In an open letter signed by 237 individuals and 28 organisations from 44 countries, the scientific community is advocating for the responsible use of synthetic biology to combat the accelerating loss of biodiversity.
The letter, issued ahead of the next IUCN World Conservation Congress, argued that traditional conservation methods are not enough to reverse the current crisis and that new genetic tools must be considered.
The signatories asserted that a moratorium on genetically engineering wild species, as proposed by some, would stifle crucial research and close the door on innovative solutions at a time when they are most needed.
The letter highlighted that the biodiversity crisis, driven by factors like habitat destruction and climate change, is directly linked to global health issues, including the rise of infectious diseases.
The open letter details several promising applications of synthetic biology that are already in use or under development. For instance, a synthetic alternative to horseshoe crab blood is helping reduce the pressure on this threatened species, as it is widely used in drug and vaccine testing.
Other projects in development include genetically engineered bacteria to combat coral bleaching and restore the health of stressed coral reefs, genetically modified rodents to control invasive species on islands, which often devastate native wildlife populations, and genetic editing to make frogs more resistant to deadly fungal pathogens.
The letter’s authors insisted that these innovations are meant to complement, not replace, existing conservation strategies. They aim to address challenges that have been difficult or impossible to solve with current methods.
While supporting a precautionary approach, the signatories stressed that precaution should not be equated with inaction.
They argued that a case-by-case evaluation of each synthetic biology application, guided by transparent, science-based risk assessments and ethical standards, is the most responsible path forward.
The letter urged IUCN members to reject a moratorium, thereby signalling a continued openness to scientific innovation and a willingness to engage in thoughtful, inclusive discussions.
