Genetic frontiers for conservation: an assessment of synthetic biology and biodiversity conservation: technical assessment

Alphey, Luke; Bennet, Elizabeth; Delborne, Jason A.; Eggermont, Hilde; Esvelt, Kevin M.; Kingirl, Ann; Kokotovich, Adam; Kolodziejczyk, Bartomiej; Kuiken, Todd A.; Mead, Aroha Te Pareake; Oliva, María Julia; Perello, Edward; Slobodian, Lydia; Thizy, Delphine; Tompkins, Daniel M.; Winter, Gerd; Campbell, Karl J.; Elsensohn, Johanna E.; Holmes, Nick D.; Farmer, Chris; Keitt, Bradford S.; Leftwich, Philip T.; Maloney, Tom; Masiga, Daniel; Newhouse, Andrew E.; Novak, Ben J.; Phelan, Ryan M.; Powell, William A.; Rollins‐Smith, Louise A.; Oppen, Madeline van

doi:10.2305/iucn.ch.2019.05.en

Cited by 44 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 497 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In some cases, these shifts in inputs could have substantial impacts on biodiversity, which again could be positive or negative depending on whether, in the eyes of the consumer or regulatory agencies, the derived product is an actual substitute for the natural one. Thus, while synthetic biology has the potential to replace existing products derived from threatened species, shifts to a synthetic biology alternative could inadvertently increase the demand for the natural product if that is perceived as superior, a particular concern for the critically endangered rhinoceros’ horn where the derived product is unlikely to be seen as a perfect substitute ( Rademeyer, 2012 ; Redford et al., 2019 ).…”

Section: Indirect Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The growing field of synthetic biology might be able to help conservation address some of these intractable problems. At the same time, applying synthetic biology tools to environmental questions is fraught with uncertainty and there is deep concern about potential threats to cultures, rights, livelihoods, and nature itself ( Redford et al., 2014 , 2019 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The tools and techniques of synthetic biology, from gene and genome editing using CRISPR-Cas9, to site-directed mutagenesis, gene synthesis, transgenesis, and gene drives, may be useful in addressing conservation challenges such as invasive alien species ( Godwin et al., 2019 ), wildlife trade ( Maloney et al., 2018 ; McPhee et al., 2014 ), and disease ( Novak et al., 2018 ), although with the potential for serious adverse effects as well. At the same time, efforts are underway to change the production methods and raw materials used for consumer products, like Omega-3 oils ( Sprague et al., 2017 ), vanillin ( Bomgardner, 2016 ), and others, which may change patterns of land use and nature-based supply chains in ways that may be harmful or beneficial to biodiversity ( Redford et al., 2019 ).

Figure 1 Examples of the anticipated costs and benefits of conservation applications of synthetic biology (adapted with permission from K.H.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

Figure 1 Examples of the anticipated costs and benefits of conservation applications of synthetic biology (adapted with permission from K.H. Redford et al., 2019 ) …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation

Macfarlane

Adams²,

Bennett

et al. 2022

iScience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Indirect Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Figure 1 Examples of the anticipated costs and benefits of conservation applications of synthetic biology (adapted with permission from K.H.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

Figure 1 Examples of the anticipated costs and benefits of conservation applications of synthetic biology (adapted with permission from K.H. Redford et al., 2019 ) …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation

Macfarlane

Adams²,

Bennett

et al. 2022

iScience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As the world faces intractable species loss due to habitat degradation, climate change, invasive species, and other factors, a range of conservation institutions and individuals have called for transformational tools to address these losses (Campbell et al 2019;Piaggio et al, 2017;IPBES, 2019;Redford, Brooks, Macfarlane, & Adams, 2019). In light of these pressing problems, inaction feels unethical (Brister, Holbrook, & Palmer, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whose intentions? What consequences? Interrogating “Intended Consequences” for conservation with environmental biotechnology

Barnhill-Dilling

Delborne²

2021

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Novel genetic interventions may offer innovative solutions to environmental conservation challenges, but they also represent new kinds of risks and concerns for diverse publics. Yet, by focusing on potential negative outcomes of emerging technologies like gene editing, their potential utility in species protection could lead to overblown fears of unknown and unanticipated consequences. In response, Revive and Restore organized a workshop in June 2020 entitled, “Intended Consequences,” to highlight conservation successes in the discourse and governance of genomic interventions. This article argues that if we seek to emphasize Intended Consequences to embolden innovative conservation efforts, we must simultaneously query whose intentions are included and what consequences are considered to ensure that environmental goals are accompanied by the goals of responsibility, democracy, and justice. These questions reveal that the governance and management of conservation interventions always rest upon value judgements. Inspired and informed by the Responsible Research and Innovation framework, we encourage anticipation of potential outcomes, reflection on assumptions and intentions, inclusion of diverse stakeholders and perspectives, and a commitment to responding thoughtfully to concerns and preferences of communities and broader publics.

show abstract

Empowering Indigenous Knowledge in Deliberations on Gene Editing in the Wild

Taitingfong¹,

Ullah²

2021

Hastings Center Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proposals to release genetically engineered organisms in the wild raise complex ethical issues related to their safe and equitable implementation. While there is broad agreement that community and public engagement is vital to decision‐making in this context, more discussion is needed about who should be engaged in such activities and in what ways. This article identifies Indigenous peoples as key stakeholders in decisions about gene‐editing in the wild and argues that engagement activities need not only include Indigenous peoples but also be designed, conducted, and analyzed in ways that confront longstanding power imbalances that dismiss Indigenous expertise. We offer specific recommendations to guide deliberative activities to not only be inclusive of Indigenous peoples but also to empower their diverse, situated knowledges. We call on those committed to the inclusive design of broad public deliberation to pursue strategies that shift dominant power dynamics to include Indigenous communities in more meaningful ways.

show abstract

Genetic frontiers for conservation: an assessment of synthetic biology and biodiversity conservation: technical assessment

Cited by 44 publications

References 497 publications

Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation

Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation

Whose intentions? What consequences? Interrogating “Intended Consequences” for conservation with environmental biotechnology

Empowering Indigenous Knowledge in Deliberations on Gene Editing in the Wild

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About