other participants may have difficulty questioning assumptions or contributing on equal terms.
The problem, then, is not simply whether information exists. It is who produces it, who can access it and whether people have the opportunity to use that information to influence decisions.
This distinction appears repeatedly across the engagement literature. Normandin et al. (2022), for example, examined practical hurdles to responsive engagement around environmental biotechnologies. Their work emphasises that meaningful engagement requires more than consultation exercises conducted after major research decisions have already been made. Engagement has to be capable of responding to what participants say.
Informed consent and FPIC in gene drive research
Gene drive also exposes some of the limits of conventional informed-consent models.
Singh (2019) argued that approaches developed for biomedical research involving identifiable individual participants are difficult to transfer directly to environmental interventions whose consequences may affect entire communities. George et al. (2019) explored this problem through the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).
Their analysis makes an important distinction between consultation and meaningful influence. Communities may be asked for their views without having any clearly defined role in determining what happens next. The word “consent” can therefore hide difficult questions: whose consent is required, at what stage, and what happens if communities disagree?
The three components of FPIC are themselves demanding in the context of gene drive. Consent cannot easily be considered informed when people lack access to understandable and independent information. It cannot meaningfully be prior if engagement starts after major choices have already been made. And it is difficult to describe participation as free if communities have little practical ability to challenge the direction of a project.
The literature does not provide a single operational solution to these questions. What it does show is why simply transferring individual-consent procedures into community settings is unlikely to be enough.
Moving beyond top-down approaches in community engagement
Another recurring concern is the order in which engagement takes place.
Thizy and colleagues (2019), in guidance developed for area-wide vector-control methods, emphasised that engagement needs to evolve with the research process and involve different groups at different stages. Yet emerging technologies are often discussed first within scientific, regulatory and policy institutions, while affected communities enter the conversation later.
That sequence matters. If communities are approached only once the research trajectory is largely established, their role may be restricted to reacting to predefined options rather than helping define the problem, the alternatives or the conditions under which research should proceed.
The literature increasingly describes engagement as iterative rather than linear. The purpose is not to obtain a single moment of approval. Relationships, questions and concerns may change as the technology develops and new evidence becomes available.
Community engagement in gene drive conservation
Some engagement challenges become particularly visible when gene drive is considered for conservation. Conservation interventions are embedded in relationships between people, species and landscapes. Decisions about what should be protected, restored or controlled are therefore not simply technical decisions. They can reflect different cultural values, histories and understandings of nature.
Nissen and colleagues (2025) examined engagement around genetic modification technologies for conservation and asked a deceptively simple set of questions: engagement for whom, how, and for what ends?
They distinguish between processes intended primarily to inform people or facilitate the introduction of a technology and approaches that give participants a more substantive role in shaping the direction of research. This matters because a process may appear highly participatory, through meetings, surveys or consultations, while leaving underlying decisions largely untouched.
Hartley et al. (2022) found a related problem when examining principles proposed for gene drive governance in conservation. Inclusive and empowered engagement was among the most frequently invoked principles, yet it was also poorly defined in operational terms. Guidance often stated that engagement should be broad and deliberative without explaining how influence would actually be distributed.
They also noted inconsistent attention to Indigenous peoples and limited involvement of social scientists in some governance discussions. These gaps are especially relevant for conservation applications, where local and Indigenous communities may have longstanding responsibilities for and relationships with the environments in which interventions are proposed.
The lesson is not that conservation requires an entirely different engagement framework. Rather, it makes particularly visible why representation, authority and purpose need to be addressed explicitly
Communicating gene drive science with communities
Meaningful participation is difficult when the science itself cannot be discussed in accessible terms.
This sounds obvious, but gene drive communication presents unusual problems. Concepts such as inheritance bias, population suppression, population replacement and ecological spread are technically complex. Some have no straightforward equivalents in local languages. Uncertainty adds another layer: communicators need to explain not only what researchers know, but also what remains unknown.
Tonui et al. (2024), drawing on perspectives from communicators, science journalists and scientists in Africa, examined the challenge of communicating uncertainty around genetic biocontrol. Their work shows why simply simplifying scientific information may not be sufficient. Communication must convey uncertainty without making the science unintelligible or giving an impression of certainty that the evidence does not support.
Co-developing scientific terminology with local communities
Wanyama and colleagues (2021) confronted a very practical version of this challenge while developing terminology for discussions about genetic approaches to malaria control.
Rather than assuming that technical terms could simply be translated word-for-word, they worked with linguists and community members to develop a shared glossary (Figure 1). Terms were discussed and tested in local contexts so that the underlying concepts, not merely the vocabulary, could be communicated.
This is an important shift. Translation becomes part of engagement itself. For instance, the French word “chromosome” was adjusted in the Dioula language (Figure 2) to better fit local linguistic frameworks.
The process recognised that scientific terminology carries assumptions about how concepts are understood. By involving local speakers in developing the language used to describe the technology, communication moved from delivering information towards co-creating the tools required for discussion.
Visual communication and co-designed engagement tools
Schairer et al. (2020) approached the communication problem from another direction. Their interdisciplinary team developed a standardised introduction to gene drives for lay audiences using narrated slideshows (Figure 3).
Importantly, the materials were not produced once and treated as finished. They were refined iteratively and used to support focus-group discussions. The researchers found that carefully designed visual explanations could provide enough common background for participants to ask more sophisticated questions and discuss different gene drive approaches.
The broader lesson is that communication materials themselves can be treated as objects of co-design and testing.
Yet communication should not be confused with engagement. Better explanations may make participation possible, but they do not determine who has influence or what happens to the views expressed. A technically excellent presentation can still sit inside a largely one-way decision-making process.
From consultation to meaningful participation in gene drive research
Much of the recent engagement literature pushes towards a more relational view of participation. Instead of seeing engagement as a series of meetings surrounding a research project, this approach treats it as an ongoing relationship between researchers, communities and other actors.
Kormos and colleagues (2024) describe one example through the application of a Relationship-Based Model to gene drive vector-control programmes in São Tomé and Príncipe. The model places considerable emphasis on relationships with local actors and on adapting engagement to the social and institutional setting rather than imposing a single standardised process.
What matters here is not just holding more meetings, but the possibility that engagement changes research practice.
A similar point emerges from agricultural research. Kokotovich et al. (2022) examined stakeholder engagement undertaken to inform risk assessment and governance for a potential gene drive approach to spotted-wing drosophila. Their work illustrates how engagement can be connected directly to questions being considered in risk assessment rather than operating as a parallel communications exercise.
That connection becomes increasingly important as research approaches potential environmental testing. If engagement and technical risk assessment remain isolated from one another, stakeholder concerns may be heard without changing what risks are examined.
What does “engagement” mean in gene drive risk assessment?
One difficulty is that the same word can describe very different activities.
Hartley and colleagues (2025) examined international perspectives on engagement in biotechnology risk assessment using gene drive as a case study. They found that participants understood engagement in different ways: some imagined upstream and deliberative involvement, while others associated it with much narrower opportunities such as public-comment procedures.
That difference is not merely semantic. If researchers, regulators and communities enter a process with different expectations about what “engagement” means, disagreement may emerge even when everyone formally supports the principle.
Clarifying the purpose, timing and expected influence of engagement at the beginning of a process may therefore be as important as choosing the engagement method itself.
Community engagement in practice: Lessons from Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso provides one of the most developed practical examples of engagement around genetically modified mosquitoes, although it is important to distinguish this work from an environmental release of gene drive mosquitoes.
In 2019, Target Malaria carried out a small-scale release of non-gene-drive genetically modified sterile male mosquitoes. Toe and colleagues (2021) documented the engagement process surrounding the release.
Engagement was conducted over an extended period rather than immediately before the release. Researchers used repeated meetings, visual materials, theatre and visits to research facilities to explain the work and create opportunities for questions. Particular attention was given to including groups such as women and young people.
Toe et al. (2022) subsequently described efforts to operationalise stakeholder engagement for gene drive research more broadly. One feature was the development of community-level mechanisms through which local representatives could participate in monitoring research activities. The experience showed what sustained engagement can require in practice: time, repeated interaction, adaptation of communication methods and relationships with local institutions.
Developments in 2025, however, added another important dimension to the Burkina Faso experience. After receiving biosafety, environmental and ethics approvals, as well as agreement from communities at the field sites, the project conducted a small-scale release of non-gene-drive genetically modified male-bias mosquitoes on 11 August 2025. One week later, national authorities instructed the research team to suspend its activities, and on 22 August the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation announced the termination of all Target Malaria activities in Burkina Faso (Target Malaria, 2025). The decision also led to research facilities being sealed and genetically modified mosquito samples being ordered for destruction (Nakkazi, 2025).
The episode highlights a limit that is sometimes less visible in discussions of community engagement. Extensive local engagement, community agreement and formal regulatory authorisation may be necessary, but they are not sufficient to ensure that a research programme can continue. Political and institutional support can change, and decisions taken at higher levels of government can override processes established at community or regulatory levels.
For engagement strategies, this broadens the meaning of the term. Relationships with affected communities remain essential, but sustained engagement with regulators, government institutions and other decision-makers is also important throughout the research process. The Burkina Faso experience therefore illustrates both what long-term community engagement can achieve and the wider governance environment within which that engagement ultimately operates.
Community engagement and governance of future gene drive field trials
As gene drive research advances, the relationship between engagement and governance becomes more consequential.
Long and colleagues (2020) proposed a set of core commitments for future gene drive field trials covering partnerships and transparency, product efficacy and safety, regulatory evaluation and risk-benefit assessment, and monitoring and mitigation (Figure 3).
Community and stakeholder engagement appears across these areas rather than as a separate final step. Local knowledge can affect trial design; engagement can contribute to identifying concerns relevant to risk assessment; and long-term relationships will matter for monitoring after any future release.
Annas et al. (2021) approached the issue through a code of ethics for gene drive research. Their framework centres on scientific responsibility, ecological stewardship and public engagement, including attention to the distribution of risks and benefits.
Both approaches make a similar move: engagement becomes part of responsible research practice rather than an activity added after technical development is complete.
What the evidence tells us about meaningful gene drive engagement
The literature does not point to a single model for gene drive engagement, nor would a universal approach necessarily be appropriate. What emerges instead is a set of recurring principles that need to be adapted to different social, cultural, institutional and technological contexts.
Engagement needs to begin early enough for participation to matter and continue as research develops, rather than being concentrated around a single regulatory milestone. Information should be accessible, culturally and linguistically appropriate, and candid about uncertainty. Different groups need meaningful opportunities to raise concerns, challenge assumptions and contribute their own knowledge and priorities. Just as importantly, engagement processes should make clear what participants can actually influence.
The evidence also shows that more engagement does not automatically mean better engagement. A project can organise many meetings without changing how decisions are made. Conversely, a comparatively small process may be meaningful if participants have a genuine opportunity to shape decisions that affect them. This distinction runs through research on FPIC, science communication, conservation governance, risk assessment and practical engagement: informing people about a decision is not the same as involving them in shaping it.
Context is therefore central. Approaches developed for malaria-control research in African communities cannot simply be transferred to conservation projects, agricultural systems or other geographical settings. Engagement needs to reflect who may be affected, how an intervention could spread, which institutions hold authority, and the relationships that already exist between communities, researchers and governments.
For the same reason, engagement should not be treated primarily as a means of obtaining public acceptance. Its value also lies in the possibility that participants identify concerns, alternatives or priorities that change the research itself.
Gene drive research remains at a stage where many important choices have not yet been fixed. This creates an opportunity for engagement to evolve alongside the science rather than being added retrospectively once technological pathways are already established. Ultimately, the significance of engagement will depend less on how many activities are conducted than on whether participation can genuinely influence what researchers, funders, regulators and other decision-makers do next.
Frequently asked questions (FAQs)
What is community engagement in gene drive research?
Community engagement is the ongoing involvement of people and groups who may be affected by gene drive research. It can include information sharing, consultation, dialogue, participation in decision-making, and long-term relationships between researchers, communities and institutions.
Why is community engagement important for gene drive research?
Gene drive organisms could affect shared environments and populations beyond individual research participants. Engagement helps ensure that local knowledge, concerns, values and priorities can inform how research is designed, assessed and governed.
When should community engagement begin?
The literature consistently supports starting engagement early, before major decisions are fixed, and continuing it as the research develops. Engagement limited to the final stages of a project gives communities fewer opportunities to influence its direction.
How does informed consent apply to gene drive research?
Traditional individual informed consent is difficult to apply to interventions that may affect whole communities or ecosystems. Approaches such as Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) highlight the importance of accessible information, early participation and meaningful influence over decisions.
What does the Burkina Faso experience show about community engagement?
The Burkina Faso experience shows both the value and the limits of sustained local engagement. Even extensive community participation and regulatory approvals cannot by themselves guarantee continuity if political and institutional support changes, highlighting the need for engagement across communities, regulators and decision-makers.
References
Annas, G. J., Beisel, C. L., Clement, K., Crisanti, A., Francis, S., Galardini, M., Galizi, R., Grünewald, J., Immobile, G., Khalil, A. S., Müller, R., Pattanayak, V., Petri, K., Paul, L., Pinello, L., Simoni, A., Taxiarchi, C., & Joung, J. K. (2021). A Code of Ethics for Gene Drive Research. The CRISPR Journal, 4(1), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2020.0096
Boersma, K., Bovenkerk, B., & Ludwig, D. (2023). Gene drives as interventions into nature: The coproduction of ontology and morality in the gene drive debate. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-023-00439-0
George, D. R., Kuiken, T., & Delborne, J. A. (2019). Articulating ‘free, prior and informed consent’ (FPIC) for engineered gene drives. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1484
Hartley, S., Stelmach, A., Opesen, C., Openjuru, G. L., & Neema, S. (2024). Talking about gene drive in Uganda: The need for science communication to underpin engagement. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470241234048
Hartley, S., Taitingfong, R., & Fidelman, P. (2022). The principles driving gene drives for conservation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.04.021
Hartley, S., Stelmach, A., Kokotovich, A., & Smith, R. D. J. (2025). International perspectives on the meaning of engagement in biotechnology risk assessment: The case of gene drive. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2025.2485047
Kokotovich, A. E., Barnhill-Dilling, S. K., Elsensohn, J. E., Li, R., Delborne, J. A., & Burrack, H. (2022). Stakeholder engagement to inform the risk assessment and governance of gene drive technology to manage spotted-wing drosophila. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114480
Kormos, A., Nazare, L., Aguiar dos Santos, A., & Lanzaro, G. C. (2024). Practical application of a relationship-based model to engagement for gene-drive vector control programs. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.23-0862
Long, K. C., Alphey, L., Annas, G. J., Bloss, C. S., Campbell, K. J., Champer, J., Chen, C.-H., Choudhary, A., Church, G. M., Collins, J. P., Cooper, K. L., Delborne, J. A., Edwards, O. R., Emerson, C. I., Esvelt, K., Evans, S. W., Friedman, R. M., Gantz, V. M., Gould, F., Hartley, S., Heitman, E., Hemingway, J., Kanuka, H., Kuzma, J., Lavery, J. V., Lee, Y., Lorenzen, M., Lunshof, J. E., Marshall, J. M., Messer, P. W., Montell, C., Oye, K. A., Palmer, M. J., Papathanos, P. A., Paradkar, P. N., Piaggio, A. J., Rasgon, J. L., Rašić, G., Rudenko, L., Saah, J. R., Scott, M. J., Sutton, J. T., Vorsino, A. E., & Akbari, O. S. (2020). Core commitments for field trials of gene drive organisms. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd1908
Nakkazi, E. (2025) Mosquito gene drive cancellation disrupts Africa’s malaria research. https://doi.org/10.1038/d44148-025-00286-z
Nissen, S., Buelow, F. A., Taitingfong, R., & Black, A. (2025). Engagement for genetic modification technologies in conservation: For whom, how, and for what ends? https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104190
Normandin, A. M., Fitzgerald, L. M., Yip, J., & Evans, S. W. (2022). Hurdles in responsive community engagement for the development of environmental biotechnologies. https://doi.org/10.1093/synbio/ysac022
Schairer, C. E., Triplett, C., Buchman, A., Akbari, O. S., & Bloss, C. S. (2020). Interdisciplinary development of a standardized introduction to gene drives for lay audiences. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01146-0
Singh, J. A. (2019). Informed consent and community engagement in open field research: Lessons for gene drive science. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0389-3
Thizy, D., Emerson, C., Gibbs, J., Hartley, S., Kapiriri, L., Lavery, J. V., Lunshof, J. E., Ramsey, J., Shapiro, J., Singh, J. A., Toe, L. P., Coche, I., & Robinson, B. (2019). Guidance on stakeholder engagement practices to inform the development of areawide vector control methods. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007286
Toe, L., Barry, N., Ky, A. D., Kekele, S., Meda, W., Bayala, K., Drabo, M., Thizy, D., & Diabaté, A. (2021). Small scale release of non gene drive mosquitoes in Burkina Faso: From engagement implementation to assessment, a learning journey. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-021-03929-2
Toe, L., Dicko, B., Linga, R., Barry, N., Drabo, M., Sykes, N., & Thizy, D. (2022). Operationalizing stakeholder engagement for gene drive research in malaria elimination in Africa: Translating guidance into practice. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-022-04241-3
Tonui, W. K., Ogoyi, D., Thuo, C., Tareh, C., Alukhaba, C. L., Ouedraogo, A., Massouroudini, A., Wamba Ndongmo Regine, A., Ogbaki, A. G., Andae, G., Rotich, G., Kipkoech, A., & Omungo, R. (2024). Communicating the uncertainties associated with genetic biocontrol approaches: Insights from communicators, science journalists and scientists in Africa. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.230608
Wanyama, E. C., Dicko, B., Pare Toe, L., Coulibaly, M. B., Barry, N., Bayala Traore, K., Diabaté, A., Drabo, M., Kayondo, J. K., Kekele, S., Kodio, S., Ky, A. D., Linga, R. R., Magala, E., Meda, W. I., Mukwaya, S., Namukwaya, A., Robinson, B., Samoura, H., Sanogo, K., Thizy, D., & Traoré, F. (2021). Co-developing a common glossary with stakeholders for engagement on new genetic approaches for malaria control in a local African setting. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-020-03577-y