October 19, 2025 by Staff Reporter
This week, members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) voted to reject a moratorium on releasing genetically engineered wild species and, instead, adopted a policy that effectively normalises what the conservation world refers to as ‘synthetic biology’ in conservation. It’s a turning point that many see as a betrayal of conservation’s first principles.
Delegates at the 2025 World Conservation Congress in Abu Dhabi were asked to vote on two linked motions:
The result exposes deep divisions within the conservation community over whether genetic engineering has any legitimate role in protecting or restoring ecosystems.
In its official press release, the IUCN was careful to position itself as neutral and procedural:
“The policy should not be interpreted as supporting or opposing synthetic biology. It is not intended to replace ongoing and future efforts to address biodiversity loss. However, it could complement them. Crucially, it provides a framework for case-by-case decision-making, establishing a mechanism to guide how, when – and under what conditions – synthetic biology applications might be approved and introduced.”
Yet by adopting a formal policy, the IUCN has effectively normalised the idea that re-engineering wild species is a legitimate conservation tool.
But the decision also exposes a deeper problem: the IUCN’s political naïveté. In trying to appear balanced, it has failed to grasp how such an endorsement will inevitably be used – by governments, corporations and technologists – to undermine conservation principles. By creating an official framework for synthetic biology, the IUCN has provided the language and legitimacy needed to turn nature itself into another commodity: a domain to be owned, engineered and exploited in the name of “innovation” and “progress.”
“History shows how this story ends: narratives of salvation trump science and precaution every time; case-by-case assessment rapidly turns into carte blanche and the promise of control gives way to the messy realities of ecosystems that do not behave like machines.”
In the conservation sphere, ‘genetic engineering’ is usually referred to as ‘synthetic biology’. The use of this term is, likewise, cautious and not entirely accidental.
Synthetic biology is a term that sounds more sophisticated, more abstract and far less contentious than genetic engineering or gene-editing. But language matters. As the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) notes as part of its vocabulary on genetic engineering, there is overlap and “blurred lines” between the two terms but adds that “the scale of DNA changes introduced in synthetic biology is generally larger and synthetic biology also incorporates the fields of engineering, design and computer science.”
It further notes that “A consensus definition drafted by a group of European experts defined synthetic biology as follows: Synthetic biology is the engineering of biology: the synthesis of complex, biologically based (or inspired) systems, which display functions that do not exist in nature.”
By choosing its words carefully IUCN can distance these technologies from their controversial history in agriculture and from the public’s instinctive understanding of what ‘genetic engineering’ means. The result is a kind of semantic camouflage that makes radical interventions in nature sound like neutral scientific progress.
The contrast between the IUCN’s official language and the public response from pro-biotech organisations could not be more striking.
The IUCN’s statement may have been cautious but within hours of the vote, biotechnology advocates were claiming victory. The Breakthrough Institute, a pro-GMO think tank and lobby group based in the US, called it “a landmark moment” and declared that “the IUCN has chosen science over fear.”
Two well financed groups who supported motion 87 were amongst the first to comment. Revive & Restore a pro-biotech ‘conservation’ group that champions ecosystem manipulation and has been involved in several de-extinction projects including efforts to revive the passenger pigeon and the woolly mammoth announced triumphantly that “innovation wins.”
Even the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) which lobbies for scientific solutions to conservation challenges described the outcome as proof that IUCN members had chosen to “engage with these tools thoughtfully and responsibly rather than turn away from them.”
In contrast, environmental and civil-society groups such as Save Our Seeds, which promoted motion 133, warned that the decision was reckless. “Today’s decision suggests IUCN members are placing their hopes in high-risk technologies with uncertain outcomes. Nature cannot afford experiments with potentially severe, irreversible outcomes,” said Franziska Achterberg, the group’s Head of Policy.
“The scientific divide is therefore not between science and anti-science, but between two competing visions of what it means to practice science responsibly.”
Dr Joann Sy, Scientific Advisor, at POLLINIS, the French NGO dedicated to the protection of bees and other wild pollinators, adds “The question remains whether the genetic engineering of wild species truly aligns with IUCN’s mission to protect nature’s integrity and diversity.”
Malick Shahbaz Ahmed, Executive Director of the Sungi Development Foundation, a co-sponsor of the moratorium motion observed “It is alarming to see how a few well-resourced technology developers have managed to shape IUCN’s agenda.”
The speed with which the IUCN’s cautious statement was reframed as a global endorsement of biotechnology reveals something deeply relevant. The moment the policy language appeared, its meaning was instantly co-opted – its ambiguity turned into a marketing tool for a far more radical agenda.
Supporters of Motion 87 also point to an open letter signed by more than 100 scientists urging the IUCN not to close the door on gene-editing technologies. They argued that gene editing offered a “transformative solution” for restoring genetic diversity in endangered species and to preserve genetic diversity or even resurrect lost traits in endangered species – a message widely amplified by universities and pro-innovation think tanks.
Yet many other scientists and conservationists strongly opposed this framing. Another open letter hosted by POLLINIS – and supported by over 100 scientists and conservation experts – backed the call for a moratorium, warning that synthetic-biology interventions in the wild are unpredictable, irreversible and ethically fraught.
The scientific divide is therefore not between science and anti-science, but between two competing visions of what it means to practice science responsibly.
The language of Motion 87 is, on its surface, precautionary. It emphasises case-by-case decision-making and insists the policy should not be read as an endorsement of synthetic biology. But, even if we hold space for the possibility that gene editing might one day develop a ‘tool’ that aids conservation, the very fact that the IUCN has adopted such a policy gives powerful pro-biotech interests exactly what they wanted: a global green light.
Groups such as the Breakthrough Institute, Revive & Restore and the WCS are replaying a familiar script – the same one used for decades in agricultural biotechnology – where nature is portrayed as “broken” and genetic engineering as the only way to fix it.
History shows how this story ends: narratives of salvation trump science and precaution every time; case-by-case assessment rapidly turns into carte blanche and the promise of control gives way to the messy realities of ecosystems that do not behave like machines.
The IUCN vote holds no legal weight in any nation, but it is of huge symbolic, cultural and political importance. By embracing the gene editing tool it has signalled that the age-old conservation ethic of restraint is giving way to a new, more interventionist ideology.
Pat Thomas, director of Beyond GM sums up in this way: “The biotech industry moves like a swarm of locusts – consuming attention, resources and political will wherever it lands. Each new frontier becomes a feeding ground, leaving no space for reflection or restraint. That has been the pattern for forty years of biotech hype – moving from one promise to the next, devouring everything in its path and leaving very little of lasting value behind.”
This pattern is already visible in the record of genetic engineering’s attempts to “fix” nature.
“The new Genetic Technology Regulations, which implement the Act and come into force in November, deliberately amend the Environmental Damage Regulations 2015 to exclude precision-bred GMOs from being recognised as an activity that can cause environmental damage.”
The Engineering Nature website, which provided information and support for Motion 133, documents numerous real-world examples – the Dire Wolf, the American chestnut, the eradication of rodents on island ecosystems, the black-footed ferret and the southern Corroboree frog. These case studies reveal that even with the most advanced tools, the technical challenges of re-engineering living systems remain immense. Unintended effects, instability and unpredictable ecological interactions are common.
Equally daunting are the political, regulatory, ethical and social stumbling blocks. Engineering wild species raises profound governance questions – about consent, liability, Indigenous rights and how to monitor or recall modified organisms once released. These issues have no clear or agreed solutions.
IUCN members and stakeholders will now have to grapple with these realities and the consequences of an endorsement that will pit ham-fisted, but media friendly narratives about ‘innovation’, against the nuanced and important – but occasionally dull – work needed to support meaningful conservation efforts. Those ham-fisted narratives will be as difficult to contain as any gene-drive.
The new Genetic Technology Act allows the unregulated experimentation of gene edited (what the UK chooses to call “precision bred”, or PBO) plants and animals in nature. The new Genetic Technology Regulations, which implement the Act and come into force in November, deliberately amend the Environmental Damage Regulations 2015 to exclude precision-bred GMOs from being recognised as an activity that can cause environmental damage. This cynical change gives developers a free hand to act without fear of liability or accountability.
If the history of agricultural biotechnology is any guide, progress will not be swift or straightforward. After more than two decades of research and commercialisation, gene-edited crops have yet to deliver the sweeping benefits once promised. As explored in our new A Bigger Conversation report, Turbo-Charging Nature?, the technology’s limitations – technical, ecological and social – continue to outweigh its achievements.
There is little reason to expect a different outcome when the same mindset is applied to wild ecosystems. And indeed given the difficulty of containment in wild ecosystems the outcome may be many times worse.
In the UK, as we found out at the start of this process, very few conservation groups have engaged seriously with this issue. Yet millions of people continue to send their monthly donations to organisations they believe are defending nature and representing their values.
We all deserve to know where these organisations stand.
Polls consistently show that people in the UK remain unconvinced by the supposed benefits of genetic engineering – whether in food, farming, or now, conservation. The public understands instinctively that these are not simply “tools” but interventions that are both aggressive and uncertain in outcome. Many are concerned that they change the very fabric of life in ways that simply do not align with their own cherished beliefs.
So our message is simple: if you support an environmental organisation, an animal charity, or a wildlife, countryside or conservation NGO, write to them. Ask them what their position is on the genetic engineering of wild species. If they don’t have one, insist that it’s time they adopt thoughtful policies that reflect the precautionary, ethical and ecological values their members expect. Tell them to connect with us – we are here to help them do it.
And if they refuse to listen – stop sending them your money. Because conservation, at its heart, is not about engineering nature to suit human ambition; it is about defending nature’s right to exist on its own terms.
From A Bigger Conversation
Our Turbo Charging Nature report explores how the UK’s rush to deregulate gene editing r…
From A Bigger Conversation
As the IUCN World Conservation Congress opens in Abu Dhabi, members face a pivotal choice…
From A Bigger Conversation
Too often, research on agricultural biotechnology focuses on citizens as consumers, analys…
From A Bigger Conversation
A Bigger Conversation will be collaborating with the University of Edinburgh, The Nuffield…
Share this page
share using:
Or copy and paste this page address:
https://beyond-gm.org/iucn-votes-on-gene-editing-in-conservation-biotech-lobbyists-win-nature-loses/