“These topics raise the same question, namely the responsibility of scientists”

Why did you choose to explore two such different topics in a single opinion?
Christine Noiville: Indeed, these two topics apparently have nothing to do with one another.  In virology, gain-of-function research refers to laboratory experiments on bacteria or viruses that are rendered more pathogenic or communicable by scientists, in an effort to better understand how they function and their pandemic potential. This raises questions regarding security in laboratories, which are nothing new. Solar geoengineering involves a series of highly-varied techniques–some quite recent–aiming to manipulate the planetary environment on a large-scale in order to counter climate change. Among these techniques, COMETS is especially interested in solar radiation modification via the injection of aerosols into the stratosphere, for which reflections are much less mature.

However, in spite of these differences, the two topics raise the same question, namely the responsibility of scientists in the event their research presents large-scale collective risks, whether direct or indirect, such as allowing a potential global pandemic virus to escape, or destabilising the climate in certain regions, thereby sparking a rebound effect of warming if injections do not continue. It is not a new question, but it is highly operative here, and divides scientific communities in France and abroad. Is it reasonable to expose populations and the environment to risks of major harm? Or, on the contrary, should research grapple with the crucial issues of fighting pandemics and climate change, including by conducting potentially dangerous experiments?

The hesitation and controversy is all the more intense given that in both cases, the debate is embedded within a political and economic context that radicalises it. Behind the issue of gain-of-function research lurk fears sparked by bioterrorism and the COVID pandemic, which some have attributed to a laboratory accident. There are suspicions that solar radiation modification is being pushed by private actors whose real interest is to maintain a model based on fossil energies, and who are leading public research along this path as a diversion from advancing decarbonisation. Hence the polarised debates, including at the CNRS, regarding whether research should be conducted in these fields.

Are these ethical questions?
C. N.: Yes, but not exclusively. They obviously have a scientific and political dimension. However, they bring into play strongly opposed values and principles (freedom of scientific research, do-no-harm, justice, equity, etc.), do not have easy answers, and call for reflecting together on the least bad solution on the collective level, and the kind of world we want for the future, along with the values that underpin our choices. It is the precise mission of COMETS to ensure that scientific research is central to this reflection. It is therefore not by chance that CNRS management chose to transform what was originally a COMETS own-initiative into a referral.

What does COMETS recommend?
C. N. : COMETS has formulated three central recommendations.

It firstly believes that it is the responsibility of scientists to collectively develop these high-risk-potential issues, and to jointly examine, in coordinated fashion, the societal risks and advantages connected to research on these subjects. Our sole mission as scientists is not producing knowledge without taking an interest in its consequences on the grounds that knowledge is neutral, which in fact is not the case. We have a responsibility to reflect on the direct and indirect impact of our research, and to illuminate public debates and decisions. It is crucial to prevent the controversial questions, such as those raised by COMETS in this opinion, from being captured by special interests, whether they be academic, scientific, industrial, or political.

Finally, COMETS recommends that this instruction be multidisciplinary, so as to consider all of the problems that arise. Whether it involves virology experiments or the solar radiation modification, the questions involved are rarely purely scientific and technical; they are also political, social, and ethical, if only because they involve reflecting on the acceptability of risks, geopolitical issues, and global oversight.

Finally, any research field presenting high collective risks calls for specific rules for research governance. This is all the more essential when the risks are large-scale, but there is no shared international legal framework. By research governance we mean scientists adhering to the ethical and integrity obligations that are incumbent upon them (scientific integrity, declaration of conflicts of interest, transparency regarding research funding, etc.). It should be especially scrupulous when it pertains to controversial risky research, and even more so when it is undergirded by powerful economic and political forces. There is also a need to implement, for all high-risk research projects, instruments for assessment, monitoring, and feedback, as well as ways out if the research proves too risky. Similarly, supranational scientific cooperation is crucial in domains where risks are global. It is equally crucial to strengthen and structure spaces for scientists, decision makers, and civil society to exchange with one another, places where the concerns of decision makers and society can be heard, and research priorities discussed. It is normal for scientific communities to establish the methods surrounding their research, but when this involves high-risk research that is socially dangerous, the ultimate purpose merits to be more widely discussed.

Concretely, for gain-of-function research, how would this responsible approach be put in place?
C. N. : For biology experiments likely to present high risks, such as gain-of-function experiments, CNRS Biology currently uses a peer-review panel to evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, the risks and advantages of any project involving experiments of this kind conducted at the CNRS. For COMETS, it is indeed a responsible approach of collegial instruction, supposing that it meets a number of conditions. CNRS management should notably ensure that research staff is aware of this new measure, and adheres to it. Familiarity should also be avoided on these peer-review panels, so that complementary knowledge and views can be expressed within it, including ethical, legal, and societal dimensions, such as the institutional review boards protecting human subjects in biomedical research. COMETS also emphasises monitoring projects and reassessing them at regular intervals, so that it can end experimentation at any moment if necessary. Furthermore, close collaboration between the CNRS and other research institutes should be structured in order to ensure continuous monitoring and coordination. Finally, it is important to pursue these approaches so that scientists at international institutions such as the WHO–despite this body’s current moment of weakness–work on a shared basis for risk assessment and management in accordance with the knowledge acquired.

What do your recommend for solar radiation modification?
C. N. : The position that the CNRS should adopt on this subject – and public research in general – is the subject of head-on opposition from those who, like Harvard and Cambridge Universities, have chosen to engage with the issue, and those who, on the contrary, believe that we should not do so, as all Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) research tends to support and even to stimulate the development of experimentation techniques.

Among the range of possible choices (precluding oneself from any SRM research, prototyping techniques and conducting field experiments, etc.), COMETS clearly chooses the option of funding research on the topic. It believes that undertaking this research leads to ethical responsibility. This research should not be conducted to the detriment of, but rather as a complement to, research on more traditional methods for combatting climate change and its causes (carbon capture, reforestation, mitigation, etc.). It is not, for now, seeking to prototype techniques, or even to test them in real settings.  It is more a question of monitoring ongoing projects across the globe in order to develop the means for detecting tests and deployments, documenting risks and advantages, and shedding light on the resulting social and political questions: acceptability for populations, geostrategic issues, international governance, responsibility, etc. Currently we know that there are no international rules that prevent actors, states, or enterprises from acting unilaterally, which risks harming other states. Since the global situation hardly allows for hopes of adopting a shared international framework, it is crucial to think through the issues of monitoring and responsibility. If a state were to conduct experiments causing harm, how could a causal link be established?

The members of COMETS consider it essential to not leave the subject in the hands of states or enterprises promoting SRM, and that have an interest in advancing data favourable to them. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of scientists to produce solid and impartial data to illuminate collective choices. That is why the opinion has a favourable view of the mission, recently created precisely to this effect, within the Climate, Biodiversity and Sustainable Societies agency programme coordinated by the CNRS. As it involves high-risk research, COMETS firstly reminds how important it is for research in this field to adhere to the ethical and integrity obligations relating to the declaration of conflicts of interest, transparency of funding, and independent evaluations, in order to pursue collective choices in a climate of trust. This effort should incidentally promote international scientific cooperation as much as possible. While the latter is currently being sorely tested, it is necessary in order to implement networks for monitoring, data sharing, and developing shared risk assessment standards. Finally, we underscore the need to structure and strengthen spaces to exchange with both political circles and civil society. Since SRM and its governance remain uncertain, we must, amid trust with civil society, build a common basis for knowledge, explore the issues and possible responses, and collectively choose the research avenues to prioritise based on the world we want for the future.