Will a Ban on Genetic Engineering in Wildlife Hinder Conservation Efforts?

Is there a need to genetically modify wild lions? While it may seem unnecessary, it provokes a quick reaction. Consider a scenario where a devastating disease, introduced by humans, threatens their survival. What if genetic alterations could boost immunity against this disease, providing a natural evolution path through time as more lions perish?

This debate is fracturing the environmentalist community, with discussions set to intensify. Next week, at a meeting of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)—the leading conservation organization—delegates will vote on a proposal to “suspend” genetic engineering in wildlife, including the introduction of modified microorganisms.

“I’m uncertain how the voting will unfold,” says Piero Genovesi from the Italian Institute of Environmental Protection, who backs an open letter opposing the proposal.

While the IUCN’s moratorium on synthetic biology carries no legal weight, it may still have significant repercussions. Various conservation organizations might halt projects involving genetic engineering, and some nations could incorporate such restrictions into their laws.

“Moratoriums would undoubtedly pose challenges on various fronts,” states Ben Novak, of the US-based nonprofit Revive & Restore, which aims to leverage biotechnology for the recovery of endangered and extinct species.

Why is this issue gaining attention now? The answer lies in CRISPR. In 2014, the potential for gene drives using CRISPR technology was demonstrated. Gene drives allow specific DNA segments to be passed down through generations, enabling them to spread even if detrimental. This technology could theoretically eliminate invasive species or spread beneficial traits like disease resistance.

Discussions emerged at a 2016 conference in Hawaii regarding employing gene drives to eradicate invasive mosquitoes that have decimated Hawaii’s native bird species, according to Genovesi. Reactions were mixed; some were enthusiastic, while others expressed deep concern.

This tension led to the proposed moratorium. “Gene drives are being promoted by some as a one-size-fits-all solution to environmental issues,” mentions Ricarda Steinbrecher from Econex, an organization also advocating for the moratorium.

However, the broad language of the proposed motion could affect much more than just gene drives. It might unintentionally restrict passive conservation efforts and the use of live vaccines.

Steinbrecher suggests the moratorium is a temporary halt, indicating another vote may take place later “when more data becomes available.” However, with many proponents of the ban being staunchly against genetic engineering, changing their perspectives may be challenging. “I’m concerned it could lead to an extended pause,” Genovesi states.

Imagine the prospect of using gene editing to make wild animals disease-resistant. While Steinbrecher raises concerns about unintended consequences, current evidence suggests the risks remain low. This is why some genetically edited foods are already being consumed, and the first CRISPR therapy received approval last year.

The same considerations regarding benefits and risks are applicable to conservation efforts. For instance, is it preferable to witness global warming decimating coral reefs rather than releasing genetically engineered symbiotic algae to enhance coral heat tolerance?

The scalability of such endeavors is crucial, asserts Novak. Manual transplanting of corals will not be enough to salvage the reefs. “Synthetic biology tools are essential for achieving the broad objective of restoring 30% of land and saving seed varieties,” he emphasizes.

Ultimately, this discourse revolves around conflicting visions of nature. Some regard it as a pristine entity, wary of genetic modification. Nonetheless, humans have already altered nature significantly. Our actions have unintentionally interfered with genetic selection through practices like hunting, pollution, pesticide use, and the introduction of invasive species and diseases.

These actions necessitate adaptations among many species for their survival; for instance, specific elephant populations are now nearly devoid of tusks.

However, this does not imply that further interference will yield positive outcomes. The release of gene drives carries significant risks, such as their potential spread beyond intended targets.

Researchers are cognizant of these hazards. Methods like self-limiting gene drives can be implemented to prevent unrestrained gene dispersion.

“We are confronted with a severe biodiversity crisis,” Genovesi argues. “We shouldn’t close ourselves off to innovative tools that could assist us in combatting substantial threats.”

Conservation and Rewilding in the Central Apennines: Italy

A journey through Italy’s central Apennines introduces the practical realities and philosophy behind rewilding.