This week, a significant decision was made at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress in Abu Dhabi. Members voted to not ban, but rather to accept and promote the use of ‘synthetic biology’ in conservation efforts. This move has caused a stir, with many feeling it goes against the core ideas of protecting nature.
The vote was on two related proposals. The outcome highlights a deep disagreement within the conservation world. Some believe that using genetic engineering is a valid way to help or restore ecosystems. Others strongly disagree.
The IUCN stated it aims to be neutral. They explained that the new policy is not an endorsement but provides a way to make decisions on a case-by-case basis. It aims to guide how and when these new technologies might be used. However, by creating this framework, the IUCN has essentially agreed that modifying wild species is a legitimate conservation method.
Critics question if this is due to naivety or a deliberate choice. They worry that by appearing neutral, the IUCN might have overlooked how powerful groups could use this decision to weaken conservation rules. The policy could allow for nature to be treated as a product, something to be engineered and profited from in the name of progress.
Experts explain that ‘synthetic biology’ is the term used for genetic engineering in conservation. This term sounds more advanced and less controversial than ‘genetic engineering’ or ‘gene-editing’. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) notes that while there are overlaps, synthetic biology often involves larger changes to DNA and combines biology with engineering and computer science. A definition states it’s about ‘the engineering of biology’ to create systems with functions not found in nature.
Some believe the IUCN is using this new language to hide the controversial history of genetic engineering in agriculture and to make radical changes to nature seem like safe scientific progress. Biotechnology supporters quickly celebrated the vote. Groups like the Breakthrough Institute and Revive & Restore, which works on de-extinction projects, praised the decision.
However, environmental groups like Save Our Seeds warned this is risky. They believe relying on high-risk technologies with unknown results is dangerous for nature. The debate is not about science versus anti-science, but about different ideas on how to practice science responsibly.
Scientists are divided. Over 100 scientists signed an open letter supporting gene editing for restoring genetic diversity and even bringing back extinct traits. On the other hand, over 100 other scientists and conservationists signed a letter calling for a moratorium, warning that synthetic biology interventions in the wild are unpredictable and ethically challenging.
While the IUCN vote itself has no legal power, its symbolic and political meaning is huge. It suggests a shift from the traditional conservation idea of restraint towards a more interventionist approach. Critics compare this to the history of agricultural biotechnology, where promises of salvation often overshadow scientific caution, leading to unpredictable outcomes.
The article also mentions the UK’s Genetic Technology Act, which allows for unregulated experimentation with gene-edited plants and animals in wider nature. New regulations mean these GMOs won’t be considered environmental damage, removing accountability for developers.
The article argues that the history of agricultural biotechnology shows limited success and ongoing risks to biodiversity. The same approach applied to wild ecosystems could be much worse. Many conservation groups in the UK have not fully engaged with this issue, despite public concerns about genetic engineering.
The public often has an instinctual distrust of these technologies, seeing them as aggressive interventions with uncertain outcomes. The article urges people to ask their environmental organisations where they stand on the genetic engineering of wild species and to withdraw support if their positions don’t align with precautionary and ethical values. True conservation, it concludes, is about defending nature’s right to exist, not engineering it for human aims.