Should scientists be allowed to edit animals’ genes? Yes, say some conservation groups
“The science is there, it’s happening,” said Susan Lieberman, vice president of international policy for the Wildlife Conservation Society. “There may be times when genetically modified organisms can be carefully and ethically tested and introduced into the environment. »
She said the new framework represents a “historic step” and that the measure could allow environmental advocates to consider new ways to address the risks of climate change or test new methods of suppressing disease.
The IUCN – a broad group of conservation organizations, governments and indigenous groups with more than 1,400 members from around 160 countries – meets once every four years. It is the world’s largest network of environmental groups and the authority behind the Red List, which tracks endangered species and global biodiversity.
This year’s meeting was held in Abu Dhabi and the positive vote on so-called “synthetic biology” establishes a new framework for evaluating genetic engineering projects and potentially implementing them in nature. 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 precautionary approach to genetic engineering, among other principles. The decision is applicable to work on 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 a single vote.
The IUCN’s decisions have no legal implications, but the endorsement carries symbolic weight and has the potential to guide policy internationally, said Jessica Owley, professor and director of the environmental law program at the University of Miami.
“IUCN is quite a powerful and recognized force in conservation. People listen to them and governments listen to them. They are major players in some treaties,” she said. “You can think of it as a precursor to language that you could see become law.”
Organizations that wanted a moratorium on releasing genetically modified organisms into the wild say there is not enough evidence that it can be done safely and responsibly.
“I’m disappointed,” said Dana Perls, senior food and agriculture program manager at the nonprofit Friends of the Earth. “We need to focus on contained research that does not make our environment an experimental field trial.”
As an example, she raised the possibility of genetically modifying mosquitoes so that they can resist the parasites responsible for malaria. The disease kills more than half a million people every year. To reduce this number of deaths, scientists have proposed pushing this malaria resistance to become widespread within the broader mosquito population – a practice called gene drives.
