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

Abstract

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.

In Vitro Technology in Plant Conservation: Relevance to Biocultural Diversity

“…However, Hodinöhsö:ni' (Haudenosaunee) communities inhabiting lands where now-extinct chestnut trees used to exist were not initially consulted on the use of genetically engineered organisms (GMOs) for chestnut restoration [97]. Collaboration is encouraged in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but consultation is often carried out after designing or conducting laboratory experiments [1,96]. However, the modified chestnut trees are projected to be re-introduced in environments shared with Haudenosaunee Peoples [97].…”

“…To this end, several recent studies have documented the use of in vitro propagation to produce specimens for non-Indigenous use and to divert the exploitation of wild populations [118][119][120][121]. However, the use of Indigenous plants by non-Indigenous peoples is a contentious issue, so harvesting or manipulating plants must occur with just and respectful consultation [1,76,96,97]. In sum, in vitro propagation technology can sit at the interface of Indigenous and non-indigenous plant use, but its deployment must be guided by socio-cultural narratives.…”

“…The current rate and magnitude of plant diversity loss is partly attributed to how science and technology are used along with other anthropogenic drivers. Plants have a unique capacity to reproduce asexually, and in vitro propagation technology allows one to produce large numbers of plantlets that can be effectively used to repopulate threatened and endangered species with cultural significance [1] Therefore, in vitro propagation can play a role in the conservation of biocultural diversity [2]. However, the benefits and detriments of deploying in vitro technologies in the conservation of biocultural diversity are understudied.…”

Exploring the intersections of governance, constituencies, and risk in genetic interventions

“…Workshop participants discussed various approaches to engage stakeholders in discussions about the intersections of risk and values and how these are reflected in formal policy and broader governance processes (Barnhill-Dilling & Delborne, 2021;Carter, Mankad, Zhang, Curnock, & Pollard, 2020). How values are interpreted in a given context often evolves over time, particularly with the incorporation of new knowledge (Baumgaertner & Holthuijzen, 2017).…”

Conservation science and the ethos of restraint

“…Taking a broader approach to conservation decision-making has the potential to shift debates about novel approaches from paralysis in the face of unintended consequences to robust planning for intended consequences. Without disregarding ethical considerations or abandoning inclusive deliberative processes, planning for intended consequences could replace the ethos of restraint with an ethos that encourages responsible conservation science in action (see Barnhill-Dilling & Delborne, 2021).…”