Genetic Technology Debate at IUCN Conservation Congress
The 2025 IUCN World Conservation Congress in Abu Dhabi is set to decide on the use of genetic technology in conservation. The issue has split scientists, environmentalists and Indigenous groups worldwide. The core question is whether to ban synthetic biology research aimed at saving endangered species. This debate marks the clash between innovation and caution in protecting nature.
Debate
Motion 133 proposes a total ban on genetic technology in conservation. It aims to halt all research using synthetic biology to protect animals and plants. Over 100 scientists have opposed this ban in a letter. They argue that halting research would close doors on vital tools needed to combat rapid environmental decline. The vote will influence future conservation strategies globally.
Arguments Supporting Genetic Technology
Proponents claim traditional conservation methods are costly, complex and often ineffective at scale. Genetic tools can help coral reefs survive warming oceans by editing algae genes. They can protect frogs from deadly fungal infections and reduce diseases like malaria by modifying mosquitoes. Gene-edited animals could control invasive species that threaten fragile ecosystems. Supporters stress the urgency due to accelerating species extinction and climate impacts.
Concerns Behind the Proposed Ban
Opponents include Indigenous peoples, environmentalists and civil society groups. They worry about unpredictable effects of releasing gene-edited organisms into the wild. There are fears of losing traditional ecological knowledge and control over natural habitats. The dominance of large corporations in this technology raises ethical and economic concerns. The absence of clear global regulations adds to the uncertainty. Recent experiments involving extinct species’ DNA have intensified these fears.
Proposed Balanced Approach
Critics of the ban suggest a middle path via Motion 087. This advocates adaptive policies allowing countries to decide on genetic tool use case-by-case. It emphasises scientific evidence, local conditions and safeguards rather than an outright ban. This approach aims to balance innovation with precaution. It recognises both the risks and the potential to save species and ecosystems.
Broader Implications Beyond Conservation
Gene editing is also applied in agriculture to develop climate-resilient crops. However, support for wildlife gene editing does not always extend to genetically modified food. Concerns about food sovereignty, traditional seeds and corporate control persist. The debate raises questions about consistency in regulating gene technologies across sectors. It challenges policymakers to create rules that protect both biodiversity and farmers’ rights.
| Related | |
|---|---|
