Leading conservationists just decided that genetically engineering wild animals is OK – sometimes. They’re right | Helen Pilcher

Do do you think we should genetically modify wildlife? What if we could make seabirds resistant to the flu that wiped them out en masse, simply by slightly modifying their DNA? Or create fish capable of resisting pollution, or corals capable of surviving warm waters? Engineer in the kind of change that could happen naturally, given enough time, if only wildlife would stop dying already.

Thanks to new emerging methods, like Crispr, these feats are within our reach. Recently, conservationists gathered at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress 2025, where they debated genetically modified wildlife and voted on a proposed moratorium that would prevent their release into the wild. Ahead of the meeting, a group of more than 90 NGOs issued a press release urging the IUCN to “say no to artificial wildlife.” But humans have been modifying the DNA of other species for millennia.

It all started around 30,000 years ago, when our species began to domesticate wild animals. When we invited them into our world, slowly but surely the gray wolf transformed into a dog, the red jungle hen transformed into a chicken, and the aurochs gave way to domestic livestock.

Then, a few hundred years ago, people began deliberately breeding their most desirable animals together. By repeating the process across generations, key characteristics became exaggerated. The cattle became meatier. Pigs have become longer. The dogs have acquired distinctive characteristics that are now identifiable as Dachshunds, Dalmatians and Dobermans. Selective breeding, as it is called, has led to the creation of hairless cats, horned goldfish, and goats that faint when startled. No joke.

All Some of these characteristics are supported by changes in the animals’ DNA. We may not have changed their genetics intentionally, but when we select for specific traits, the associated DNA sequences adapt along the way. Over time, this leads to genetic changes.

But it doesn’t stop there. As I point out in my book Life Changing: How Humans are Altering Life on Earth, human activity is now altering the DNA of all terrestrial life. Before the evolution of our species, life was shaped by natural forces. Evolution and the genetic changes that accompany it tend to occur slowly over several millennia.

Today, as we warm our world, pollute our planet, and destroy the few wild places we have left, we are accelerating evolution. Genetic change is observed on timescales that span decades and centuries. White-footed mice in Central Park have acquired versions of genes that help them process fatty foods and a fungus found on moldy nuts. It seems they have developed the ability to eat pizza and peanuts. Meanwhile, in Nebraska, American swallows evolved smaller wings to help them dodge traffic, and in Puerto Rico, crested anole lizards evolved longer legs and stickier toes to help them cling to buildings.

If editing the DNA of wildlife is a line you think should never be crossed, then I have news for you. This ship sailed a long time ago. Although the high-tech methods used by today’s scientists are different, the end result – modified organisms with new characteristics and subtly different DNA – is the same.

New technologies often cause anxiety. When Robert Bakewell, the 18th-century farmer and proponent of selective breeding, began working with farm animals, critics said it was unnatural and potentially dangerous. The same concerns were later raised with Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards as they pioneered the development of IVF in the 1970s. In the 1990s, cloning expert Ian Wilmut was equally criticized when he revealed the birth of Dolly the Sheep.

Then, selective breeding proved useful. IVF has led to the creation of happy and healthy babies. And cloning has been adopted by the agricultural industry, which uses it to breed elite breeding animals. Sometimes methods that are initially perceived as new, artificial, and disruptive become accepted over time as they become familiar and proven safe and useful. Deliberate genetic modification of wildlife could be one such method.

Those who raised their concerns at the IUCN conference were right to do so. Gene editing differs from traditional breeding methods in that it can be used to introduce entirely new traits. For example, scientists have extracted genes from jellyfish and corals and added them to zebrafish, to create fluorescent versions of these popular aquarium animals. Genes from different species can be mixed and matched, so it is important to decide which changes are acceptable and which are prohibited.

New methods also have the potential to modify DNA, not only at the individual level, but also at the population level. A technique called gene drives rewrites the traditional laws of heredity by ensuring that a particular gene is passed on to all offspring, rather than the usual half. This can be used to quickly spread useful features, such as disease resistance, from one generation to the next. But if researchers choose to modify a gene that reduces fertility, the same technique could be used to wipe out an entire species.

Yet conservationists aren’t proposing to fool wild species’ genes on a whim. Instead, they realize that in the midst of this current mass extinction, where 150 to 200 species are disappearing every day, traditional conservation tools are not enough.

So it was a victory for conservation when IUCN members in Abu Dhabi chose to reject the moratorium on the release of genetically modified wildlife and instead accept a policy that allows researchers to proceed cautiously with genetic modification of wildlife, with key decisions made on a case-by-case basis. Humans are causing biodiversity loss among all species. We have new tools that could help remedy this travesty, so isn’t it at least worth exploring?