Mistrust surrounding genetic engineering stems from ethical concerns, fear of unanticipated consequences, and lack of transparency in communication, hindering its widespread acceptance and implementation. Governments, regulators, and research institutions should develop integrated communication strategies that build trust through active engagement and ensure informed decision-making. Scientists, educators, policymakers, and stakeholders must explain the scientific principles, potential benefits, and risks associated with genome editing through open and understandable dialogue. This requires cultural sensitivity, recognition of historical legacy, equitable access, strong public and community engagement, education initiatives, and international collaboration. Particular emphasis should be placed on developing products that provide clear benefits to end consumers, and increasing the contribution of local scientists would help allay misinformation concerns about the malicious intent of foreign agents.
Genome editing is a form of genetic engineering and is closely related to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Thus, established GMO regulatory frameworks are a logical starting point when considering genome editing governance. However, in contrast to when these frameworks were first defined, current frameworks have established legal and political precedents that do not necessarily align with scientific definitions and interpretations. Genome editing can result in a wide variety of products. The question of whether these products are “genetically modified” (and therefore regulated as such) is complex. To accommodate this growing diversity, outdated binary “GMO or not” regulations need to be replaced. To do this effectively, we need to establish a clear, product-based regulatory framework that distinguishes between organisms that contain novel DNA combinations (trans-DNA sequences) and those that do not12.
Globally, the majority of jurisdictions (33 out of 35 countries) that have established genome editing regulatory frameworks recognize this distinction. In Africa, only South Africa currently regulates all genome-edited products as GMOs. The state of genome editing regulation practice and debate in other African countries is diverse (Figure 2). Argentina, the first country to publish genome editing regulations in 2015, has already shown that the accessibility of these technologies has stimulated gene-based innovation by public research institutions and small and medium-sized enterprises.13 Africa needs to strive for regional integration and harmonization through pan-African organizations such as the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) to enable the resolution of the continent’s challenges across all relevant sectors.
Figure 2: African biosafety regulatory frameworks and selected genetic engineering or genome editing projects.
Numbers refer to project identifiers from Supplementary Table 1, which provides details of specific projects. GEd, genome editing;
Creating minimum functional units for genome editing in African laboratories is crucial to its success. Leveraging low local costs of skilled labor, multipurpose resources, and redundancy can keep expenses low and promote independence from international supply chains. Local genome editing resources should enable new African-specific (disease-associated) loci identified through large-scale genomic research efforts to be tested in local functional experiments. Funding allocated to establish suitable infrastructure for projects such as the World Health Organization’s Vaccine Programme and the African Continental Genomic Research Centre of Excellence14 must be used to enable the use of genome editing technologies in the same facilities. This would put African genomic information in the hands of local researchers for follow-up studies. What is true for human data should also apply to biodiversity and agriculture, and several projects (e.g., the African Biogenome Project) aim to harness African genetic diversity15. These efforts represent a unique opportunity for genome editing on the continent. The time has come to link sequencing and genome editing projects on the ground to establish local research pipelines for data analysis, functional analysis, and commercialization.
Private and public funding can ensure the success of genome editing-based technologies in life sciences research and development in Africa. Along these lines, the African Union Agency for Development (AUDA-NEPAD) has identified genome editing research as a key goal for the first decade of the African Science and Innovation Strategy (STISA 2024) and the African Union Agenda 2063. The Genome Editing Technology Initiative (GETI) by the African Network of Science Academies (NASAC) and Africa Harvest aims to anchor genome editing technologies in Africa’s research portfolio. For these initiatives to be successful, African governments must keep their commitment to allocate at least 1% of their GDP for research support. This could lead to the creation of African Centers of Excellence for genome editing research in strategic locations that leverage the continent’s existing trade and regional blocs. Academic research grant themes should not only target individual projects but also encourage the formation of national research consortia that bring together academic institutions, private companies and government agencies. These collaborations can streamline research lines, share resources and jointly secure funding for large genome editing projects with high social impact. Similarly, African governments’ support to research institutes and universities must include a commitment to uninterrupted procurement and maintenance systems suited to the unique characteristics of laboratory-based research.
Additionally, African governments should aim to engage in public-private partnerships to co-fund genome editing projects. Such collaborations can bring together government funds, private sector investments, and philanthropic donations to build sustainable and diversified financing models. This includes facilitating partnerships between successful gene editing companies in the global North and African entrepreneurs. Tax incentives and regulatory frameworks should aim to attract venture capital investments in genome editing-based start-ups. Combined with further fiscal incentives to encourage private investors in the life sciences sector, this should encourage the establishment of local biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. Such homegrown efforts will be crucial in establishing a technology-friendly ecosystem and fit-for-purpose commercialization models. Importantly, intellectual property protection and licensing frameworks need to be in place to make the commercialization of genome editing products sustainable.
One of the most important factors for successful genome editing efforts in Africa is creating a critical mass of local scientists with up-to-date practical expertise. These scientists can act as catalysts, mentor colleagues, advise governments, and spearhead knowledge and technology development. Training efforts on genome editing and existing African-European partnerships remain scattered and sparse. Sustainable and scalable training programs are therefore needed (e.g., TReND in Africa).
Local universities and research institutes should provide theoretical and practical training in molecular biology and genome editing technologies, providing a solid foundation at the undergraduate level. Postgraduate level training should take place within an international network for the exchange of knowledge and expertise. Successful efforts should aim for scalability through standardization of operating procedures, manuals, and workflows that can be shared so that they can be replicated at any facility with minimal infrastructure requirements. Candidate selection should be rigorous, but once selected, trainees should receive ongoing mentoring, ideally combined with a small budget to begin independent research in partnership with established experts at regional centers of excellence. This will also help prevent trainees from emigrating abroad in search of other opportunities, as trainees will be integrated into the local infrastructure early and have clear prospects for future employment. Additionally, incentives should be provided for African scientists with genome editing expertise (ideally equipped with independent funding) to return to Africa, ensuring smooth technology transfer.
Highly trained scientists need adequate time and space to conduct their research. Governments and universities need to develop formats for faculty members who are engaged in active research programs to secure “protected research time” and put in place incentives for senior researchers in their fields. In the long run, these investments will pay off as highly skilled experts share their knowledge with their colleagues and help train the next generation of scientists.
Overall, we believe that if our recommendations are followed and significant investments are made in public engagement, regulation, financing, and building infrastructure and human capital capacity, the next generation of genome-editing innovation will come from African inventors. Locally developed genome-edited products will contribute to addressing the Sustainable Development Goals and improving the lives and prosperity of people on the continent.
