The use of genetic engineering to save endangered species is the subject of debate ahead of a major international conservation gathering in the UAE later this year.
In a motion due to be presented at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress, in Abu Dhabi in October, opponents of the technology have warned of “unforeseeable impacts” if wild species are genetically modified.
The motion to the IUCN congress calls for a moratorium on genetic engineering, which has been used in conservation in efforts to recreate lost species. It says genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could “significantly damage ecosystems” and move across borders in an “uncontrollable” way.
“Genetic engineering of wild species in natural ecosystems undermines established and effective nature conservation strategies, many grounded in the traditional knowledge and practices of indigenous people and local communities,” states the motion. It is supported by organisations including the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network and the Stop Gene Drive campaign.
The motion argues that genetically engineering wild organisms goes against the “practices, values and principles of nature conservation” that the IUCN promotes.
Promoting conservation
However, in a public letter, a group of scientists and organisations have hit back at the moratorium proposal, warning that it would hamper the use of science to promote conservation.
They have particular concerns about restrictions on the emerging field of synthetic biology, which involves, for example, genetically engineering organisms to produce substances that confer disease resistance.
Signatories to the letter, among them American Bird Conservancy, the Charles Darwin Foundation and the European Bureau for Conservation and Development, say that many existing conservation tools – such as replanting coral reefs or moving organisms to increase genetic diversity – are expensive and difficult to use on a large scale.
Technologies such as synthetic biology could, they argue, “address challenges that have proven difficult or impossible to solve using traditional means”.
Approaches that could prove useful include, they say, genetically engineering bacteria to combat coral reef bleaching, which happens at high temperatures and is a major problem in the Gulf region. Other applications they say could be jeopardised by bans on the genetic engineering of wild species include modifying frogs to be resistant to deadly fungi, or engineering rodents to control invasive alien species.
They are concerned that scientists could be discouraged from using genetic engineering in conservation if the IUCN comes out publicly against the approach.
“An IUCN moratorium on genetically engineering wild species and microbiome communities would stifle research, compromise potential breakthroughs, and send a discouraging message to the next generation of scientists advancing transformative solutions in conservation and health,” the letter says.
Among the signatories to the letter is Colossal Biosciences, an American company attempting to recreate extinct species such as the woolly mammoth.
Fantasy becomes reality
In April this year the firm claimed to have “de-extincted” dire wolves, a species made famous by the television series Game of Thrones.
Other signatories include scientists in Bulgaria, France, the Philippines, the UK and the US. In total more than 100 individuals, organisations and campaigners have signed the letter.
The IUCN World Conservation Congress, held every four years, will take place in the UAE capital from October 9 to 15.
The congress includes the members’ assembly, where member organisations make decisions that “influence global policy and set the conservation agenda for years to come”.
The UAE has other strong links to the IUCN. The organisation’s president is Razan Al Mubarak, who is also managing director of the Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi and the Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund.
Genetic engineering technologies have caused controversy for decades, particularly in Europe, where the use of GMOs in agriculture remains tightly restricted.
In the Philippines, plans to grow Golden Rice, a form of the crop engineered to combat Vitamin A deficiency, were halted by a court last year.
Dr Alexander Lees, a reader in biodiversity at Manchester Metropolitan University in the UK, who is not connected to the letter opposing the motion, said the application of synthetic biology to biodiversity conservation “remains a divisive paradigm for conservationists”.
“Whilst some applications like ‘de-extinction’ are widely viewed with scepticism, engaging with other applications like species-specific biological control for invasive species would appear to offer real hope of tackling up-til-now intractable problems,” he said.
He said another motion presented to the congress offered “a flexible but cautious path” to deal with the issue on a case-by-case basis, given that “inaction in many cases may transpire to be a greater risk than taking action without full knowledge of the consequences”. A moratorium may, Dr Lees suggested, “be overly cautious”.
Another biologist not connected to the letter, Prof William Kunin, professor of ecology at the University of Leeds in the UK, said the alternatives to using genetic engineering “are often much worse” than the technology itself.
“What often happens in these sorts of debates [is] people look at an intervention in isolation compared to the alternatives,” he said.
When it comes to controlling mosquitoes that spread malaria, for example, alternatives to genetically engineering the creatures might include, Prof Kunin said, “spreading pesticides over vast areas or draining swamps”, that might be “incredibly biodiverse”.
