The Context Behind the Suspension

The suspension of Target Malaria in Burkina Faso in August 2025 was officially announced through an administrative directive from the Ministry of Higher Education, Research, and Innovation. It was not, however, an isolated incident. Instead, it marked the culmination of years of mounting controversy and resistance from a small, vocal group of civil society organizations — such as COPAGEN, Terre à Vie, COASP, and, more recently CVAB — that consistently questioned the project’s legitimacy, safety, and governance.

Community engagement was central to Target Malaria’s work in Burkina Faso. Source: Target Malaria

While these groups did not represent the entirety of Burkinabe civil society, their influence was undeniable. Their activism intensified after the August 2025 release of genetically modified, non-gene-drive male-bias mosquitoes in Souroukoudingan, which heightened public controversy. They raised ecological concerns about genetic stability, mosquito adaptation, and eradication risks, while framing the debate in political and ethical terms. They warned of the disproportionate influence of major donors, particularly the Gates Foundation, and the marginalization of locally defined, “endogenous” solutions. These accusations occurred despite Gates’ globally significant contributions to malaria control with traditional technologies. Through press conferences, moratorium calls, grassroots mobilization, and transnational advocacy, they recast the country’s participation in Target Malaria as a question of sovereignty, philanthropy, and governance, portraying Burkina Faso as a testing ground for uncertain technologies.

The tension between scientific ambition and political caution had been visible earlier. In 2018, when the National Biosafety Agency approved the first release of sterile GM male mosquitoes in Bana, the Ministry of Environment intervened to require Environmental Impact Studies before the trial proceeded in July 2019. This episode underscored the fragility of public trust and made clear that biotechnology research in Burkina Faso could not advance without navigating institutional demands and securing legitimacy.

By 2022, amid a broader policy shift toward sovereignty and independence from external influence, the government had become increasingly cautious. The suspension of Target Malaria was therefore not only a scientific precaution but also a symbolic assertion of national autonomy. Officials justified the decision by citing several concerns: lack of transparency in Target Malaria protocols, divided expert assessments, ecological doubts about eradicating mosquito populations, insufficient national biosafety capacity, and a lack of broad public support. According to officials, many questions remained unanswered: Who truly benefits from this technology? Which countries are driving it? What is the lifespan of the released mosquitoes? And why pursue eradication at all? One official, speaking as an ecologist, insisted that eradication was not an appropriate solution.

On these grounds, the government halted Target Malaria’s operations and announced a reorientation of malaria-control policies toward endogenous, locally driven strategies. The suspension illustrates the convergence of scientific caution, civil society mobilization, and a state-led effort to safeguard national sovereignty. While activists shaped the terms of the public debate, the government made the ultimate choice, presenting it as necessary to preserve scientific integrity, rebuild trust, and ensure such decisions remain firmly in Burkinabe hands.

Why Did Engagement Fail to Deliver Resilience?

Target Malaria invested heavily in community and stakeholder engagement from nearly the project’s inception. The consortium worked across villages and towns to create dialogue spaces, hold educational workshops, produce radio dramas in local languages, and develop visual materials. They analyzed stakeholder movements, updated engagement strategies, and worked with staff across ministries of Environment, Health, and Research, along with regional and local authorities. Social scientists and communication experts within the team designed tools to map rumor networks and analyze cultural perceptions of GMOs. These efforts were internationally praised as innovative and exemplary. However, when it mattered most, Target Malaria’s engagement strategy for PMB failed to ensure the project’s survival.

Gene drive technologies target Anopheles mosquitoes, the primary malaria vector. Source: Adobe Stock

The suspension revealed, in addition to shifting political priorities, key weaknesses in this strategy. First, despite outreach efforts, the project struggled to meaningfully engage with local stakeholders and to adequately address deeper ecological, ethical, and political concerns raised by civil society actors. Second, the positioning of engagement within the consortium limited its effectiveness. Although officially considered one of the three core pillars within the consortium, engagement often functioned as a feedback mechanism rather than a driver capable of reshaping research timelines or substance. As a result, while laboratory milestones advanced steadily, they were not always aligned with evolving social or political realities in the country.

A further weakness lay in handling risk-related information. By channeling sensitive issues through lengthy internal review processes, the consortium sought to be cautious, yet this often came across locally as hesitation or avoidance. Ironically, a strategy designed to minimize risk ended up creating its own, leaving space for civil society groups to frame the narrative in terms of sovereignty, environmental stewardship, and neocolonialism — frames that resonated strongly in national debates. In contrast, Target Malaria’s communication during this period remained narrowly technical, focused on preparing for the release of GM non-gene-drive male-bias mosquitoes, leaving it poorly positioned to respond to the wider political dynamics at play.

These dynamics highlight a structural issue: while social science was central to many outreach initiatives, it was not fully empowered within the consortium’s decision-making structures. In practice, it supported communication and adaptation but lacked authority to redefine legitimacy thresholds or alter research timelines. Consequently, when the political climate shifted, engagement teams lacked the influence needed to meaningfully shape outcomes.

Consequences at Multiple Levels

The termination of Target Malaria in Burkina Faso bears consequences that ripple far beyond laboratories and villages.

Community: The most immediate repercussion is ruptured trust. Local leaders in Bana, Souroukoudingan, and other study sites — as well as other stakeholders who engaged at any level — invested years into dialogue with Target Malaria, often defending the project against skepticism. Following the government’s abrupt reversal, these leaders could face questions from neighbors: were they misled, or did they knowingly expose communities to risk? This dynamic threatens to fray relationships not only between researchers and villagers but also within communities themselves, potentially undermining participation in future public health initiatives.

National: Burkina Faso’s scientific infrastructure took a severe blow. The closure of Target Malaria’s advanced insectary at IRSS in Bobo Dioulasso may deter young researchers and signal that large scientific collaborations are politically vulnerable, fostering a more cautious environment for future projects.

Regional: The suspension serves as a cautionary tale for Ghana and Uganda, other African countries in the Target Malaria consortium. It may lead to heightened scrutiny and delays for similar projects as governments weigh political backlash. The case underscores the complex intersection of sovereignty, public concern, and scientific ambition.

Global: Critics of gene drive technologies may cite the suspension as evidence of governance challenges. The government mandated the destruction of the transgenic mosquito strains, which has probably already been carried out. The inability to safeguard transgenic mosquito strains suggests that even strong engagement efforts may not fully resolve political and/or public concerns, potentially influencing how funders and researchers globally assess the feasibility of high-stakes biotechnologies. Moreover, the suspension may fuel CSO efforts calling for a moratorium vote on genetically engineering wild species in natural ecosystems at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress in October 2025.

On “Losses” and Investments

Target Malaria’s insectary in Bobo Dioulasso was ordered closed. Photograph: Joost Bastmeijer. Source: The Guardian

Closing the insectary and halting the releases is undoubtedly a setback. Years of scientific work, infrastructure development, and training for young researchers were brought to an abrupt stop. The loss is real for scientists who built careers on this work and for communities that dedicated time and trust to engagement activities.

Research and investment in science within Burkina Faso, however, continue to thrive. The country hosts an active ecosystem of projects spanning public health, agriculture, security, industrial development, digital innovation, renewable energy, and biotechnology. Target Malaria was significant as a high-profile initiative, but it was not the only program of its kind. International investors remain pragmatic and continue to explore opportunities in Burkina Faso that align with national and regional priorities.

Moreover, Burkinabe governments — especially the current one — continue to encourage science and technological innovation as a strategic priority. Policies emphasize not only agricultural and industrial improvement but also economic modernization and public health. This creates an environment that invites diverse partnerships. Even with the suspension of one project, local institutions continue collaborating with international investors across a wide range of fields.

It is important to recognize that Burkina Faso hosts numerous CSOs, with only a small portion opposing GMOs. Although some of these organizations strongly opposed Target Malaria, they do not reject biotechnology entirely. Their focus is on promoting transparent governance, respecting sovereignty, and balancing philanthropy with local ownership. Many civil society voices highlight the value of developing biotechnologies and related sciences for Africa’s progress, provided such efforts are collaborative and equitable.

Lessons for Biotechnology and Emerging Technologies

The suspension offers valuable lessons that extend well beyond gene drive mosquitoes. First, it demonstrates that technical validation and laboratory milestones are insufficient without social and political alignment. Technologies must be ready not only in terms of regulatory compliance but also in terms of public acceptance and legitimacy.

Second, independent social science must be integrated from the earliest stages of a project and throughout its implementation. When anthropological and ethnographic findings are treated as central inputs to design and governance, collaborations gain credibility. If social science is positioned merely as downstream communication, projects risk weak resilience when political contexts change.

Third, openness and transparency play a crucial role in building trust. Publishing findings — including those that highlight challenges or reservations — ultimately reinforces credibility by signaling that science is accountable. Efforts to minimize reputational risks can, unintentionally, amplify perceptions of secrecy.

Finally, sovereignty narratives remain deeply influential. CSOs interpreted Target Malaria through the lens of foreign influence and philanthropic agendas, and this narrative resonated widely in the political climate. Future projects must recognize that such narratives will shape acceptance as much as scientific outcomes.

Reimagining Stakeholder Engagement

If engagement is to be truly effective, it must move beyond providing information and listening sessions and instead evolve into shared governance.

One crucial step is to allocate resources for social science research at levels comparable to laboratory research. Long-term ethnographic and political research cannot be conducted on small budgets or short timelines; they require sustained investment.

Another step is to give genuine authority to insights from social research. When community studies reveal fragile trust or political analyses highlight risks, these cannot remain secondary observations. They should carry weight equal to laboratory data, including the authority to suggest pauses or reorientation in project timelines.

But what might this integration look like in practice? How can social findings be systematically incorporated into regulatory decision-making — perhaps through advisory committees, explicit review criteria, or requirements for social impact assessments? And how should regulators respond when social and technical assessments point in different directions? Even without definitive answers, raising these questions is critical, as they cut to the heart of governance debates and form one of the central themes of this year’s Gene Drive Research Forum. At a minimum, findings should be shared, regardless of whether they present challenges, since such transparency communicates integrity, builds confidence, and strengthens legitimacy.

Finally, it is important to distinguish between engagement and social science. Engagement, often led by communication specialists, plays a vital role in informing and interacting with communities and stakeholders. Social science, by contrast, is a field of systematic research that generates evidence on social dynamics, trust, political context, and governance. Recognizing this distinction avoids conflating outreach with analysis and ensures that both are valued on their own terms.

Looking ahead, social science must be scaled beyond the community or national level. Just as biotechnology research is increasingly organized through continental and global consortia, so too should the social sciences establish interconnected networks. Shared methodologies and collaborative governance frameworks across multiple countries would equip emerging technologies with more resilient legitimacy and greater political grounding.

Closing Reflection

Burkina Faso’s decision was framed as an assertion of sovereignty. Source: Adobe Stock

The suspension of Target Malaria in Burkina Faso should not be interpreted as the end of innovation or as a rejection of science. Rather, it illustrates how intertwined scientific projects are with societal concerns, philanthropy, politics, sovereignty, and community trust. While national authorities have paused this project, Burkina Faso remains committed to scientific progress and continues collaborating with partners across diverse fields.

In its public statement, the National Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters of Burkina Faso (ANSAL-BF) expressed regret over the suspension, noting that the decision contradicted its earlier scientific recommendations and that no new information had been provided to justify the halt. ANSAL-BF reaffirmed its commitment to public health and ecosystem preservation, underscoring that internal scientific dialogue remains active. Meanwhile, Target Malaria has suspended its activities throughout the country, though its leadership and partners are likely exploring ways to respond and reframe future directions.

The key lesson, however, is already clear: scientific innovation and extensive stakeholder engagement alone cannot guarantee resilience. Whether in biotechnology or other emerging technologies, the long-term sustainability of projects depends equally on how well they generate trust, respect sovereignty, and foster genuine collaboration. Social science must stand alongside natural science as an equal partner in shaping priorities, setting boundaries, and building legitimacy. Without that balance, even the most technically advanced projects remain vulnerable. With it, frontier technologies stand a better chance of achieving both local acceptance and global impact.