Humans have become very good at altering the basic building blocks of life to their advantage. Genetically modified foods are available at most grocery stores. Researchers use gene-editing tools every day to create new medicines.
But scientists are increasingly looking to use gene-editing tools in another way: to help preserve the planet's fast-eroding natural ecosystems and species. From making corals that can survive better in warming oceans to creating trees that are more resistant to disease, many scientists believe technology can be used to help augment and bolster the natural world.
This week, one of the world's largest conservation groups will weigh in on how those gene-editing tools should be used to aid the planet's declining ecosystems and threatened species — and, critically, whether genetically modified plants and animals should be allowed into the wild.
At the heart of the debate is a proposed moratorium, sponsored by a coalition of environmental groups at a meeting of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), that would temporarily ban scientists from releasing genetically modified species into the wild. They're preaching precaution.
"A moratorium, I think, is a wise tool to say, like: This is developing fast, there's a real push for release (of genetically modified species), but the outcomes of it are highly risky and we don't even know if this stuff will work," said Ricarda Steinbrecher, a European biologist and molecular geneticist.
On the other side are scientists and conservation groups who argue that everything should be on the table in the fight against worsening rates of extinction. That includes synthetic biology — the catch-all term used for a suite of genetic tools that scientists use to alter or engineer living cells.
"We're in the middle of a biodiversity crisis, we're in the middle of a climate change crisis," said Susan Lieberman, vice president of international policy at the Wildlife Conservation Society. "So I think we need to employ every tool we can to prevent further collapse of ecosystems."
Though the IUCN has no regulatory ability and its decisions are non-binding, conservationists warn a moratorium could make it harder for researchers to acquire funding or get institutional approval for research.
"Everybody cares about reputation," said Ryan Phelan, co-founder and executive director of the nonprofit Revive and Restore, which helps fund research into synthetic biology. "It's hard to find funding for innovations and it's even hard for researchers to get permission even in their own institutions if [the research] is going to be at all concerning."
A moratorium from a respected international institution like the IUCN, she said, could raise those concerns. And that could have a chilling effect on efforts to save all kinds of species whose populations are dwindling.
"The idea that we can just stand back and not intervene with nature, it's not going to work anymore," she said. "We're going to lose it."
Genetically modifying frogs
Roughly a million species are at risk of extinction globally, many within decades, according to the United Nations. Habitat loss, climate change and overconsumption — all driven by human activities — are major causes of the decline.
Anthony Waddle, an Australia-based biologist who's using gene-editing tools to try to protect frogs from chytrid fungus, a deadly disease that's devastating amphibians globally, views synthetic biology as an opportunity to use human innovation "for good, for a change," he said.
Waddle is part of a team exploring whether it's possible to transplant snippets of DNA from frogs that have a natural resistance to the disease to frogs that don't — or whether it would be possible to genetically activate some latent resistance to the disease hidden in frog's DNA.
"I think the challenge isn't the science. We can do this. We can solve this problem," he said. "The challenge is going to be convincing people it's a good idea."
Skeptics of synthetic biology argue the science is unproven. It's not clear if genetically modified species will survive and thrive in the wild because it hasn't been tested. It's unknown if well-intentioned modifications could have negative impacts on the species and their broader ecosystems. It's unclear how scientists would contain or mitigate those negative impacts once they're in the wild.
Even before the prevalence of gene editing, humans have been modifying ecosystems — often with unintended consequences. Purposeful and accidental introductions of mammals like rats and rabbits have devastated island ecosystems and the ecology of entire countries like New Zealand. Asian carp, which were brought to North America to help control algal blooms in wastewater treatment ponds and for food, are now threatening many native fish.
"The idea — that this won't be perfect and we will create problems that we did not anticipate but by then we'll be clever enough to fix them — is absolutely pervasive," said Guy Reeves, a scientist who focuses on synthetic biology who's working with a German NGO that supports the moratorium.
Reeves believes that genetic research like Waddle's work on frogs is worth exploring. But he's worried that some supporters of the technology view it as a panacea and that it could fundamentally alter humanity's relationship with the natural world.
"Ultimately, it comes down to: Do you trust that humans at this point have the capacity to re-engineer nature and probably have the capacity to re-re-engineer it," he asked. "Or do you not think we're that clever?"
Copyright 2025 NPR
