The Russia connectionRussia undermines trust in science by spreading lies about genetic editing

Published 3 January 2019

Genetic editing has been a hot topic of conversation lately. There are arguments on ll sides of the issue, but Jesse Kirkpatrick and Michael Flynn – in an important article in Slate, titled “Don’t Let Russia Undermine Trust in Science” — are drawing attention to a growing threat in the debate: Russian disinformation.

Genetic editing has been a hot topic of conversation lately. There are arguments on ll sides of the issue, but Jesse Kirkpatrick and Michael Flynn – in an important article in Slate, titled “Don’t Let Russia Undermine Trust in Science” — are drawing attention to a growing threat in the debate: Russian disinformation.

Russia, or another U.S. adversary, could use the megaphone of social media to stoke worries about genome editing in the U.S. in a campaign timed with the next high-level meeting on gene drives. In fact, Russia has recently engaged in a disinformation campaign claiming – falsely — that the U.S. is developing biological weapons in neighboring countries, and it has also used state-funded news outlets to cast doubt in the U.S. about the safety of GMOs. These campaigns are concerning — they can impact national security, international relationships, and trade — yet haven’t received nearly the same level of exposure as discussion about misinformation campaigns designed to achieve political objectives. As a report prepared for the U.S. Senate shows, Russia used every major social media platform, including Snapchat, Pinterest, and Tumblr, to target specific demographic groups in an effort to influence the 2016 presidential election. Similar information warfare tactics could be used to exploit Americans’ lack of knowledge and opposition to particular forms of genome editing.”

Kirkpatrick and Flynn continue:

In a recent report on security and genome editing, we outline how a weaponized narrative on gene drive technology could unfold as part of a sophisticated information warfare campaign. It could start with an accidental release of mosquitoes that have been modified to contain gene drives. Maybe the lab is in New England and uses tropical mosquitoes to ensure that if they do escape, the harsh climate means that they can’t survive and spread the gene drives. Of course, even if the risks to the environment and human health and safety were low, there would be real concerns about such an accident: Were appropriate safety measures in place, did the researcher get the proper training, what are the environmental impacts, how can future incidents be prevented?

Legitimate news outlets could accurately report the story of the release, but it’s not hard to imagine Russia, or another country, pouncing and driving a false narrative claiming that the release’s ecological effects will be disastrous. Perhaps some tweets and Facebook accounts further claim that there is a risk of the mosquitoes spreading throughout the country and contaminating food crops with genetically engineered organisms. Russian state-funded news outlets could spin the story to highlight the “risks” of GMOs to human health and the environment, the role of greedy corporations and unaccountable philanthropies in funding GMO research, and the lack of effective government oversight in genome editing. Because the mosquitoes have been genetically modified, these same news outlets link these “risks” to the mosquitoes’ release. It’s perfectly plausible that this narrative could move from fringe social media accounts to more mainstream science doubters, who might then amplify the message.

Such a campaign would be designed to fuel false stories, undermine the public’s trust in science, and reduce the U.S.’s national economic competitiveness by dealing a blow to life sciences research. It could reduce public support, and possibly funding, for basic research in gene drives. At the international level, it is possible that Russia could erect trade barriers under the World Trade Organization’s sanitary and phytosanitary measures, which “protect human or animal life or health within the territory of the Member from risks arising from additives, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms.” Such barriers could be erected in order to gain political or economic advantage even if the risk is unwarranted. Singularly, or in combination, these outcomes could slow scientific developments that could increase human health and well-being.

Pandora Report notes that in fact, this concern is so significant that it was discussed in the recent report on biosecurity in the age of genome editing. “There are legitimate concerns that disinformation regarding weaponized gene drive technology would be picked up by major news outlets and fuel false stories. A healthy dose of skepticism and making sure your news sources for science and tech are legitimate is important,” Pandora Report says.