>>10730943

1/1

Military Revealed as Top Funder of Gene Drives; Gates Foundation paid $1.6 million to influence UN on gene drives

December 4, 2017

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Over 1,200 emails released under open records requests reveal that the U.S. military is now the top funder and influencer behind a controversial genetic extinction technology known as “gene drives” – pumping $100 million into the field. The trove of emails, obtained via open records requests, also shed light on a $1.6 million dollar UN gene drive advocacy operation paid for by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

“Emerging Ag,” a private PR firm paid by the Gates Foundation, is working behind the scenes to stack key UN advisory processes with gene drive-friendly scientists, and has recruited ostensibly independent academics and public officials into a private collaboration to counteract proposed regulations and to resist calls by scientists and conservationists for an international moratorium. Some of those recruited entered into the UN discussions without divulging their conflicts of interest or the role that paid political consultants played in shaping their inputs.

The files, dubbed “The Gene Drive Files,” additionally cast a spotlight on the central role of the shadowy U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) as the key funder now accelerating gene drive development. For example, DARPA is now revealed as the major financial backer of efforts to develop gene drive mammals (mice) that are led by a U.S. environmental NGO, although DARPA has no biodiversity conservation mission, raising questions about the defense agency’s intent. These revelations come on the heels of a public warning issued by a leading gene drive researcher Dr. Kevin Esvelt that current gene drives are too powerful to be used in conservation.

“Gene drives are a powerful and dangerous new technology and potential biological weapons that could have disastrous impacts on peace, food security and the environment, especially if misused,” said Jim Thomas of ETC Group. “The fact that gene drive development is now being primarily funded and structured by the U.S. military raises alarming questions about this entire field.”

“Gene drives could have profound global impacts, and these emails reveal a secretive attempt to game the system by gene drive proponents aiming to minimize essential regulations and oversight,” said Dana Perls of Friends of the Earth, U.S. “We need more transparency about who is influencing critical decisions about the future of global ecosystems, people’s livelihoods, or our food system.”

“In response to this news that the integrity of technical processes under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) may have been compromised, civil society groups will urgently raise the need for better disclosure of interests within a framework for addressing conflict of interest at the CBD,” said Lim Li Ching of Third World Network.

“Mosquitoes containing gene drives are being proposed for malaria control in Africa. While claiming potential health benefits, any application of such powerful technologies should be subject to the highest standards of transparency and disclosure. Sadly, this doesn’t appear to be the case. Releasing risky GM organisms into the environments of these African countries is outrageous and deeply worrying,” said Mariam Mayet, Executive Director of The African Centre for Biodiversity.

https://foe.org/news/military-revealed-top-funder-gene-drives-gates-foundation-paid-1-6-million-influence-un-gene-drives/

2/2

Information revealed in the Gene Drive files includes:

The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is reported to have given approximately $100 million for gene drive research, $35 million more than previously reported. If confirmed, DARPA appears to be the largest single funder of gene drive research on the planet.

Emerging Ag, a privately-held public relations firm, received over $1.6 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to work on gene drive topics and to focus on exerting influence on the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the key body for gene drive governance. Following calls in 2016 for a global moratorium on the use of gene drive technology, the CBD sought input from scientists and experts in an online forum. According to the Gene Drive Files, Emerging Ag recruited and coordinated over 65 experts, including a Gates Foundation senior official, a DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Project Agency) official, and government and university scientists, in an private attempt to flood the official UN process with their coordinated inputs.

The attempt to covertly influence the UN process online centrally involved three members of an associated UN expert committee (The Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Synthetic Biology). Two of them are from institutions that together received over $100 million in U.S. military and other funds expressly to develop and test gene drive systems. One served as “stakeholder engagement lead” for a Gene Drive development project. The Expert committee meets this week in Montreal Canada.

The secretive JASON group of military advisors have undertaken two classified studies on genome editing and gene drives at the request of the U.S. government. The gene drive study, which included input by a Monsanto executive, focuses on hostile use of gene drives and use of gene drives in agriculture.

DARPA is revealed to be funding a high profile UK team of researchers targeting African communities with gene drive mosquitos. This funding was not previously made public.

The files reveal how far along the two leading gene drive teams (Target Malaria for the UK and GBIRD, based in North Carolina) have proceeded towards building gene drive organisms and are preparing for open field trials, including steps to select test sites in Australia, New Zealand, Burkina Faso, Uganda, Mali and Ghana, and to create government and community acceptance of the use of gene drives in key testing sites.

ABOUT THE RECORDS

The Gene Drive Files may be accessed at: http://genedrivefiles.synbiowatch.org

The Gene Drive Files consist of records recently released in response to U.S. and Canadian open records requests. The bulk of the files are from North Carolina State University, and were released on 27 October 2017 under a request by Edward Hammond/Third World Network. The files also include records from Texas A&M University, also requested by Edward Hammond/Third World Network and released on 21 August 2017 (Request TAMU R001428). Additional records from an Access to Information request filed in Canada by ETC Group are also included at the same site.

Please take note of the information provided (readme file) on proper citation of the records.

https://foe.org/news/military-revealed-top-funder-gene-drives-gates-foundation-paid-1-6-million-influence-un-gene-drives/

http://genedrivefiles.synbiowatch.org/

Gates Foundation paid PR firm to secretly stack UN Expert process on controversial extinction technology

DECEMBER 1, 2017 BY ADMIN

Documents received under Freedom of Information requests reveal that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation 2 paid a private agriculture and biotechnology PR firm $1.6 million 1 for activities on Gene Drives. This included running a covert‘advocacy coalition’ 3 which appears to have intended to skew the only UN expert process addressing gene drives, a highly controversial new genetic extinction technology being developed. Further documents also show similar covert co-ordination by an established biotech lobby group co-ordinating with government representatives of Canada, UK, Brazil, USA and Netherlands in the same process.

Following global calls in December 2016 from Southern countries and over 170 organizations for a UN moratorium on gene drives 4, emails to gene drive advocates received under a freedom of Information request by Prickly Research reveal that a private public affairs firm ‘Emerging Ag’ received funds from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation 2 to co-ordinate the “fight back against gene drive moratorium proponents.” 5

Under a project dubbed the “Gene Drive Research Sponsors and Supporters coalition,” 6 Emerging Ag covertly recruited 65-66 seemingly independent scientists and officials to stack participation in an online expert process (The UN CBD Online Forum on Synthetic Biology) 9, designated to discuss concerns about synthetic biology, including gene drives. The UN CBD process is the only multilateral process currently addressing the topic. 7 Emerging Ag briefed these “volunteers” 8 and issued almost daily advice on how to influence the forum.

Those who coordinated and were closely involved with the Emerging Ag influence operation included a Gates Foundation senior official 10 and at least three members of an appointed UN expert committee linked to the process 11, the AHTEG (Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group) on Synthetic Biology. Two who are also AHTEG members, Dr. Todd Kuiken of North Carolina State University and Professor Paul Freemont of Imperial College London, represent t institutions that receive at least a combined $100 million dollars in U.S. military and philanthropic funds expressly to develop and test gene drive systems. 12

The AHTEG on Synthetic Biology will meet December 5, 2017 in Montreal and is tasked with creating advice and recommendations for governments based on the results of the online forum. Gene drives are expected to be a significant focus of the AHTEG’s discussions.

Documents also reveal that Emerging Ag has also been collaborating with a biotechnology lobby group Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI), who run a similar co-ordination . PRRI’s re-existing operation is detailed in emails sent to a Canadian government representative and member of the UN AHTEG. In these, PRRI boasts about a “backup operation” for “like-minded” government and industry experts who sit on the AHTEG. The emails suggest that national government representatives of Canada, U.S., UK, Brazil and the Netherlands were being remotely assisted by PRRI during closed door discussions. 13 It appears that the ‘Gene Drive Research Sponsors and Supporters coalition’ offered to approach US Department of Agriculture (USDA) contacts to find additional funding for PRRI’s activities. 14

**See link for continuation and detailed links in footnotes for further

http://genedrivefiles.synbiowatch.org/2017/12/01/gates_foundation_pr/

1/1

Gene Drive Files Expose Leading Role of US Military in Gene Drive Development.

DECEMBER 1, 2017 BY ADMIN

A trove of emails (The Gene Drive Files) from leading U.S. gene drive researchers reveals that the U.S. Military is taking the lead in driving forward gene drive development.

Emails obtained through a freedom of Information request by U.S.–based Prickly Research reveal that the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has given approximately $100 million for gene drive research1, $35 million more than previously reported 2, making them likely the largest single funder of gene drive research on the planet 3. The emails also reveal that DARPA either funds or co-ordinates with almost all major players working on gene drive development as well as the key holders of patents on CRISPR gene editing technology 4.

These funds go beyond the US; DARPA is now also directly funding gene drive researchers in Australia (including monies given to an Australian government agency, CSIRO) 5 and researchers in the UK. The files also reveal an extremely high level of interest and activity by other sections of the U.S. military and Intelligence community.

Secret Military Study draws in Monsanto: The emails reveal that the secretive JASON group of military advisors produced a classified study on gene drive this year (2017). The report was commissioned following an earlier classified 2016 JASON report on “genome editing” that has not previously been publicly reported on although it “received considerable attention among various agencies of the U.S. government.” 7

The 2017 JASON Gene Drive study was framed to address “potential threats this technology might pose in the hands of an adversary, technical obstacles that must be overcome to develop gene drive technology and employ it ‘in the wild’, and understanding of the expertise and resources that would be required to advance the technology. The study will focus on what might be realizable in the next 3-10 years, especially with regard to agricultural applications.” 7 Emails show that the JASON study was initiated with a two day meeting of a select group of invited gene drive researchers in June 2017. At the meeting, the VP of Global Biotechnology for Monsanto gave a presentation on crop science and gene drives. 8 This is the first time that Monsanto’s interest in gene drives has been apparent. The co-chair of the JASON report explained that “it is unlikely that (the report) will be publicly disclosed…(but) will be widely circulated within the U.S. intelligence and broader national security community.” 7

Army and Spooks for Gene Drives: The emails reveal the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (ACE) involvement in convening closed door meetings on gene drives 9 10) to fund work by Jason Delbourne, a member of the DARPA-funded GBIRd gene-drives Group at North Carolina State University. 11 The Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Agency (IARPA), an organization within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, has also expressed interest in funding gene drive work. A member of the GBIRd gene drive group describes IARPA as “basically the intelligence agencies version of DARPA, which may be more frightening!” 12 Another GBIRd partner from USDA calls IARPA’s interest “a very important funding opportunity,” and explains that “IARPA is eager for USDA to partner on a proposal but we cannot be lead.” 13

Is DARPA funding work ’targeting’ Africans? The emails raise questions about the close relationship between the flagship “Target Malaria” gene drive project and DARPA. Because Target Malaria hopes to deploy their gene drives in African countries they have been at pains to emphasize independence from military agendas. However emails from DARPA’s Safe Genes Manager Renee Wegryzn suggests that Target Malaria’s Andrea Crisanti may also be either a lead grantee or subcontractor for DARPA’s Safe Genes project. 14 At the ‘kickoff’ meeting for DARPA gene drive grantees, Andrea Crisanti of Target Malaria is listed as one of eight “Safe Genes Performer” presentations. 15 In other emails, the term “Safe Genes Performer” is used to designate teams under a funding contract with DARPA’s Safe Genes program 16; “Performer” appears to be the agencies’ specific term for “grantee,” defined: “an “R&D Performer” is a contractor that is under contract to DARPA to perform specific research and development related to a specific program. This definition includes both prime and subcontractors.” 17

http://genedrivefiles.synbiowatch.org/2017/12/01/us-military-gene-drive-development/

2/2

All other seven “Safe Genes Performers” have publicly announced that they are receiving DARPA funding. No such announcement has been made regarding Target Malaria/Imperial College. 19. DARPA has also convened a project called LEEDR, initiated via a presentation by Delphine Tizzy of Target Malaria. LEEDR focuses on societal engagement around gene drives, but is intended exclusively for the DARPA’s “Safe Genes community” 18.

DARPA gene drive funds cause internal conflict and spin guidelines: The Gene Drive Files also reveal conflict about the lead role that U.S. military funding is taking. Todd Kuiken of North Carolina State University, listed in the files as a key member of the GBIRd consortia (developing gene drive mice), openly railed in press against the impact of DARPA’s investment in “militarizing the environment,” pointing out that the UN Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD) may be being violated. 21

GBIRd however receives $6.4 million of DARPA funds, prompting Heath Packard of the NGO Island Conservation (and also GBIRd’s Public Relations representative) to complain that “The lack of communications internally (NCSU & GBIRd) prior to this story publishing, the timing of the story, and the partners/stakeholder/donor fallout related to this story are concerning.” 22

He repeatedly asked Kuiken to “pull for the team” 23 and “Please do all you can to avoid criticizing GBIRd and our pursuit of DARPA,”24 suggesting that Kuiken instead publicly “acknowledge we have so much more to do and many aspects of the project that require different colored money.”24 The Gene Drive Files also include extensive “recommended strategy and talking points”25 prepared by Packard who explains that he is “available for consultation and coaching if we find ourselves under attack in the media by detractors concerned about the ‘color’ of the DARPA funding.” Packard anticipates the researchers will receive morality questions about how they could pursue this technology “knowing that the U.S. Dept. of Defense has obviously concluded that it will be used for nefarious (dual-use) purposes, maybe against our own people?” He advises gene drive researchers to respond with sweeping statements about the team’s good intentions, to point to DARPA’s past role in funding the internet and GPS and to answer difficult questions with the deflecting statement: “Those are the exact types of questions we endeavor to answer in this investigation.”

**See link for detailed sources and footnotes

http://genedrivefiles.synbiowatch.org/2017/12/01/us-military-gene-drive-development/

1/1

Reckless Driving: Gene drives and the end of nature

Gene Drives, Resources

reckless-drivingThis is a new briefing from the Civil Society Working Group on Gene Drives which includes Biofuelwatch, Econexus, ETC Group, Friends of the Earth US, Hawai’i SEED and Navdanya. It can be downloaded as a pdf here (en español).

Imagine that by releasing a single fly into the wild you could genetically alter all the flies on the planet—causing them all to turn yellow, carry a toxin, or go extinct. This is the terrifyingly powerful premise behind gene drives: a new and controversial genetic engineering technology that can permanently alter an entire species by releasing one bioengineered individual.

Gene drives can entirely re-engineer ecosystems, create fast spreading extinctions, and intervene in living systems at a scale far beyond anything ever imagined. When gene drives are engineered into a fast-reproducing species they could alter their populations within short timeframes, from months to a few years, and rapidly cause extinction. This radical new technology, also called a “mutagenic chain reaction,” [1] is unlike anything seen before. It combines the extreme genetic engineering of synthetic biolog y and new gene editing techniques with the idea that humans can and should use such powerful unlimited tools to control nature. Gene drives will change the fundamental relationship between humanity and the natural world forever.

The implications for the environment, food security, peace, and even social stability are significant. Dealing with this run-away technology is already being compared to the challenge of governing nuclear power. [2] Existing government regulations for the use of genetic engineering in agriculture have allowed widespread genetic contamination of the food supply and the environment.

Given the current feeble restraints on existing genetic engineering technologies, how would anyone be able to assess the risks of gene drives? Would the public be informed and have a say in how they would be used? And if an accident were to occur, given that the damage would be massive and irreversible, who would be held accountable?

The ethical, cultural and societal implications of gene drives are as enormous as the ecological consequences. Civil society groups (and even some gene drive researchers) are alarmed by this newfound ability to reshape the natural world. However, such an omnipotent power to control nature is immensely tempting to those who may not be constrained by either common decency or common sense. Gene drive technology is commanding the attention of the world’s most powerful military, agribusiness, and social change organizations. Gene drive technology also appears to be relatively simple and cheap, so it could easily fall into the hands of those, including governments, who might use it as a weapon.

http://www.synbiowatch.org/2016/08/reckless-driving/

http://www.synbiowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ETC_genedrivers_v9.pdf

2/2

How does a gene drive work?

A trait is a genetically determined characteristic of an organism (e.g. eye color). In normal sexual reproduction, a trait generally has only a 50% chance of being expressed. With a gene drive, however, that trait is “driven” into the organism’s reproductive cycle so that every single offspring always carries and expresses the specified trait.

Gene drives force an artificially engineered trait to spread through the natural population until it becomes ubiquitous or crashes that population. The first working gene drives were demonstrated at the end of 2014 using a new gene-editing technique known as CRISPR-CAS9. They work by setting up a genetic enforcement mechanism which copies itself from parent to child, cascading from one generation to the next by sexual reproduction.

Gene drives only work in sexually reproducing species. The natural process of inheritance through sexual reproduction is the cornerstone of biological diversity within a species. But gene drives force a species towards uniformity or extinction—a perfectly anti-ecological outcome and a violation of the fundamentals of evolution. For example, when a gene drive commands an organism to glow green, the “mutagenic chain reaction” that follows ensures that all future progeny of that organism, and all its descendants, also glow green. This violates the normal rules of species evolution, which usually limits the passing on of a new trait to only some offspring and limits its survival to those that have a selective advantage.

The implications for natural populations are striking. Figure 1a. shows the normal pattern of inheritance across the generations. Following the established rules of genetics, we can expect roughly 50% of an organism’s offspring to carry a specific gene. Once that altered organism is introduced into a population, the number of affected organisms can dilute through the generations. But with a gene drive (see Figure 1b.) there is 100% inheritance of the new trait enforced among all descendants. Instead of being diluted, the new trait takes over.

If someone wanted to ‘crash’ a species and cause its extinction, they would simply engineer a gene drive that makes all the offspring into males, for instance. This approach is being taken with the so-called ‘daughterless’ mouse gene drive. Any mouse that the daughterless mouse mates with will only give birth to males. In turn, all their progeny will only produce males and they will spread the ‘daughterless’ trait until they overwhelm that mouse species and crash the population. Theoretically, this “male-only” mechanism could be used with any sexually reproducing organism.

3/3

Examples of various gene drives

Global drives: a “standard” gene drive that continues to spread, potentially until it takes over the entire species (or causes the entire species to go extinct).

Reversal Drive: a speculative proposal to ‘undo’ the effects of a gene drive by sending a second drive after the first. A recent report from the US National Academy of Sciences was skeptical that this idea would reliably work. [3]

Split drive: a technique where half a gene drive is engineered into an organism’s DNA, and half into a piece of associated virus DNA, so that the organism won’t pass on the full instructions for a new gene drive. [4] This is intended for lab safety but is impractical as a technology in the wild.

Daisy drive: a proposed gene drive that theoretically stops working after a certain number of generations. This is supposed to create ‘local’ gene drives that won’t spread uncontrollably. [5] The inventor, Kevin Esvelt, acknowledges that a daisy drive could mutate into a global drive accidentally.

How can gene drives be used?

1. Industrial Agriculture

Gene drive developers acknowledge that agribusiness is interested in this technology for many uses. These include eradicating weeds (a “sensitizing gene drive” could be released into wild weed species to make it more susceptible to a proprietary herbicide such as roundup), or eliminating pests. For example, gene drive research on fruit flies—specifically on species like Drosophila Suzukii, which attack soft fruit harvests—is intended to eradicate it globally and save on the costs of both pesticides and lost crop damages. [6] Other pests that might be driven to extinction to protect industrial agriculture include mice, moths and locusts. Gene drives may also be used to speed up the introduction of a genetically modified trait into seed harvests.

1. Military

Gene drives are a classic ‘dual use’ technology, meaning that the technology for gene drives developed for one use could also be used as a weapon or biological agent. For example, work is already underway to equip parasitic worms with gene drives in order to eradicate them [7]–the same technology could be used to make them spread disease or toxins. Gene-drive yeasts have been created in the lab and these could be engineered to be harmful to humans. Releasing an engineered gene drive into agricultural fields could attack a country’s food production. And gene drive mosquitos and other insects could be engineered to spread lethal toxins in their bite. [8]

1. Attacking Disease

Much of the hype around pesticides promised that they would safely eradicate pests, but in fact they are, as Rachel Carson called them, “biocides” that kill indiscriminately. While the promised benefits of gene drives are that they will target organisms that carry disease, there is no firm scientific basis for the claim that their impact will not spread beyond the intended target. The following are currently being developed as gene drive organisms under the guise of eradicating disease:

Mosquitos: Several teams are working on gene drives that would eradicate mosquitos or re-engineer them so they are unable to carry malaria. Theoretically the mosquitos that carry Zika and Dengue could also be attacked with gene drive systems.

Parasitic worms: At least one team is working on gene drives to attack the worms that cause schistosomiasis and others propose gene drives for whipworm and threadworm. [9]

1. Artificially Enhancing Conservation

A small group of conservationists argue that tools that cause deliberate extinction could be harnessed for good. A consortium of 5 partners (including two government agencies) led by the conservation group Island Conservation is developing gene drive-equipped mice that will be released on islands ostensibly to kill the mice that harm birds.

They call this the GBIRd project (Genetic Biocontrol of Invasive Rodents) and intend to release these gene drives by 2020. [10] Additionally, there is a highly promoted proposal to develop gene drive mosquitos for release in Hawaii where one species of mosquito carries a form of avian malaria that affects native birds, [11] despite the fact that at least one targeted bird species has developed a natural resistance to avian malaria and there are still disease free areas. [12] This project is being promoted by The Long Now Foundation’s Revive and Restore project. [13]

4/4

What are the environmental dangers of gene drives?

Greater threat of unintended consequences

Gene drives carry the same biosafety risks that other genetically engineered organisms carry and more. We know the track record of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) acting in unexpected ways and causing a variety of environmental harms, while not delivering on their promised benefits. Gene drives are designed not only to spread rapidly but also to do it with exponential efficiency. There is nothing in the natural world to compare them to and that limits our capacity to predict their behavior.

Severing a strand in the ecological web

Gene drives are designed to create large-scale changes in populations and intentionally impact entire ecosystems. We know so little about the web of life as it is, are we really ready to take such radical steps to alter the course of evolution? It’s impossible to predict the ecological consequences of such a rapid, massive, unprecedented disruption. Removing a pest may seem attractive, but even pests have their place in the food chain. Additionally, eradicating one species might unpredictably open up space for the expansion of another species which may carry diseases, affect pollination or otherwise threaten biodiversity.

Could gene drives jump species?

Promoters of gene drives present them as precise mechanisms, just as GMO promoters did. But living systems and sexual reproduction processes are messy and unpredictable. We now know there is occasional horizontal gene transfer (movement of genes between different species) and that some genes do cross over into related species.

Applying gene drives to agriculture will intensify existing concerns about the use of genetic engineering and monocultures in industrial agriculture. Gene drive strategies may strengthen the market monopoly of agribusiness giants such as Monsanto and Syngenta, especially if wild weed populations are altered to respond to their proprietary chemicals or wide patent claims are applied. The decision to eradicate wild weed populations may also harm culturally significant crops and indigenous species. For example, proposals to use gene drives against pigweed in North America (Palmer Amaranth) could also eradicate species of amaranth used for food and cultural purposes in Central America. [14]

Dangers to society

The ethical, cultural and societal implications of gene drives are especially complex and challenging. Civil society groups, and even some gene drive researchers, are raising the alarm about the power of this technology. Such a powerful tool may be too tempting to military funding agencies and hi-tech agribusiness who see advantages to exploring this Pandora’s box. This raises the basic question: who will this technology benefit and who decides how it will be used? The potential threat of weaponized gene drives can’t be overstated. While a harmful gene drive could theoretically be engineered into a fast-spreading parasite to ‘wipe out’ a population or used to crash a food harvest, the bigger threat may come from the changing geopolitics and security requirements that the existence of gene drives may unleash.

The need to police gene drives as a potential bioweapon may expand and deepen military control and collusion in biotechnology developments. Proposals to unleash gene drives as a ‘silver bullet’ for health and conservation challenges are highly risky and speculative. But these “technofixes” continue to be over-sold to the public through deceptive media campaigns, corruption of regulatory agencies, and by inflaming the public’s fears and anxieties about disease, climate change, and species extinction. “Silver bullet” technologies distract from, rather than contribute to, the work that needs to be done to root out the systemic causes of these problems – such as providing sanitation, defending human rights, addressing poverty and upholding community land rights and stewardship over nature.

We are walking forwards blind. We are opening boxes without thinking about consequences. We are going to fall off the tightrope and lose the trust of public. – Gene drive developer Kevin Esvelt, MIT, on the current rising interest in gene drive applications. [15]

http://www.synbiowatch.org/2016/08/reckless-driving/

United Nations Trying to Influence US Election Against Trump

Posted Sep 21, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

Blog/Climate

Posted Sep 21, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

It should come as no surprise that the United Nations is seeking to expand its power to a worldwide government as numerous countries turn to the UN to impose this be Great Reset so they can claim it is not them. The United Nations has scheduled Climate Week NYC which starts tomorrow and is intended to run alongside the UN General Assembly to try to tell the world that Trump has to go to save the planet. They are seeking to intensify the focus on climate change to inject this into the US presidential election. This is exactly what the Democrats accused Russia of doing. This time it is the United Nations-supported by the big Tech companies and Bill Gates with his coconspirator – Klaus Schwab from the World Economic Forum.

Perhaps they will be mugged now that crime is up and they have chased much of the smart wealthy out of New York.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/united-nations-trying-to-influence-us-election-against-trump/