Subscribe
IUCN World Conservation Congress in Abu Dhabi to decide on use of genetic tools in conservation
The question has divided the scientific community, with some saying the technology will be needed to save dying species
More than a 100 scientists opposed the ban in a letter
Experts opposing ban advocate the adoption of a more balanced approach such as Motion 087, which proposes adaptive, policy-oriented ways of using synthetic biology
In October, world leaders will meet in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates to vote on a big question that could change how we protect nature forever: Should we ban genetic technology in conservation?
The battle centers on Motion 133, which wants to stop all research using synthetic biology to save animals and plants. The debate has divided scientists, environmentalists and Indigenous communities around the world.
While a section of the experts want to pause research in the area citing dangers, others say the science is needed to save dying species.
More than 100 scientists signed a letter opposing the ban, calling it a mistake that would close the door on crucial research.
The scientific community points to the urgent need for new tools as traditional conservation methods struggle to address rapidly accelerating environmental threats.
Piero Genovesi, chair of IUCN's Invasive Species Specialist Group, notes that traditional conservation methods "are becoming harder to use because they are expensive, technically difficult and hard to scale up, especially in remote or low-resource areas".
Nearly a million species face extinction risk, with coral reefs dying from rising ocean temperatures and forests disappearing at alarming rates. Climate change continues to intensify these challenges.
Scientists who support the research point to real examples of what these tools could do. They can edit algae genes to help coral reefs survive the hot water that’s killing them. They could save frogs from a deadly fungus that has already wiped out many species.
Modified mosquitoes that cannot spread malaria could save millions of human lives. Gene-edited mice that can’t reproduce could stop invasive species from destroying island ecosystems.
“Malaria is facing a perfect storm of challenges that threaten to destroy progress made against the disease over the past two decades,” said Yacine Djibo, founder of Speak Up Africa. “Closing the door on research means closing the door to potential tools that could help save lives.”
Scientists argue that nature is in crisis and we are running out of time. They say genetic tools offer solutions we desperately need right now to protect species, restore ecosystems and even save human lives.
Indigenous communities, environmental groups and civil society organisations support the ban. They worry about unknown risks of releasing gene-edited organisms into the wild.
They fear the loss of traditional knowledge and control over ecosystems. They are concerned about the power of big corporations that might dominate this technology. And they point to the lack of clear global rules to guide its use.
Their concerns aren't just theoretical. In early 2024, a biotech company called Colossal announced it had created dog-like animals with some DNA from extinct dire wolves, species that disappeared over 10,000 years ago.
These aren't real dire wolves, but modern animals with edited genes that resemble them. Critics question the wisdom of bringing back extinct species and potential consequences of releasing such creatures.
The groups supporting the ban call for what they term “a precautionary approach”. They want stronger regulations before opening the gates to these powerful genetic tools. Better to be safe than sorry, they argue.
Critics of the ban say there might be a middle path. Instead of stopping all research, they support Motion 087, which offers a balanced, case-by-case approach.
This policy would let each country decide for itself whether to use genetic tools, based on science, local context and proper safeguards. It doesn't ignore risks, but it also doesn't block research that might one day help save a species or restore a coral reef.
The debate does not stop with animals and nature. Gene editing is also being used in food in rice, millets and cereals and other crops to make them survive in extreme conditions.
Some people who support gene editing to save wildlife don’t show the same support for food and genetically modified crops and are seen as a threat to small farmers, to traditional seeds and to food sovereignty itself. Corporate control over seeds remains a serious concern.
So where do we draw the line? If we accept gene editing to save animals can we reject it for food? Or do we need set of rules that works for both?
As the vote in Abu Dhabi gets closer, world leaders have a big decision to make: Should we stop using new science because we are afraid of what might go wrong? Or should we move forward carefully and use these tools to try to save the planet?
Final summary: The upcoming IUCN World Conservation Congress in Abu Dhabi will address the contentious issue of using genetic technology in conservation. The scientific community is divided, with some advocating for its use to save endangered species, while others caution against potential risks. Motion 133 proposes a ban on synthetic biology research, but over 100 scientists oppose this, emphasising the need for innovative tools to tackle environmental challenges.