“The science is here, it's happening,” said Susan Lieberman, vice president of international policy at the Wildlife Conservation Society. “Perhaps there will come a time when genetically modified organisms can be tested and introduced into the environment carefully and ethically.”
She said the new framework represented a “landmark step” and that the measure could allow conservationists to consider new ways to combat the risks of climate change or test new methods of suppressing disease.
IUCN, a large group of conservation organizations, governments and indigenous groups with more than 1,400 members from about 160 countries, meets every four years. It is the world's largest network of environmental groups and the body behind the Red List, which tracks threatened species and global biodiversity.
This year's meeting took place in Abu Dhabi, and the vote on what is known as “synthetic biology” establishes a new framework for evaluating genetic engineering projects and potentially implementing them in the wild. The measure calls on scientists to evaluate such projects on a case-by-case basis, be transparent about the risks and benefits of potential actions, and take a cautious approach to genetic engineering, among other principles. The solution is applicable to a range of organisms, including animals, plants, yeast and bacteria.
A separate measure, a proposed moratorium on the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment, failed by one vote.
IUCN decisions have no legal consequences, but approval carries symbolic weight and can drive policy internationally, said Jessica Oley, a professor and director of the environmental law program at the University of Miami.
“IUCN is a pretty powerful and recognized force in the environmental field. People listen to them and governments listen to them. They are major parties to some of the treaties,” she said. “You can think of it as a precursor to language that will perhaps become law.”
Organizations that have sought a moratorium on the release of genetically engineered organisms into the wild say there is not enough evidence that it can be done safely or responsibly.
“I’m disappointed,” said Dana Perls, senior program manager for food and agriculture at the nonprofit Friends of the Earth. “We need to focus on low-key research that doesn't turn our environment into a living experimental test.”
As an example, she pointed to the possibility Genetically modify mosquitoes to resist the parasites that cause malaria.. More than half a million people die from the disease each year, so to reduce the death toll, scientists have proposed spreading resistance to malaria to a wider mosquito population – a practice called gene drive.
