“The technology has arrived and is currently unfolding,” stated Susan Lieberman, vice president of international policy at the Wildlife Conservation Society. “There may be instances where genetically modified organisms can be cautiously and ethically tested and introduced into natural environments.”

He remarked that the new framework represents a “transformative advancement” that may enable conservationists to explore innovative solutions to climate change challenges and to assess new methods for disease control.

The IUCN consists of a vast coalition of conservation organizations, governments, and indigenous communities, boasting over 1,400 members from roughly 160 nations, convening once every four years. It stands as the globe’s largest network of environmental organizations and is responsible for the Red List, which monitors endangered species and global biodiversity.

This year’s conference took place in Abu Dhabi, where the vote favoring “synthetic biology” established a new framework for assessing genetic engineering initiatives and their potential implementation. This measure mandates that scientists evaluate such projects on an individual basis, maintain transparency regarding the associated risks and benefits, and adhere to precautionary principles relating to genetic engineering. This applies to a spectrum of organisms, including animals, plants, yeast, and bacteria.

Another proposal, which aimed to suspend the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment, failed by a narrow margin of one vote.

Jessica Owley, a professor and director of the environmental law program at the University of Miami, noted that while the IUCN decision lacks legal force, it carries symbolic importance and could influence international policy.

“IUCN is a powerful and recognized entity in the conservation field. Their word holds weight, and governments pay attention. They play a significant role in various treaties,” she commented. “This can be viewed as groundwork for future legal language.”

Organizations advocating for a moratorium on the release of genetically modified organisms into the wild argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove it can be done safely and responsibly.

“We’re disappointed,” stated Dana Perls, senior food and agriculture program manager at the nonprofit Friends of the Earth. “Our focus should be on confined research that doesn’t turn our environment into a live experimental lab.”

As a potential example, she cited: genetically modifying mosquitoes to combat the malaria-causing parasite. The disease claims over 500,000 lives annually, prompting scientists to propose spreading this malaria resistance across broader mosquito populations through a method known as genetic drive.