Synthetic biologists are developing a gene drive (biased inheritance) which, applied over generations, aims to preference a particular genetic trait such as a single sex for all offspring to reduce breeding possibilities for an invasive species. As such, synthetic biology (synbio) seeks to unsettle nature by editing biology in the name of conservation. As this biotechnology develops, synbio scientists have identified islands as potential environments in which to trial the release of approved gene drives in the future. But what happens when a cross-cultural, Indigenous lens is applied to synbio? The Torres Strait Islands stretch between mainland Australia, of which they are a part, and Papua New Guinea. The Straits’ water facilitates Islanders’ mobility and fosters customary connection and trans/national notions of kin, while also informing engagement with and care for this environment. In this watery world, how might Torres Strait Islanders’ understandings complicate and/or contribute to synbio scientific concepts of islands as contained, “watertight” field sites for future gene drive trials? And what happens when human/other-than-human categories collapse and combine to reshape ethical and regulatory responsibilities? Bringing together Torres Strait Islanders’ perspectives and synbio science, this paper will consider early cross-cultural conversations about gene drive technology for environmental conservation informed by and aiming to move beyond settler-colonial legacies of science.

Both ecology and evolutionary theory address vast, overlapping portions of the biological world, and neither science can supply a complete accounting of it alone. The disciplines are distinct, of course, but far from disparate: their intertwining theoretical concerns and concepts suggest connections ripe for integration. But nothing resembling a second Modern Synthesis of population genetics and population ecology exists. And this is despite the pretensions of a group of the most theoretically sophisticated geneticists and ecologists that gathered to achieve that unification in the 1960s-70s. This work examines the philosophically interesting reasons the project failed, and why scientific ambition far outstripped the formidability of the task.

The Royal Society is the oldest scientific institution in continuous existence, and has a worldwide reputation for scientific excellence. As such, it is not usually considered alongside the Eugenics Education Society, as eugenics is now understood to be unscientific and ideologically driven. However, during the 1920s, the Eugenics Education Society engaged with the Royal Society at three levels — administration, policy, and finance — though the Royal Society was not always receptive to its requests. This paper explores these interactions between the two organisations.

The paper begins in June 1920 — when the Eugenics Education Society held its first of many Annual General Meetings in Royal Society rooms. I then outline the Eugenics Education Society’s two attempts (1920 and 1927) to secure the Royal Society’s support for its campaigns surrounding the census, the latter of which was successful. I also describe the Eugenics Education Society’s 1925 and 1926 applications for Royal Society funding for its research, which was successful the first time, but rejected the second.

I explore the reasons for the Royal Society’s inconsistency towards the Eugenics Education Society’s various requests, and argue that its approach speaks to both the shifting perceptions of the scientific status of eugenics in Britain during the 1920s, and the caution towards socio-political developments that was characteristic of the Royal Society.