The authors regret that a sentence corresponding to the last paragraph of Section 6.1 may be imprecise and, therefore, might be misinterpreted. Thus, we would like to make the following corrections:
When stated:
“One of the most promising initiatives in this context was the program “Allied Insects”, which used insects containing certain viruses as vectors to help crops fight threats such as drought or pollution (Ford et al., 2010). CRISPR-based gene drives have been proposed as a way to reduce or eliminate insect-borne diseases, control invasive species and even reverse insecticide resistance in pests, but researchers worry about the consequences of unleashing this new technology (Champer et al., 2017). Reeves et al. (2018), however, have recently questioned the program, in such a prestigious journal as Science. These authors suspect that the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) may somehow have funded the project to breach existing international treaties against the proliferation of biological weapons established in the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC).”
It should say:
“One of the most promising initiatives in this context was the program “Allied Insects”, which used insects containing certain viruses as vectors to help crops fight threats such as drought or pollution. CRISPR-based gene drives have been proposed as a way to reduce or eliminate insect-borne diseases, control invasive species and even reverse insecticide resistance in pests, but researchers worry about the consequences of unleashing this new technology (Champer et al., 2017). Reeves et al. (2018), however, have recently questioned the program, in such a prestigious journal as Science. These authors open an interesting debate on the possibility that these investigations could become distorted and, in this way, they could serve to be used for warlike purposes, finding a way to circumvent the existing international treaties against the proliferation of biological weapons established in the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC).”
In fact, Reeves et al. (2018) in the article titled “Agricultural research, or a new bioweapon system?” indicates textually “(…) In the context of the stated aims of the DARPA program, it is our opinion that the knowledge to be gained from this program appears very limited in its capacity to enhance US agriculture or respond to national emergencies (in either the short or long term). Furthermore, there has been an absence of adequate discussion regarding the best practical and regulatory impediments toward realizing the projected agricultural benefits. As a result, the program may be widely perceived as an effort to develop biological agents for hostile purposes and their means of delivery, which —if true— would constitute a breach of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)”. Reeves et al. (2018) ends they article with the phrases ”Reversal of funding for this DARPA project by the US Congress (…) would not in itself close the particular Pandora’s box that HEGAAs or their insect dispersal may represent. Nonetheless, there is a compelling argument that nowhere has bold leadership for the benefit of humankind been more internationally reciprocated than in the control of the use, development, or stockpiling of biological weapons.“
The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused to the readers to whom we recommend a careful reading of the above-mentioned article (Reeves et al., 2018) since it is evident that at no time the authors suspect that DARPA wants to breech the BWC, although it is evident that they warn about the dangers associated with this type of research.