IUCN to vote on pausing genetic engineering of wildlife
Conservationists are divided over a proposed moratorium on genetic modification of wildlife at an upcoming International Union for Conservation of Nature meeting. While some groups seek a pause to assess risks, others argue that technologies like CRISPR are essential for saving endangered species. The vote could influence funding and policies worldwide.
In the coming week, delegates at a meeting of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the world's leading conservation organization, will vote on a motion to "pause" any form of genetic engineering of wildlife, including the introduction of modified microbes.
This proposal has sparked intense debate among experts. Piero Genovesi at the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research in Italy, who helped draft an open letter opposing the motion, said, "I have no idea how the vote will go." Although the moratorium would lack legal force, it could deter funding from conservation organizations and inspire national bans. Ben Novak at Revive & Restore, a US-based non-profit focused on biotechnologies for endangered and extinct species, warned, "The moratorium would certainly be problematic on many levels."
The push for a pause stems from advances in CRISPR gene-editing technology, demonstrated in 2014 to create gene drives—DNA segments that spread to all offspring, potentially eradicating invasive species or conferring traits like disease resistance. A 2016 conference in Hawaii discussed using gene drives against invasive mosquitoes that have decimated half of Hawaii's native birds, eliciting both enthusiasm and alarm.
Ricarda Steinbrecher at EcoNexus, which supports the moratorium, noted, "Gene drives are being pushed quite strongly by some as the panacea for dealing with all sorts of environmental problems." The motion's broad scope would affect de-extinction efforts and possibly live vaccines. Steinbrecher described it as a temporary pause, potentially reversible with more data, but Genovesi fears, "I am afraid it could be a very long ban."
Proponents of genetic tools highlight low risks, citing approved gene-edited foods and the first CRISPR human treatment last year. Novak emphasized scalability: manual efforts like coral transplantation cannot save reefs alone, and "synthetic biology tools are vital" for goals like restoring 30 percent of land to nature.
At its core, the debate reflects clashing views of nature—pristine and untouched versus one humans have long altered through hunting, pollution, and invasives. Researchers acknowledge risks, such as gene drives spreading uncontrollably, but propose safeguards like self-limiting designs. Genovesi urged, "We are facing a dramatic crisis of biodiversity. We shouldn’t close the door to new tools that could help us combat some of the major threats."