Should scientists be allowed to genetically modify wild animals and then release them into the environment? That was the question on everyone’s lips at a major conservation conference in Abu Dhabi, where members voted that they should.
What is genetic-modification?
Genetic modification is the process of altering an organism’s DNA to give it new features. Some crops, for example, have been genetically modified to help them resist disease. Researchers use the practice to generate new medicines. Now conservationists are wondering if the same methods could be used to help save endangered species.
Genetic modification (GM) could, for example, be used to help coral survive warming waters, help animals become resistant to disease - like the red squirrel and the deadly disease squirrel pox - or help fish become immune to environmental pollutants. It could be used to help control invasive species, or even, create new versions of extinct species, such as the woolly mammoth and the dodo.
- Should the mammoth live again? Why bringing back the extinct mammoth COULD keep the Arctic frozen
- As scientists plot to bring back the dodo, Helen Pilcher asks whether we should - and what would happen if we did
Should scientists be allowed to release genetically modified animals into the wild?
Some think that this could help to stem the plummeting levels of biodiversity, whilst others caution that this crosses a line, and that there could be harmful, unpredictable consequences.
At the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 2025 World Conservation Congress members voted on two motions. The first paves the way for research into the genetic modification of wildlife to proceed, but cautiously, with all future work carefully considered on a case by case basis. This motion was approved. The second motion called for a moratorium on genetically engineering wild species in natural ecosystems. This was rejected.
- Adam Henson: Could gene-editing technology spell the end of extinction?
- Should we genetically engineer grey squirrels to protect native reds?
The decision is divisive. Speaking at the meeting, Guy Reeves, who is Scientific Advisor for the German conservation organisation, Deutscher Naturschutzring, said “the outcomes [of releasing genetically modified animals into the wild] are highly uncertain and complex.”
Reeves and others are particularly concerned about a new method called gene drive, which could be used to edit the DNA, not just of single animals, but of entire populations. If researchers use it to decrease the fertility of the mosquitoes that carry malaria, for example, both the mosquitoes and malaria could be eradicated.
But this could have a negative impact on the ecosystem that the mosquitoes lived in. We just don’t know. “We are dealing with unknown unknowns,” says Ricarda Steinbrecher, an expert in genetic modification and Science Advisor to ProNatura.
Opponents of this view counter that the only way to determine the risks associated with GM wild species, is to allow research to continue under a tightly regulated framework. This is what the first motion does. The IUCN is neither for nor against GM wild species, but its new global policy, devised in Abu Dhabi, establishes a mechanism to guide how, when, and under what conditions GM wildlife might be approved and introduced.
Ben Novak is lead scientist for Revive and Restore, a US-based non-profit organisation that uses GM and other methods to rescue endangered and extinct species. They have already used high-tech methods to increase the genetic diversity of the black-footed ferret, which they think will help the endangered species to recover.
Novak says that the votes in Abu Dhabi are “a signal that the global conservation community recognizes the need for further innovation and that biotechnologies offer hope to achieve biodiversity goals.”
Conservationists are painfully aware that despite their best efforts, biodiversity continues to nosedive. Traditional conservation methods, such as habitat protection and anti-poaching strategies, remain crucially important, but they’re not enough. New tools are needed to help supplement this toolkit.
Under the IUCN’s guidelines, these tools can be developed, and whilst not legally binding, the approval carries a symbolic weight with the potential to drive policy internationally.
“The guidelines acknowledge the reality that biotechnologies are not a panacea to the problems facing nature,” says Novak, “but they are a vital tool to achieving global biodiversity goals that can be developed and used effectively through responsible, inclusive, context-appropriate and evidence-based processes.”