Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Alleviating the burden of malaria with gene drive technologies? A biocentric analysis of the moral permissibility of modifying malaria mosquitoes
  1. Nienke de Graeff1,2,
  2. Karin Rolanda Jongsma1,
  3. Annelien L Bredenoord1,3
  1. 1 Department of Bioethics & Health Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
  2. 2 Department of Ethics & Law, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
  3. 3 Erasmus School of Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Dr Nienke de Graeff, Department of Ethics & Law, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; n.de_graeff{at}


Gene drive technologies (GDTs) have been proposed as a potential new way to alleviate the burden of malaria, yet have also raised ethical questions. A central ethical question regarding GDTs relates to whether it is morally permissible to intentionally modify or eradicate mosquitoes in this way and how the inherent worth of humans and non-human organisms should be factored into determining this. Existing analyses of this matter have thus far generally relied on anthropocentric and zoocentric perspectives and rejected an individualist biocentric outlook in which all living organisms are taken to matter morally for their own sake. In this paper, we reconsider the implications of taking a biocentric approach and highlight nuances that may not be evident at first glance. First, we shortly discuss biocentric perspectives in general, and then outline Paul Taylor’s biocentric theory of respect for nature. Second, we explore how conflicting claims towards different organisms should be prioritised from this perspective and subsequently apply this to the context of malaria control using GDTs. Our ethical analysis shows that this context invokes the principle of self-defence, which could override the pro tanto concerns that a biocentrist would have against modifying malaria mosquitoes in this way if certain conditions are met. At the same time, the case study of GDTs underlines the relevance of previously posed questions and criticism regarding the internal consistency of Taylor’s egalitarian biocentrism.

  • Ethics
  • Genetic Engineering
  • Moral Status
  • Animals

Data availability statement

No data are available.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

No data are available.

View Full Text


  • Contributors NdG developed the concept for the paper, drafted the manuscript, and is its guarantor. KRJ and ALB provided substantial input and critically revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

  • Funding This work was supported by the division of Applied and Engineering Sciences of the Dutch Research Council (NWO) under grant number 15804.

  • Competing interests ALB is a member of the Dutch Senate. NdG and KRJ have no conflicts of interest to declare in relation to this research.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Other content recommended for you