Experimenting with co-development: A qualitative study of gene drive research for malaria control in Mali
Experimenting with co-development: A qualitative study of gene drive research for malaria control in Mali
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113850
复制
发表时间：
2021-04-08
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Diop, Samba
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hartley, Sarah;Ledingham, Katie;Diop, Samba
我们调查技术如何？共同发展？（研究人员、利益攸关方和当地社区之间）的合作在实践中由那些开发基因驱动蚊子以根除疟疾的人制定。我们的案例研究重点是英国和马里的研究人员计划在马里进行第一次基因驱动蚊子控制疟疾的实地试验。虽然他们和更广泛的基因驱动研究界明确致力于共同开发的原则，但如何构建和实践尚不清楚。通过对2018年进行的34次访谈进行定性分析，并辅以观察和文献研究，我们确定并比较了英国和马里研究人员和利益相关者动员的共同发展的十个框架。对马里人来说，共同发展反映了马里？这是一个更广泛的社会政治背景和非洲科学独立和领导的愿望。它被动员起来，以确保社区和利益相关者支持基因驱动蚊子实地试验，通过推广，建设当地科学能力和发展实地试验所需的机构（例如监管机构）。对于联合王国的参与者来说，共同开发还涉及科学能力建设、研究人员之间的知识交流以及利益攸关方和社区外联，以确保田间试验的同意。总的来说，我们的研究结果表明，随着研究人员试图对他们工作的社会影响负责，共同开发正在打开以前由专家主导的空间。然而，其主要功能是作为一个项目管理工具，以促进和支持技术开发、实地试验和最终部署。这一职能延伸到传统上由国家负责的领域，如马里促进的监管发展？脆弱的政治和经济形势。巧合的是，共同发展同时使基因驱动去政治化，掩盖权力关系，关闭实质性辩论和机构。马里的特点是极端贫困、冲突和机构薄弱，它可能成为一个技术实验场所，对基因驱动或其治理几乎没有任何疑问。
We investigate how technology ?co-development? (between researchers, stakeholders and local communities) is framed in practice by those developing gene drive mosquitos for malaria eradication. Our case study focuses on UK and Mali-based researchers planning to undertake the first field trials in Mali of gene drive mosquitos for malaria control. While they and the wider gene drive research community are explicitly committed to the principle of co-development, how this is framed and practiced is not clear. Through qualitative analysis of 34 interviews complemented by observation and documentary research conducted in 2018, we identify and compare ten framings of co-development mobilised by UK and Malian researchers and stakeholders. For Malians, co-development reflected Mali?s broader socio-political context and a desire for African scientific independence and leadership. It was mobilised to secure community and stakeholder support for gene drive mosquito field trials, through outreach, building local scientific capacity and developing those institutions (e.g. regulatory) necessary for field trials to go ahead. For UK participants, co-development was also concerned with scientific capacity-building, knowledge exchange between researchers, and stakeholder and community outreach to secure consent for field trials. Overall, our findings suggest co-development is opening up previously expert-dominated spaces as researchers attempt to take responsibility for the societal implications of their work. However, its main function is as a project management tool to enable and instrumentally support technological development, field trials and eventual deployment. This function extends into areas which are traditionally the responsibility of the state, such as regulatory development, facilitated by Mali?s fragile political and economic situation. Paradoxically, codevelopment simultaneously depoliticises gene drive, masking power relations and closing down substantive debate and agency. Characterised by extreme poverty, conflict and weak institutions, Mali may become a site for technological experimentation where there is little interrogation of gene drive or its governance.