{"id":1960,"date":"2025-07-18T02:26:08","date_gmt":"2025-07-18T02:26:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/1960\/"},"modified":"2025-07-18T02:26:08","modified_gmt":"2025-07-18T02:26:08","slug":"is-gene-editing-the-next-frontier-of-conservation-expert-reaction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/1960\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Gene Editing The Next Frontier Of Conservation? \u2013 Expert Reaction"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Science<\/a>
\nFriday, 18 July 2025, 12:42 pm
Press Release: Science Media Centre<\/a><\/p>\n

Much has been made of the potential of genome engineering
\nfor \u201cde-extinction\u201d. But what about its potential to
\nhelp existing threatened species?<\/p>\n

In a Perspectives
\narticle in Nature Reviews Biodiversity<\/a>, a team of
\noverseas scientists \u2014 including some from the startup
\nbehind recent \u201cde-extinction<\/a>\u201d
\nannouncements<\/a>
\n\u2014 examine how genome engineering can be a new tool to add
\nto the conservation toolkit. For example, gene editing could
\nhelp restore lost genetic diversity to species with small
\npopulations. They say it also could help by removing harmful
\nmutations, or introducing new genes from closely related
\nspecies to confer traits like heat tolerance or disease
\nresistance.<\/p>\n

The Science Media Centre asked third-party
\nexperts to comment.<\/p>\n

Professor Peter Dearden, Director
\nof Genomics Aotearoa, University of Otago,
\ncomments:<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is a good review of the use of gene
\ntechnologies in conservation, pointing out where gene
\ntechnologies can play a role, but it is silent on the fact
\nthat most of these technologies have never been implemented
\nin the conservation species of interest. Gene editing works
\nwell in systems where it has been developed, but developing
\nit in multiple species is going to be hard. Alongside that,
\nthe review talks about putting genetic diversity back into
\nthe genomes of species with low genetic diversity. This
\nseems optimistic, in that we don\u2019t understand what genetic
\ndiversity does even in species that are well studied.
\nConservation species are never well studied from a genetic
\npoint of view, so information as to what variation is
\n\u2018good\u2019 and what \u2018bad\u2019 is really hard to
\nassess.<\/p>\n

Advertisement – scroll to continue reading<\/p>\n

\u201cFinally, the cultural context of all of
\nthese technologies is really important. These are treasured,
\nrare species. Who makes the decision about whether these
\nmanipulations can be done? What are the consequences for the
\ncultural value of these species? The review points out a
\nbunch of useful technologies, but is very quiet about
\nwhether ethically, socially, culturally or even
\nbiologically, these can be used.\u201d<\/p>\n

No conflicts of
\ninterest.<\/p>\n

Associate Professor Nic Rawlence,
\nDirector of the Otago Palaeogenetics Lab, University of
\nOtago, comments:<\/p>\n

\u201cWorldwide, genetic engineering is
\nbecoming another tool in the conservation tool box that can
\nbe used alongside more traditional methods like predator
\ncontrol, habitat restoration, translocation, and genetic
\nrescue (i.e. interbreeding of distinct populations to
\nincrease genetic variation) to conserve endangered species.
\nWhile this technology is still illegal in Aotearoa New
\nZealand as the current ban has not been lifted, now is the
\ntime to be having these conversations as a community, and
\nwith mana whenua, over its use, not just on endangered
\nspecies but also to control predators. The genetic
\nengineering technology that is being developed for
\n\u2018de-extinction\u2019 efforts can and should be used for
\nsaving species\u2014imagine if we could genetically engineer a
\nspecies to be resistant to a disease or reintroduce lost
\ngenetic variation back into a population to give it the
\nevolutionary potential to adapt to a fast changing
\nworld.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis paper by Cock van Oosterhout and
\ncolleagues (including scientists at Colossal Biosciences
\ninvolved in \u2018de-extinction\u2019) is a good start in
\ninitiating these conversations, arguing for a measured and
\ncautious approach, with genetic engineering as one tool in
\nthe conservation arsenal. There will be challenges to using
\ngenetic engineering in endangered species from unintended
\nconsequences to the individual, but also the wild
\npopulations and ecosystems where these individuals may get
\nreleased into\u2014it was nice to see a paper that discussed
\nthe potential downsides of this technology for a change.
\nWhile this technology could be a game changer in some
\nsituations, it may not be a silver bullet for New Zealand
\nbirds, which are characterised by small populations that are
\nslow breeding\u2014this makes getting any new genetic variant
\n(like a disease resistant gene or lost genetic variation)
\nfixed in the population difficult, due to inbreeding
\n(breeding with close relatives) and random loss of genetic
\nvariants from generation to generation.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhere this
\npaper by Cock van Oosterhout and colleagues misses a beat is
\naround discussing Indigenous perspectives and community
\nengagement, which to me feels minimised, and could create
\nthe false perception that it\u2019s a \u2018nice to have\u2019 but
\nnot necessary. In New Zealand, and many other parts of the
\nworld, Indigenous and community voices are crucial. There
\nare valid concerns that M\u0101ori have been excluded from
\nconversations about using genetic engineering and the draft
\nGene Technology Bill. Like I raised in my recent Conversation<\/a>
\npiece, without M\u0101ori support or involvement, the genetic
\nengineering of animals and their release would constitute a
\nbreach of Article Two of Tiriti of Waitangi (the Treaty of
\nWaitangi). M\u0101ori have exclusive rights over taonga species.
\nM\u0101ori and many other Indigenous cultures also have
\nwhakapapa (genealogical) relationships with plants and
\nanimals, and view genetic engineering as unnatural and with
\ndisgust, which could have negative consequences for
\ngenetically engineered organisms and the
\nenvironment.<\/p>\n

\u201cOne aspect of genetic
\nengineering in conservation that is not discussed in the
\npaper is its use on pest species, like gene drives where
\ngenetic variants that make individuals sterile, for example,
\nare spread throughout a pest population to cause its
\ncollapse. Public perception and engagement here will again
\nbe crucial. In a study published in Nature
\nEcology and Evolution<\/a> in 2017, there was more
\nagreement amongst Department of Conservation staff for the
\nuse of this technology to genetically edit pests than
\nendangered species.<\/p>\n

\u201cOverall, given
\nrecent publicity around genetic engineering and
\n\u2018de-extinction\u2019, it\u2019s nice to see a measured approach
\nadvocated (including discussing the downsides\u2014you don\u2019t
\nsee that with de-extinction) that was not science by press
\nrelease. In the current environment, funding this
\npotentially revolutionary science will be difficult\u2014the
\nauthors were quick to point out, without mentioning
\nde-extinction, that the same private funders could fund this
\nresearch. If the challenges with this technology can be
\novercome, then it could be a game changing tool in the
\nconversation toolbox, so long as there was widespread
\nIndigenous and community support, with free, prior and
\ninformed consent. Only time will tell, but best to keep up
\nour current conservation initiatives in the
\nmeantime.\u201d<\/p>\n

No conflicts of interest.<\/p>\n

The UK Science Media Centre has also
\ngathered third-party
\nexpert comments<\/a> in response.<\/p>\n

Prof
\nBruce Whitelaw, Professor of Animal Biotechnology and
\nDirector of The Roslin Institute,
\nsaid:<\/p>\n

\u201cBiodiversity across our planet is both
\nfacing unprecedented challenges and increasing recognised as
\ncritical for planetary health. Genome editing technology
\noffers approaches that overcome aspects that current
\napproaches addressing biodiversity cannot address \u2013 it can
\nrestore lost genetic diversity and increase the resilience
\nof endangered species. Genome editing technology is
\nadvancing fast and for species where we know much about
\ntheir genetic make-up could be used now to reduce genetic
\nload and enable adaption to environmental change. This could
\ninclude restoration of lost variation but we are still some
\nway-off from restoring a species \u2013 although this is
\nforeseeable for the future. No single technology can solve
\nall biodiversity concerns. Genome editing should be adopted
\nalongside traditional conservation methods and habitat
\nrestoration. The driver should be for social benefit, have
\nsocietal involvement, and be guided by science-based
\nregulation \u2013 and should be viewed as another useful method
\nin the race to safeguard the world\u2019s needed
\nbiodiversity.\u201d<\/p>\n

Conflict of interest statement:
\n\u201cI receive funding from BBSRC, Roslin Foundation, and
\nGates Foundation. I am a member of FSA\u2019s Advisory
\nCommittee for Novel Foods & Processes, and the
\nEngineering Biology Responsible Innovation Advisory
\nPanel.\u201d<\/p>\n

Prof Dusko Ilic, Professor of Stem Cell
\nScience at King\u2019s College London, said:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe
\narticle is a thoughtful and forward-looking synthesis,
\noffering a powerful vision for integrating genome
\nengineering into conservation biology. However, its
\nweaknesses lie in over-optimism, lack of robust comparative
\ncost-effectiveness analysis, and occasional underplaying of
\necological, regulatory, and ethical risks\u2014especially in
\ncomplex field scenarios.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe paper persuasively
\nargues that genome engineering can address genomic
\nerosion\u2014an underappreciated long-term threat in
\nconservation biology\u2014by restoring adaptive genetic
\nvariation and reducing genetic load. The technology has
\npotential, but the evidence base is currently stronger in
\ntheory and in model organisms than in demonstrated success
\nwith real-world.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe authors assume that the
\nrelationship between genome-wide variation and fitness is
\nsufficiently understood to justify editing decisions. In
\nreality, the genotype\u2013phenotype\u2013fitness map remains
\npoorly resolved in most non-model organisms, which weakens
\nconfidence in editing targets. What improves fitness in
\ncaptivity or small restored habitats may not translate under
\nfluctuating wild conditions.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe paper
\nclearly articulates how genome engineering can target fixed
\ndeleterious alleles, reintroduce lost immunogenetic
\ndiversity, and enhance climate adaptation capacity\u2014things
\ntraditional conservation (e.g. protected areas, captive
\nbreeding) cannot accomplish once variation is
\nlost.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe concept is compelling but
\nlacks quantitative modelling or comparative data to support
\nthe claim that genome editing is more effective or feasible
\nthan scaled-up traditional approaches in most
\ncases.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe argument presumes that ancestral or
\nheterospecific alleles can be confidently identified and
\nreintroduced without negative pleiotropic effects, but this
\nis rarely tested rigorously outside lab
\nsettings.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe paper is also light on cost-benefit
\ncomparisons. For example, how does gene editing for climate
\nresilience compare (in cost, efficacy, and ecological risk)
\nto investing in habitat corridors that allow natural gene
\nflow?<\/p>\n

\u201cInternational approvals for edited wildlife
\nrelease is a probable limiter of near-term feasibility.
\nRegulatory inertia and public scepticism that have
\nhistorically limited the rollout of genetically modified
\n(GM) organisms\u2014particularly in agriculture, where decades
\nof commercial GM crop use remain contentious in many
\ncountries despite robust safety data. Scientific bodies
\n(e.g., WHO, NAS, EFSA) consistently find no substantiated
\nhealth risks from approved GM crops, yet public acceptance
\nvaries widely. The first GM crop was approved in the US in
\n1994. Thirty years later, only about 30 countries cultivate
\nGM crops, and about 70 allows imports but not domestic
\ncultivation.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe distinction between technical
\nreadiness (editing) and ecological readiness (release,
\nintegration, adaptation) is important. Timescales needed for
\nbreeding, backcrossing, release, and population
\nestablishment, are equally complex. In species with long
\ngeneration times, edited lineages may not reach ecological
\nrelevance for decades.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile critical of
\nde-extinction, the authors do not fully confront the
\nblurring of boundaries in practice\u2014e.g. Colossal
\nBiosciences\u2019 projects (which some authors are affiliated
\nwith) walk a fine line between de-extinction branding and
\nconservation justification.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe critique of
\nde-extinction would be more credible if potential conflicts
\nof interest were explicitly addressed, and if more scrutiny
\nwere applied to projects that market proxy-species
\nrestorations as conservation.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe call for
\nresponsibility is ethically sound, but implementation
\nguidance is vague. How, for example, will conservation
\nscientists ensure openness when working with private-sector
\ncollaborators like biotech firms or proprietary genome
\nplatforms? How engineered lineages may tie future
\nconservation efforts to specific technologies or patents,
\nraising issues of access, control, and
\ncontinuity?\u201d<\/p>\n

Conflict of interest statement: \u201cI
\ndeclare no conflict of interest.\u201d<\/p>\n

Prof Tony
\nPerry, Head of the Laboratory of Mammalian Molecular
\nEmbryology at the University of Bath, said:<\/p>\n

\u201cThis
\ntimely Perspective collates potential contributions
\nfrom the revolution in \u2018genome engineering\u2019 (including
\ngenome editing) to biodiversity conservation. The piece
\npoints out that to be effective, these advances need to
\ninclude advanced assisted reproduction methodologies, such
\nas embryonic and stem cell chimeras and nuclear transfer
\ncloning. In addition, the behaviour of individual or small
\nnumbers of gene variants moved into a foreign genome may be
\ndifficult or impossible to predict, making it desirable to
\nreplicate entire genomes from the oldest sources
\navailable.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe challenges of achieving this are
\nconsiderable even for well-studied species, but by raising
\nthe profiles of these challenges, the Perspective
\npromises to accelerate our efforts to solving them for
\nspecies conservation and its retroactive cousin,
\nde-extinction.\u201d<\/p>\n

Conflict of interest statement:
\n\u201cNone\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\u00a9 Scoop Media<\/a><\/p>\n

\"Science<\/a><\/p>\n

Our aim is to promote accurate, evidence-based reporting on science and technology by helping the media work more closely with the scientific community.<\/p>\n

The Science Media Centre is New Zealand’s only trusted, independent source of information for the media on all issues related to science. Thousands of news stories providing context from and quoting New Zealand researchers have been published as a direct result of our work.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Friday, 18 July 2025, 12:42 pmPress Release: Science Media Centre Much has been made of the potential of…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1961,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[25],"tags":[64,63,2929,2930,2931,1621,336,2932,2933,2934,2928,128,2927,2935,2936,105],"class_list":{"0":"post-1960","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-genetics","8":"tag-au","9":"tag-australia","10":"tag-conservation","11":"tag-environment-and-conservation","12":"tag-evolution","13":"tag-gene","14":"tag-genetics","15":"tag-genome-engineering","16":"tag-nature-ecology","17":"tag-newsworthy","18":"tag-sci-tech","19":"tag-science","20":"tag-science-media-centre","21":"tag-scientific-ethics","22":"tag-scoop","23":"tag-technology"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1960","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1960"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1960\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1961"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1960"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1960"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1960"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}