The 2025 IUCN World Conservation Congress in Abu Dhabi is set to decide on the future use of genetic technology in conservation. This issue has divided scientists, environmentalists and Indigenous groups worldwide. The core question is whether to ban synthetic biology research aimed at saving endangered species or to allow cautious, regulated use of these tools.
Current Context of Genetic Technology in Conservation
The Congress will vote on Motion 133, which proposes a complete ban on genetic technology in conservation. This includes gene editing and synthetic biology to protect or restore species. The debate arises amid a biodiversity crisis with nearly one million species at risk of extinction. Traditional conservation methods face limitations due to cost, complexity and scale. Genetic tools offer potentially powerful solutions but carry unknown risks.
Arguments Against the Ban
More than 100 scientists oppose the ban, warning it would halt vital research. They argue genetic technology can save species threatened by climate change and disease. Examples include gene-edited algae to protect coral reefs, mosquitoes modified to reduce malaria, and gene-edited mice to control invasive species. Experts stress urgency, as conventional methods alone are insufficient to address rapid environmental degradation.
Concerns Supporting the Ban
Opponents of genetic tools include Indigenous communities, environmental groups and civil society. They show risks of releasing gene-edited organisms into ecosystems without full understanding of consequences. There are fears of losing traditional ecological knowledge and domination by large corporations controlling the technology. The lack of global regulatory frameworks adds to the uncertainty. Recent experiments such as creating wolf-like animals from extinct species DNA fuel these concerns.
Proposed Middle Path – Adaptive Regulation
Critics of the ban suggest Motion 087 as an alternative. This approach advocates case-by-case assessment of genetic technology use. It supports national decisions based on science, local context and safeguards. This policy aims to balance benefits and risks without halting research entirely. It promotes cautious advancement rather than outright prohibition.
Broader Implications Beyond Wildlife
Gene editing is also applied in agriculture to develop climate-resilient crops. However, support for genetic tools in conservation does not always extend to genetically modified food crops. Concerns about small farmers’ rights, seed sovereignty and corporate control remain contentious. The debate raises broader questions about how society regulates emerging biotechnologies across sectors.
Significance of the Upcoming Vote
The vote at Abu Dhabi will shape global conservation policy for years to come. It reflects a fundamental dilemma – whether to embrace new science to combat biodiversity loss or to prioritise precaution amid uncertainty. The decision will influence research priorities, ecosystem management and indigenous rights worldwide.
Questions for UPSC:
- Critically discuss the role of synthetic biology in biodiversity conservation and the ethical concerns it raises.
- Examine the challenges of regulating emerging biotechnologies at the international level and their impact on indigenous communities.
- Analyse the implications of gene editing in agriculture and conservation, and point out how policy frameworks can balance innovation with safety.
- Estimate the potential benefits and risks of genetic technology in controlling invasive species and restoring ecosystems, and discuss its socio-economic impacts.
