Would a ban on genetic engineering of wildlife hamper conservation?

Would we really consider genetically altering wild lions? Your initial answer may be a firm ‘no’. However, what if lions faced extinction due to a serious illness introduced by humans? What if the modification involved a minimal change enabling them to resist that disease, similar to what might eventually happen through natural evolution over time?

These questions are creating a rift among conservationists as the situation intensifies. This week, during a meeting of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) – a leading global conservation organization – delegates are set to vote on a proposal that seeks to put a “pause” on any genetic engineering of wildlife, including the introduction of altered microbes.

“I’m uncertain how the voting will unfold,” remarks Piero Genovesi from the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research in Italy, who assisted in drafting an open letter contesting the proposed motion.

While the IUCN’s moratorium on synthetic biology would not have any legal power, its implications could still resonate widely. Numerous conservation organizations might halt funding for projects involving genetic engineering, and some countries could adopt such a prohibition into their national regulations.

“This moratorium would create significant issues across various domains,” asserts Ben Novak from Revive & Restore, a US non-profit working to leverage biotechnologies to aid endangered and extinct species.

Why is this topic gaining traction right now? The answer lies in CRISPR. In 2014, research demonstrated that CRISPR gene-editing technology can be used to engineer gene drives – a strand of DNA that is inherited by all offspring, rather than just half. This capacity allows gene drives to proliferate even if harmful, and could theoretically serve to eliminate invasive species. In addition, gene drives could also facilitate the spread of advantageous traits like resistance to diseases.

During a 2016 conference in Hawaii, discussions emerged regarding the use of gene drives to eradicate invasive mosquitoes that have decimated numerous native bird species in Hawaii, according to Genovesi. While some conservationists showed enthusiasm, others responded with alarm.

This sparked the chain of events resulting in the proposed moratorium. “Certain advocates are pushing gene drives as a universal solution for various environmental issues,” comments Ricarda Steinbrecher from EcoNexus, an organization that is part of the coalition supporting a moratorium.

However, the expansive language of the suggested motion extends beyond gene drives. It could disqualify most de-extinction initiatives and may even be interpreted as prohibiting live vaccines.

Steinbrecher mentions that the moratorium represents a pause rather than a permanent barrier, implying there could be subsequent votes to lift it “when we gather more information.” Yet, many proponents of the ban are groups opposed to any form of genetic engineering, making the prospects of reversing their position seem slim. “I’m afraid this could lead to an extended moratorium,” conveys Genovesi.

Consider the notion of employing gene editing to enhance wild animals’ resistance to illnesses. Steinbrecher warns that gene editing may produce unintended consequences. However, current evidence indicates that associated risks are minimal—this is evidenced by several gene-edited foods currently available in markets and the recent approval of the first CRISPR treatment for human use last year.

This dynamic of weighing benefits against risks applies equally in conservation efforts. Is it preferable to remain inactive while coral reefs are ravaged by climate change rather than introducing genetically modified algal symbionts that bolster corals’ heat resilience?

A vital concern is the capacity for scalability, according to Novak. By nature, divers transplanting corals cannot possibly save entire reefs. “This is where synthetic biology innovations are crucial,” he asserts. “The overarching goals of restoring a third of land to natural states, and saving endangered species, will not be feasible without applying synthetic biology.”

Ultimately, we are grappling with contrasting ideologies surrounding nature. Some individuals view nature as sacred and intact, finding any genetic intervention to be unacceptable. Yet, humans have interfered with nature throughout history—our actions have led to the extirpation of most megafauna. Furthermore, we already engage in unintentional genetic manipulation through subjecting various species to selective pressures.

Human activities such as hunting, pollution, pesticide use, non-native species, and introduced diseases are compelling numerous plants and animals to adapt for survival. Certain elephant populations, for example, are becoming nearly tuskless.

Of course, this isn’t to suggest that additional disruption will yield better outcomes. There are valid concerns regarding the implications of releasing gene drives—gene drives designed for the extermination of invasive species might inadvertently invade the native range of their target species.

That said, scientists are keenly aware of these risks. Moreover, strategies exist to mitigate potential dangers, such as designing gene drives to be self-limiting so they cannot propagate indefinitely.

“We are confronted with an alarming biodiversity crisis,” states Genovesi. “We shouldn’t disregard new tools that could help address some of the most significant threats we face.”