This week, members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, one of the largest conservation organizations globally, rejected a proposed moratorium on the release of genetically modified organisms into natural environments to support conservation efforts. Additionally, they expressed support for synthetic biology, the technology that allows alteration or “editing” of genetic materials in living cells.
The two proposals have faced considerable backlash from Indigenous groups and international bodies concerned about agriculture, beekeeping, conservation, and biodiversity, who advocated for the IUCN to implement the moratorium. Another proposal, which permits the application of synthetic biology for research purposes, did receive approval in a separate vote.
This debate centers on the effectiveness and ethical implications surrounding genetically modified organisms. Since the 1990s, genetically modified foods have been accessible to consumers. However, with advances in gene editing technology, scientists have been investigating potential applications related to climate change, like disease-carrying mosquitoes, which have proliferated due to increased temperatures linked to global warming. For instance, in August, a nonprofit organization released 16,000 genetically modified mosquitoes to control the malaria-carrying Anopheles gambiae species, only for authorities to halt the project shortly thereafter.
“Currently, the science is still developing, and we lack sufficient data to support claims of safety,” stated Dana Peris, a senior manager of food and technology at Friends of the Earth, a coalition of environmental organizations. “Moreover, we have indications that this poses significant risks and could lead to irreversible consequences.”
Indigenous organizations such as the Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin and Wise Ancestors have asserted the need for establishing consultation protocols and policies, emphasizing that ethical considerations should encompass free, prior, and informed consent and data sovereignty before research can commence. They insist that free, prior, and informed consent—the cornerstone of Indigenous rights recognized in international law—must be upheld prior to engaging in synthetic biology projects on Indigenous lands.
“Unforeseen repercussions can have lasting effects on ecosystems, impacting both people and animals,” Peris warned. “Therefore, until comprehensive regulations and thorough risk assessments are established, it is essential that the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities to make their own decisions regarding this technology be respected.”
Conversely, Susan Lieberman, a member of the IUCN, regards these votes as a win in combating biodiversity loss and addressing conservation challenges posed by climate change.
“The resolutions passed by the IUCN in Abu Dhabi will guide policy towards evidence-informed decisions that protect both nature and human health—and will incorporate the rights and contributions of Indigenous Peoples, who are crucial stakeholders in any effective conservation strategy,” she remarked.
