Would a ban on genetic engineering of wildlife hamper conservation?

Should we genetically modify wild lions? Of course not, maybe your instant answer. But what if the lions were destroyed by a destructive disease introduced by people? What if a genetic change was a tiny setting that makes them immune to this disease, such a kind that could develop naturally, and enough time and sufficiently dead lions?

Such questions are divided by defenders, and questions are going to rise. At the coming week at the meeting International Union for the Preservation of Nature (MSOP) – Leading world guarded organization – delegates will vote for a proposal that will “pause” any form of genetic engineering of wildlife, including the introduction of modified microbes.

“I have no idea how the voice will pass,” he says Pierrot genes At the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research in Italy, which helped the project Open letter against the proposed movementField

The MSOP moratorium on synthetic biology will not have legal force, but it can still have far -reaching effects. For example, many protected organizations may stop financing work with the participation of genetic engineering, and some countries can make such a ban on national laws.

“The moratorium, of course, would be problematic at many levels,” says Ben Novak In Revive & Restore, a non -profit organization in the United States, which seeks to use biotechnology To save the disappearing and extinct viewsField

Why is this happening now? In a word, CRISPRThe field in 2014 showed that the CRISPR genes technology can be used to create genetic disks in the main piece of DNA, which is transmitted to all offspring, and not the usual half. This means that the genetic disk can spread, even if it is harmful and Theoretically, you can use it to destroy invasive speciesThe gene discs can also be used to spread beneficial features, such as resistance to disease.

At the conference in Hawaii in 2016 there were talk about the use of genes To get rid of invasive mosquitoes According to Genovashi, who wiped half the local species of the Hawaii birds. Some nature defenders were delighted; The others were horror.

This caused events leading to the proposed moratorium. “Dry drivwies of effective really only speed as a panacea for solving all kinds of environmental problems,” says he says Ricarde Steinbrecher in Econexus, a research organization that is one of those Support for the moratoriumField

But the wide wording of the proposed movement is applicable to much larger than genetic discs. This would exclude the most De-exception For example, efforts, and can also be considered as a prohibition on the air vaccineField

Steinbrecher says that a moratorium is a pause, not a permanent block, and that there may be another voice to finish it “when we have more data.” But some of those who support the ban are campaign groups opposing some kind of genetic engineering, so it’s hard to see what will change their minds. “I am afraid that it can be a very long ban,” says Genovashi.

Take the idea of ​​using genes to make wild animals resistant to diseases. Steinbrecher says that Gene editing may have unintentional side effects. But the evidence that we have indicate that the risks are low, so several edited products of products Already eatAnd why The first CRISPR treatment for people was approved last yearField

The same benefits and considerations are used while maintaining. Is it really better to stand and observe how coral reefs are destroyed by global warming than, say, the release of genetically designed algae symbio, which give the corals greater heat resistance?

The key question is scalability, says Novak. Divers transplanting corals manually will never save reefs. “The tools of synthetic biology are vital here,” he says. “General goals of restoring 30 percent of land for nature, saving species, etc., etc., will not be achieved without synthetic biology.”

Ultimately, we are talking about competing nature visions. Some see the nature of untouched and sacred, and are shocked by the idea of ​​any genetic intervention. But people have transformed nature since then We destroyed most of the megafaunaThe field we are already unintentional interfering genetically imposition of all kinds of selection pressuresField

Hunting, contamination, pesticides, invasive species and implemented diseases make many plants and animals change to survival. Some elephant populations Almost crazyFor example.

Of course, this does not mean that more intervention will improve the situation. There are really serious risks for the release of genes – for example, genes for genes designed to destroy invasive species can apply to the native range of targetsField

But researchers are very aware of risks. And there are ways to reduce them, for example, forcing yourself to independently determine that they cannot just spread endlesslyField

“We are faced with the dramatic crisis of biodiversity,” says Gen depend. “We should not close the door to new tools that can help us fight some of the main threats.”

Preservation and repetition in the central apennins: Italy

Traveling to the Central Apennins region in Italy for a fascinating acquaintance with the concept and practical characteristics of the move.

Topics: