IUCN prepares decisions on genetic engineering

Should genet­ic engi­neer­ing be used to kill off inva­sive species, or make corals resis­tant to warmer waters? Should endan­gered species be genet­i­cal­ly mod­i­fied in the name of nature con­ser­va­tion? The con­tro­ver­sy over the role of genet­ic engi­neer­ing in nature con­ser­va­tion con­tin­ues to inten­si­fy. Two motions have been sub­mit­ted for adop­tion by the World Con­gress of the Inter­na­tion­al Union for Con­ser­va­tion of Nature (IUCN) lat­er this year.

The IUCN uses the term “syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy” to describe genet­ic engi­neer­ing tech­niques used to cre­ate or mod­i­fy genet­ic mate­ri­als, liv­ing organ­isms and bio­log­i­cal sys­tems. At the Union’s World Con­gress in Abu Dhabi, IUCN mem­bers will be asked to decide how such tech­nolo­gies may—or may not—contribute to nature con­ser­va­tion.

A num­ber of NGOs, includ­ing Save Our Seeds, are con­cerned that genet­ic engi­neer­ing could under­mine efforts to pro­tect and restore nature. They argue that cur­rent genet­ic engi­neer­ing approach­es pose sig­nif­i­cant risks to bio­di­ver­si­ty and may con­flict with IUCN prin­ci­ples of pre­serv­ing nature’s integri­ty and diver­si­ty. More­over, they con­tend that the risks of these tech­nolo­gies may be dif­fi­cult to ful­ly assess or man­age, and that cross-bor­der move­ment of genet­i­cal­ly engi­neered organ­isms may be impos­si­ble to con­trol. French NGO Polli­nis, sup­port­ed by sev­en oth­er organ­i­sa­tions from Benin, Cana­da, Ecuador, Ger­many, Pak­istan and Switzer­land, has there­fore pro­posed a motion call­ing for “a mora­to­ri­um on genet­i­cal­ly engi­neer­ing wild species in nat­ur­al ecosys­tems.”

Biotech­nol­o­gy advo­cates, by con­trast, claim that new tech­nolo­gies are essen­tial to solve com­plex envi­ron­men­tal prob­lems, such as erad­i­cat­ing inva­sive species on islands. They say it is inap­pro­pri­ate to make sweep­ing gen­er­al­i­sa­tions about the “pos­i­tive” or “neg­a­tive” out­comes of genet­ic engi­neer­ing. Instead, each pro­posed appli­ca­tion should be eval­u­at­ed on a case-by-case basis to weigh spe­cif­ic risks and ben­e­fits. This is the approach cho­sen in the pro­posed “IUCN Pol­i­cy on Syn­thet­ic Biol­o­gy in Rela­tion to Nature Con­ser­va­tion,” which enjoys broad sup­port from biotech­nol­o­gy pro­po­nents.

Sup­port­ers of the pol­i­cy describe it as the result of “the most par­tic­i­pa­to­ry process the IUCN has ever under­tak­en.” How­ev­er, NGOs have raised seri­ous con­cerns about the process, cit­ing a lack of trans­paren­cy, con­flicts of inter­est and insuf­fi­cient involve­ment of Indige­nous Peo­ples and Local Com­mu­ni­ties (IPLCs). The devel­op­ment of the pol­i­cy was man­dat­ed by the last IUCN World Con­gress, held in Mar­seille in 2021.

From 23 April to 14 May, a first round of online dis­cus­sions among IUCN mem­bers took place. As could be expect­ed, biotech­nol­o­gy pro­po­nents – includ­ing tech­nol­o­gy devel­op­ers – attacked the pro­posed mora­to­ri­um as “unnec­es­sary” and incom­pat­i­ble with the draft pol­i­cy. NGOs, in turn, crit­i­cised the pol­i­cy for fail­ing to address the far-reach­ing con­se­quences of appli­ca­tions where robust envi­ron­men­tal risk assess­ments are not fea­si­ble, and where engi­neered organ­isms can­not be recov­ered once released into the envi­ron­ment. They argued that the most far-reach­ing inter­ven­tions should not pro­ceed and called for greater recog­ni­tion of exist­ing reg­u­la­to­ry gaps.

Sev­er­al sci­en­tists involved in gene dri­ve research par­tic­i­pat­ed in the dis­cus­sions, includ­ing rep­re­sen­ta­tives from Tar­get Malar­ia, the Ifakara Health Insti­tute and Peking Uni­ver­si­ty. They rep­re­sent­ed the IUCN Com­mis­sion on Ecosys­tem Man­age­ment (CEM) and the IUCN Species Sur­vival Com­mis­sion (SSC). On the NGO side, con­tri­bu­tions came from Polli­nis, Nature Cana­da, Nature Trop­i­cale, Deutsch­er Naturschutzring (DNR), BUND Naturschutz, Pro Natu­ra and the Coor­di­nado­ra de Orga­ni­za­ciones Indí­ge­nas de la Cuen­ca Amazóni­ca (COICA), among oth­ers. Save Our Seeds, a mem­ber of DNR, sup­port­ed its effort.

By the end of the first round of dis­cus­sions, both motions had proven so con­tentious that they will not be vot­ed on dur­ing the upcom­ing online vot­ing ses­sion. Instead, they will be debat­ed and poten­tial­ly decid­ed in per­son at the World Con­gress in Octo­ber in Abu Dhabi.

Watch the record­ing of a recent webi­nar organ­ised by Polli­nis, Save Our Seeds and A Big­ger Con­ver­sa­tion

Con­sult our resource list estab­lished for the webi­nar

Pho­to ©Pex­el — Abu Dhabi sky­line