%0 Journal Article
%T Responsible Genome Editing for Insect Control Requires Reversibility, Ecological Containment, Evolutionary Foresight, and Legitimate Public Governance
%A Lucia Romano
%A Marco Bellini
%A Paolo Greco
%A Daniel Kim
%J Entomology and Applied Science Letters
%@ 2349-2864
%D 2025
%V 12
%N 2
%R 10.51847/ybEChIXlfP
%P 67-78
%X Genome editing can transform insect control by changing traits that influence fertility, sex ratio, pathogen competence, or inheritance across generations. Its significance, however, lies precisely in the possibility that a molecular intervention may become a population-level and ecological process whose spatial reach, persistence, and consequences are difficult to delimit. The central governance problem is therefore not whether an edit can be constructed, but under what conditions a heritable intervention can be considered sufficiently controllable, ecologically bounded, evolutionarily informed, and publicly legitimate to justify progression. This article develops an original, non-validated governance synthesis for responsible and reversible insect genome editing. It integrates architecture-specific technical evidence, differentiated meanings of molecular reversibility, spatial and ecological containment, evolutionary escape, long-term uncertainty, public legitimacy, consent, decision gates, and adaptive assurance. The synthesis shows that strong performance in laboratory or cage populations can establish biological plausibility without establishing operational effectiveness, environmental localization, ecosystem recoverability, or social authorization. Reversal tools may inhibit, overwrite, or dilute an engineered genotype, yet none necessarily restores a prior population or ecological state. Likewise, localized-drive designs remain dependent on migration, demography, fitness, taxonomic boundaries, and monitoring capacity. The evidence base is constrained by limited environmental experience, context-dependent models, incomplete ecological baselines, and the absence of direct demonstrations of post-release ecological reversibility. Responsible progression consequently requires layered safeguards that convert broad principles into claim-specific evidence requirements, stopping rules, independent review, continuing public governance, and funded response capacity. Genome editing should advance as a conditional and revisable research proposition, not as a technically enabled presumption of ecological or institutional readiness.
%U https://easletters.com/article/responsible-genome-editing-for-insect-control-requires-reversibility-ecological-containment-evolut-0nru0xg65lapwix