I got the following by email recently from ‘A Bigger Conversation’. For me it definitely fell into the ‘Sounds important, a bit complex and dull, and not very urgent’ so I didn’t do anything with it until now (isn’t that how we end up being unprepared for things like global pandemics). I responded in a ‘Don’t know much about it, proceed with great caution, don’t let industry be in charge of everything, needs regulation’ type of way.
We are writing to ask you to take part in what is, to our knowledge, the first major survey of UK conservation groups on the subject of genetic engineering as a tool for supporting conservation efforts.
You may or may not be aware that the proposed uses for a suite of new genetic engineering (now called ‘genome editing’) technologies – e.g. gene drives, genome editing and synthetic biology – is now moving beyond the familiar territory of agriculture to the world of conservation.
A recent report from the IUCN, Genetic Frontiers for Conservation, attempted to lay out the pros and cons of re-programming nature through genetic engineering technologies as a way of, among other things, reviving declining or even extinct species, improving soil and therefore plant health and biodiversity, re-engineering disease carrying insects and more. Some groups such as the Third World Network have raised concerns about the approach. It is a controversial approach on several levels and opens up important ethical questions around the use of genetic engineering in rewilding, climate change mitigation and species preservation. It also greatly expands the discussion around risk and regulation
We are interested to know the extent to which UK conservation groups, big and small, as well as individuals working in this area, have engaged with these ideas. The link to the survey is: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/GEConservation
The A Bigger Conversation initiative aims to bring more people and groups, representing a broad spectrum of views, into the discussion around genome editing in food, farming and natural systems.
Our hope is that the results of this survey will help us understand where other groups and individuals are in terms of their understanding as well as priorities and policies around the issue of genome editing in conservation. Results of this survey will be collated and written up in a short report, which will be available later in the year via our website.
Your views are of interest and of value to us and our ongoing work around regulation, ethics and citizen engagement so please participate. If you are not the right person in your particular organisation to fill in this survey, please forward it to a colleague who is.
Closing date for the survey is Friday 29 May.
Thanking you in advance,
[registration_form]
A good example might be the American Chestnut tree
https://www.esf.edu/chestnut/documents/Cold%20Spring%20Harb%20Perspect.pdf
once a keystone species but not now.
But we never seem to learn that it’s much cheaper and better to hang on to what you’ve got than lose it and then try to bring it back again
Possibly more exciting though.
Wow, this needs a lot of thinking about and can’t be answered “just like that”. I think there might be a good case for bring back extinct species that went extinct by the action of man such as the Great Auk. The elephant bird of Madagascar, many birds of New Zealand and the mammoth. I would support this approach.
Terms and conditions of its use need to be very specific and very clear. It should not be used for anything not specifically authorised.
It certainly wants a lot of thought and advice by those involved with genetic engineering and those closely involved with the science of conservation.
That’s what I meant about more exciting.
In the main I think we should spend the money helping to hang on to the stuff we’ve got and primarily habitat.
But as usual it’s more complicated than that sometimes bringing back
something (usually a mammal or a bird) creates interest and brings in more money.
How would you feel about resurrecting the passenger pigeon Mark?
Gary – not keen, read my book!
I was given it a few years ago as a present and enjoyed it but now I need to look at it again . It was reading the book that made me look you up and start reading the blog!
Just quickly looked at the book again and the final message from Martha sums it up for me.
Gary – well that’s nice to hear. Some people, sometimes including me, think it’s a but naff.
But I sometimes read bits of my books, and sometimes old blog posts, and think ‘I don’t remember that – it’s actually not bad’.
Disease resistant trees could be a beneficial result.
We have planted a few Elm, which i assume are from a naturally occuring resistant strain, but
they were like, a hundred quid each.
It only needs one squirrel.
Making vulnerable plants resistant to certain diseases is one thing, but I am strongly opposed to bringing back extinct large animals like the mammoth.
Their natural habitat is, as best, fragmented. A surrogate animal would have to be used to provide a suitable “womb” – in the case of the mammoth, only an elephant would suffice, which brings in myriad other issues (welfare, behavioural learning, herd hierarchy, etc). But my main objection is that is isn’t possible to produce an ecologically viable population by these methods – any animals engineered would be just a scientific curiosity or (worse) an exhibit. I object to these majestic and potentially intelligent creatures being resurrected just to satisfy our own guilt or curiosity, it’s immoral in my view.
Genetic engineering is an exciting science with lots of very interesting and worthy potential uses, but that shouldn’t be one of them.
Artificial womb research is fair cracking along these days, so the objection of we’d need a surrogate womb is pretty much dead in the water now. Those artificial ones will be deployable within the next five to ten years.