A multi-disciplinary approach for building a common understanding of genetic engineering for malaria control in Burkina Faso

The paper examines how collaboration between life scientists, social scientists, and local communities can create a shared understanding of genetic engineering concepts to support research on genetically modified mosquitoes for malaria control in Burkina Faso. Using Target Malaria as a case, the authors argue that co-construction of meaning is necessary for inclusive, informed decision-making by communities where research occurs. The study details a transdisciplinary, iterative engagement process to bridge complex scientific ideas (genes, DNA, gene modification) with local knowledge, guided by international frameworks on gene-drive research and ethical engagement. It seeks to demonstrate how community dialogue can inform research design and practice, moving beyond a knowledge-deficit model to co-development with affected communities.

The background situates the work within guidance and scholarship on gene drives and public engagement, referencing frameworks and ethical guidance promoting community involvement (e.g., Burt 2003; Esvelt et al. 2014; National Academies 2016; Wedell et al. 2019). It draws on social science perspectives on collaboration and participation (Kelty 2020; Barrotta and Montuschi 2018; Hartley et al. 2019) and Art-Science/public experiment concepts (Barry 2001; Born and Barry 2010) to frame the co-construction of meaning. Prior related work includes development of a stakeholder co-created glossary of technical terms (Wanyama Chemonges et al., 2021) and ethical principles guiding Target Malaria’s engagement (Roberts and Thizy, 2022).

Study setting: Target Malaria Burkina Faso operates via the IRSS (Institut de Recherche en Sciences de la Santé) in Bobo-Dioulasso, with field activities in nearby villages (notably Bana and Bobo-Dioulasso district). Dioula is the dominant local language; malaria is endemic with mixed local understandings of transmission. Research phase: The paper focuses on the non-gene drive sterile male Anopheles gambiae strain as part of a phased approach; gene drive stages had not been reached. Collaboration method: A multi-stage, interactive engagement process was used, centered on two-way dialogue and theatre. 1) Internal transdisciplinary co-learning (life sciences + social sciences/engagement team): Over ~3 months, several group meetings were held to clarify basic genetics and genetic engineering concepts. Life scientists explained processes without jargon; social scientists translated concepts into familiar terms (e.g., genes as familial traits), building a shared language base. 2) Community co-construction: Engagement in Bana via one-on-one and group meetings emphasized co-development rather than passive consent. A working group was formed with diverse stakeholders (research team members, Dioula native speakers and non-native educated speakers, traders familiar with dialects, elders, women, youth, community leaders). Multiple exchanges (averaging seven per stakeholder category) over ~3 months occurred, beginning informally then in formal sessions. Three cross-checking group meetings with representatives from each stakeholder category validated outcomes. Education moved from basic mosquito biology (species diversity, biting behavior, life cycle, male/female differences, malaria transmission) to genetics concepts (chromosomes, enzymes, DNA, laboratory work, sterile male). Local expressions and meanings were discussed to refine terminology. 3) Theatre-mediated engagement: After observing declining participation due to information saturation, community members suggested theatre/cinema. A regional theatre company with health communication experience co-developed performances. Initially provided with a French scientific script and the community glossary, actors found the script too linear and emotionally detached. They conducted their own meaning-making process (consulting dictionaries, local language speakers, and research staff) to develop accessible terminology and narrative focusing on outcomes. They iteratively tested performances in village settings (e.g., cabaret), involving local figures (griot, beer-seller), using humor and song, and held post-performance forums for feedback. Scripts were simplified for clarity (e.g., focusing on outcome: a transformed male mating leads to no offspring). Terminology options for the sterile male were debated with attention to accuracy and ethics; they rejected “homosexual mosquito” and “castrated mosquito,” and selected soso grue (“barren mosquito”) and an explanatory phrase “a mosquito which is unable to produce offspring,” validated with the research team. Feedback informed subsequent revisions. The research team complemented outcome-focused narratives with precise explanations (e.g., eggs produced from matings would be non-viable due to targeted genetic modification).

- Effective internal interdisciplinary collaboration enabled a shared, jargon-free understanding of genetics and genetic engineering among life scientists and social scientists, forming a foundation for external engagement. - Community co-construction refined scientific terminology into locally meaningful concepts in Dioula, moving from general notions of “trying and seeing” or “seeking solutions” to precise meanings relevant to genetic modification. - Theatre proved an effective medium to overcome information saturation, using narrative, humor, local venues, and trusted interlocutors (griot), and incorporating community feedback in post-performance forums. - Terminology outcomes: After ethical and semantic evaluation of options, the terms soso grue (“barren mosquito”) and the descriptive phrase “a mosquito which is unable to produce offspring” were adopted to communicate the non-gene drive sterile male concept, aligning with both actor-derived and earlier community-derived terminology. - Community engagement impacts on research practice: Theatre stimulated renewed interest leading to broader lab and insectary visits, improving understanding of biosafety and containment. Community input on seasonal mosquito dynamics, collection timing, locations, and techniques improved entomological sampling. Research activities and engagement proceeded through agreed, iterative, two-way dialogue with affected groups. - Process metrics: Co-learning spanned about 3 months; multiple exchanges averaged seven per stakeholder category; three cross-checking meetings validated community-derived outputs. - Overall, co-construction fostered trust, clearer understanding of science and risks, and practical contributions from local knowledge to research execution.

The collaborative, art-science informed approach addressed the challenge of communicating complex genetic engineering concepts by integrating distinct knowledge systems: scientific detail from researchers, outcome- and narrative-focused translation by theatre practitioners, and context-rich practical knowledge from community members. This combination created a shared ontology and balanced power relations, enabling active, informed participation by affected communities. The iterative process allowed scientists to add technical nuance after core outcomes had been conveyed accessibly, and it demonstrated that non-scientists can be effective partners in shaping understanding and influencing research pathways. While demonstrated with non-gene drive technology, the co-construction approach and insights are likely applicable to future gene drive phases that rely on similar genetic concepts. Embedding such collaborative meaning-making within research programs can support self-determination, ethical engagement, trust-building, and more robust decision-making in global health research.

Implemented ahead of field studies with non-gene drive sterile male mosquitoes, the described iterative co-construction process established productive collaboration among life scientists, social scientists, theatre actors, and community members. It provided a foundation for subsequent research phases (including future non-gene drive fertile and eventual gene drive phases), mirroring the project’s phased scientific approach and integrating learning forward. The experience suggests that such co-working can underpin additional aspects of research, such as designing appropriate community agreement models, identifying legitimate community representatives, and evaluating engagement processes. The approach emphasizes slow, phased development with clear communication of objectives and progressive learning toward the ultimate goal of developing and evaluating gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control.

The study describes experiences limited to the non-gene drive sterile male phase; the project had not reached the gene drive stage. Findings and processes are context-specific to the settings described (Bana village and the Bobo-Dioulasso area in Burkina Faso), which may limit generalizability to other locales or cultural contexts.