Gene Drives: Australia’s Experiment With Extinction Technology
In quiet laboratories across Australia, scientists are working on one of the most ambitious and controversial technologies ever attempted. Known as gene drives, the technique is designed not just to alter individual organisms but to push engineered traits through entire populations. In some cases, the end goal is nothing less than extinction.
The University of Adelaide, alongside CSIRO, has been at the centre of the international GBIRd program, or Genetic Biocontrol of Invasive Rodents. The project is funded in part by the United States military research agency DARPA, which has contributed millions of dollars to fast-track development.
The idea is simple on paper: engineer mice so they produce only male offspring. Within a few generations, the population collapses. Supporters say this could be a humane and effective way to remove invasive species. Critics see it as the release of a genetic chain reaction that cannot be recalled.
Freedom of Information documents have revealed that CSIRO has not only taken a leading role in the science but is also driving what it calls “community engagement.” More than three million dollars has been set aside for consultations and communications aimed at winning public acceptance.
Critics argue this is not genuine dialogue but rather a campaign to secure what they describe as “social licence” for experiments that the public has never been properly asked to approve.
The risks are not theoretical. Once a gene drive is released into the wild, it spreads rapidly through a species. There is no switch to turn it off. Ecologists warn that removing a species altogether could have cascading effects on entire ecosystems, wiping out food sources, altering predator–prey dynamics, and reshaping landscapes in ways no one can predict.
Even some of the scientists who once championed gene drives have now admitted that the risks are too great for release into open environments.
The dual-use nature of the technology adds another layer of unease. The same mechanism that could eliminate pests could just as easily be weaponised. Insects could be engineered to spread toxins. Crops could be sabotaged.
Parasites could be re-designed to carry disease. It is no coincidence that the largest single funder of gene drive research worldwide is the US military, which has poured more than a hundred million dollars into projects across the globe.
Australia, meanwhile, is being lined up as a potential testing ground. CSIRO has been in discussions with state agencies in Western Australia to identify islands where gene-drive mice could be released. At the same time, federal regulators have been considering loosening the rules around synthetic biology, which would reduce scrutiny of new genetic technologies entering farms and ecosystems.
Critics warn that decisions are being made behind closed doors while the broader community remains unaware of the scale of change being proposed.
Public opinion, where it has been tested, reflects both concern and confusion. Surveys show that many Australians recognise the damage caused by invasive species such as mice and feral cats, and they are naturally drawn to solutions that seem more humane than poisons or traps.
But when the implications of gene drives are explained, the mood shifts. People want to know who holds responsibility, what happens if something goes wrong, and who would bear the costs of unintended consequences.
What is really at stake is more than just pest control. It is a question of how far humanity is willing to go in reshaping nature. Gene drives are not another tweak to agriculture or another tool in the conservation kit.
They are a fundamental rewriting of life, inheritance, and ecological balance. Australia has a choice: to embrace extinction technology, or to invest in regenerative approaches that work with soil, water, microbes and ecosystems instead of overriding them.
At Earthfood, our position is clear. The answers to ecological crises are already under our feet. Living soils, thriving microbial communities and balanced ecosystems can restore abundance without risking irreversible collapse.
Rather than forcing nature’s hand through genetic engineering, we should be strengthening her resilience through biological regeneration. The future of food and biodiversity will not be secured by laboratories chasing shortcuts, but by people choosing to feed the soil and protect the life that is already here.
References: The actual document as source: https://emergingtech.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/gene-drives-briefing-paper-23_2_18-1.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawMpGFFleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFldjNJcUNja0xIYnNuZmhIAR7MEgobgENa8jaCefKd-AOxHcrlvKKaPfInkuxy6IzV2wVp_pwT3q-NobLp1g_aem_WhCweTTgQILk3UQPU4wolw
References used in that document:
1 FOI document: GBIRd MoU 2017 FINAL 20170419 .docx
2 Keith Morris Woodvale Research, https://science.dpaw.wa.gov.au/people/?sid=85#projects
3 FOI document: August 2017 Comprehensive GBIRd Update.docx
4 FOI document: Attachment 5 Keystone Draft Consulting Agreement.pdf
5 FOI document: August 2017 Comprehensive GBIRd Update.docx
6 OGTR (2017) 2016-17 Technical Review of the Gene Technology Regulations 2001,
http://ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/reviewregulations-1
7 FOE (2017) Government proposes deregulating dangerous new GM techniques, http://emergingtech.foe.org.au/governmentproposes-deregulating-dangerous-new-genetic-modification-techniques/
8 The Department of Health (2017) Review of the National Gene Technology Scheme – Consultation approach 2017,
http://health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/gene-technology-review 9
9. FOI document: GBIRd MoU 2017 FINAL 20170419 .docx
10 For reporting on the call for a moratorium on Gene Drives at CBD COP13 in Cancun December 2016 see http://www.etcgroup.org/content/160-global-groups-call-moratorium-new-genetic-extinction-technology-unconvention and https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gene-drive-moratorium-shot-down-at-un-meeting/
11 Zimmer, C. (2017) ‘Gene Drives’ Are Too Risky for Field Trials, Scientists Say, 16/11/17,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/science/gene-drives-crispr.html
12 "Renee said the Safe Genes projects account for $65M, but then mentioned with all other support in the room it was $100M.” FOI
document: AS notes on DARPA safe genes rollout San Diego may 2 2017
13 It had already been publically disclosed that DARPA's Safe Genes Project had awarded $65 million - see https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-01742-z 14 The other known major investors in Gene Drives are The Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation in conjunction with the Federal National Institutes of Health (FNIH) who have invested $75 million into Target Malaria Consortium, Tata Trusts which made a $70 million donation to UC San Diego to establish a centre of research on gene drives and ‘active genetics’, the Open Philanthropy Project which provided $17.5 million, to Project Malaria and just over $1.2 million to (FNIH) and The European Union which grants 1.5 million Euros to Target Malaria researchers.
15 FOI document: Trip Report AVPC 2017.pdf
BRIEFING PAPER 23 Feb 2018 CSIRO planning US military funded genetic extinction
experiments in WA Emerging Tech Project | www.emergingtech.foe.org.au
16 FOI document: 20170331-[gbird] GBIRd Priorities - March 2017-326 (N0024091xC1D49).PDF
17 FOI documents: 20170512-Fwd_ Gene Drive Breakout group - Army Corps Workshop in May-390.pdf; 20170510-Syn Bio Workshop Ticketing information (UNCLASSIFIED)-194.pdf
18 FOI document: Attachment 5 Keystone Draft Consulting Agreement.pdf
19 FOI document: August 2017 Comprehensive GBIRd Update.docx
20 See for example: Barclay, P. (2017) Scientists fight to make invasive pest control palatable to the public, Big Ideas, 13/6/17 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-13/should-invasive-pest-control-be-acceptable-to-the-public/8613070; Barclay, P. (2017)
New weapons in the battle against invasive pests, Big Ideas, 5/7/17, http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/new weapons-in-the-battle-against-invasive-pests/8580602; Mitchell, N. (2017) Making happier animals? Gene editing on the farmyard, Science Friction, 18/11/17, http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sciencefriction/making-happier-animals-gene-editingon-the-farmyard/9154208; Williams, R. (2017) Cane toads to get the Crispr treatment, The Science Show, 18/11/17,
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/cane-toads-to-get-the-crispr-treatment/9161942
21 Australian Academy of Science (2017) DISCUSSION PAPER: SYNTHETIC GENE DRIVES IN AUSTRALIA: IMPLICATIONS OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, https://www.science.org.au/files/userfiles/support/documents/gene-drives-discussion-paper-june2017.pdf ; For reporting on the call for a moratorium on Gene Drives at CBD COP13 in Cancun December 2016
see http://www.etcgroup.org/content/160-global-groups-call-moratorium-new-genetic-extinction-technology-unconvention and https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gene-drive-moratorium-shot-down-at-un-meeting/
22 FOI document: 20170331-[gbird] GBIRd Priorities - March 2017-326 (N0024091xC1D49).PDF
23 FOI document: Trip Report AVPC 2017.pdf
24 Dr Oliver Mayo – BioAngels, http://agfoodtech.com.au/uploads/Oliver%20Mayo.pdf
25 Australian Academy of Science (2017) DISCUSSION PAPER: SYNTHETIC GENE DRIVES IN AUSTRALIA: IMPLICATIONS OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, https://www.science.org.au/files/userfiles/support/documents/gene-drives-discussion-paper-june2017.pdf; SCIMEX
(2017) NEWS BRIEFING: ‘Evolution-bending’ gene drives could conquer pests, but what are the risks?, https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/news-briefing-gene-drives2
26 https://reviverestore.org/resilience/
27 FOI document: 20170412-Re_Fall 2017 GBIRd Meeting-411.pdf
28 FOI document: August 2017 Comprehensive GBIRd Update.docx
29 The Department of Health (2017) Review of the National Gene Technology Scheme – Consultation approach 2017,
http://health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/gene-technology-review
30 The Department of Health (2017) Biographies,
http://health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/011C554B9847D6F0CA258169000FCBBE/$File/Attachment%20D_Biograph
ies.pdf
31 Department of Health (2017) Review of the National Gene Technology Scheme – Consultation approach 2017
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/gene-technology-review
32 FOI document: 20170418-Re_CBD online forum - edits to the proposed list of _volunteers_-322.pdf
33 FOI document: 20170724-Forum-52.pdf
34 Convention on Biological Diversity (2017) List of participants, http://bch.cbd.int/synbio/participants/; Comment #8492,
http://bch.cbd.int/synbio/open-ended/discussion/?threadid=8365#8450
35 FOI document: 20170717-consultation on an ethics question-722.pdf
36 FOI document: 20170717-consultation on an ethics question-722.pdf
37 FOI document: 20170331-[gbird] GBIRd Priorities - March 2017-326 (N0024091xC1D49).PDF
38 ABC (2017) Making happier animals? Gene editing on the farmyard, Science Friction, 18/11/17,
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2017/11/sfn_20171118.mp3 at 34.05 min