Abstract Background Gene drive-modified mosquitoes (GDMMs) are gaining attention as sustainable tools to complement existing malaria control strategies. Their ability to self-propagate and spread through wild mosquito populations offers the promise of low-cost, long-lasting impact, but also raises ecological, ethical, and governance concerns. In this evolving debate, civil society organizations (CSOs) are pivotal actors in shaping dialogue, representing community concerns, and influencing policy decisions. This study examined the perspectives and recommendations of biodiversity-oriented CSOs on the governance, testing, and potential application of GDMMs for malaria control in Tanzania. Methods An exploratory qualitative design was employed, involving eight in-depth interviews, one focus group discussion, and three large group discussions with representatives from ten biodiversity-focused CSOs in Tanzania. Participants were selected purposively based on prior involvement in national or regional dialogues related to biotechnology; and the discussions focused on concerns, uncertainties and needs associated with testing and potential use of GDMMs for malaria control, as well as the balance of prospective benefits against long-term environmental risks. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using NVivo 12 Plus. Results Participants expressed cautious support for research on GDMMs for malaria control but raised concerns about scientific uncertainty, limited local expertise, inadequate transparency, potential transboundary effects and technological dependency. They emphasized the importance of generating robust, context-specific evidence before considering any environmental releases of gene drives; and highlighted concerns over inadequate accountability, particularly the lack of clarity on who would assume responsibility if adverse outcomes arise. They also advocated for early, inclusive, transparent, and continuous engagement with both target communities and the broader public. Lastly, to ensure objective and impartial oversight, they recommended development of local expertise that is independent of technology developers and sponsors. Conclusion The CSOs’ views were diverse but broadly aligned with the precautionary principle, emphasizing preventive action amid uncertainty, clear accountability, and the pursuit of safer alternatives. Although substantial evidence, technical guidance, and international debate on GDMMs already exist, wider dissemination and translation remain essential for stakeholder groups, including CSOs in target countries. In Tanzania, these exploratory conversations highlighted that the development and potential use of GDMMs will require: (i) robust ethical and regulatory frameworks spanning the full life cycle of the technology, (ii) balanced dialogue between advocates and skeptics, (iii) sustained early engagement, and (iv) stronger national capacity and sovereignty in decision-making. Demonstrating and effectively communicating these elements will be as critical as ensuring their existence. Importantly, despite serious reservations about gene drive mosquitoes, there was an underlying consensus that research on the technology was necessary but should be done under controlled, transparent, and auditable conditions.
Finda et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: