UBC Wiki - User contributions [en]

Course:CONS200/2026WT2/ An overview of genetic engineering for wildlife conservation: Opportunities, risks and limitations

2026-04-13T06:27:06Z

MarcusToth: lil bit

== Introduction ==
Genetic engineering (GE) is the intentional manipulation of an organism’s DNA in a laboratory to alter its physical and biological characteristics. Although it has traditionally been applied in agriculture and medicine, GE is now emerging as a promising and controversial tool for wildlife conservation.

Due to the acceleration of anthropogenic climate change, the impacts on wildlife are vast, such as environmental degradation, habitat and biodiversity loss, competition from invasive species, and increased proliferation of diseases and pathogens. Traditional conservation methods, such as protected areas and captive breeding programs, focus on protecting wildlife from external threats such as poaching and habitat loss. These strategies can protect individuals and populations, but fail to effectively enable species to adapt to their ever-changing environments.

As a result, more proactive solutions that facilitate species adaptation have become increasingly popular. By using GE, scientists can proactively prepare species for the changes in their environment that could compromise their survival. This proactive strategy can result in a multitude of benefits, like improving resistance against emerging diseases such as fungal infections in amphibians<ref name=":0" />. This shift of strategy from protected areas to proactive adaptation represents a pivotal juncture in human and wildlife coexistence, where humans transition away from attempting to protect wildlife from human impacts towards a strategy that prioritizes developing resiliency for the wildlife.

Although genetic engineering presents many advantages, it is not without potential consequences. When humans intervene to genetically modify wildlife, it goes against the balance of nature. This raises ethical concerns of deciding which species are most important, and additional concerns exist if the promotion of one species results in the extinction of another. Unintended ecological consequences, such as the loss of biodiversity, are possible if a genetically engineered species outcompetes another species in the same habitat.

==What is Genetic Engineering? ==
[[File:Diagram illustrating how the milk from genetically engineered goats can help produce life-saving medicine for humans.jpg|thumb|'''Diagram illustrating how the milk from genetically engineered goats can help produce life-saving medicine for humans''' Credit to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration]]
Genetic engineering, or genetic modification, is a process that alters the characteristics of an organism by using deliberate human technological intervention to alter the organism’s DNA<ref>Ormandy, E. H., Dale, J., & Griffin, G. (2011, May). ''Genetic Engineering of Animals: Ethical issues, including welfare concerns''. The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne. <nowiki>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3078015/</nowiki></ref>. DNA is composed of four nitrogenous bases: Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C), and Guanine (G). GE's impact can be as small as the replacement of a single base pair (A, T, C, G) with another or the deletion of an entire segment of DNA<ref>Smith, M. (2026). ''Genetic Engineering''. National Human Genome Research Institute . <nowiki>https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetic-Engineering</nowiki></ref>. With this technology, scientists are able to modify the genetic material of organisms, creating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with beneficial traits such as disease resistance, improved reproductive success, and enhanced adaptability to changing environmental conditions<ref name=":0" />. The use of GE allows species to adapt much faster than they would with natural methods such as natural selection and selective breeding.

== History of Genetic Engineering in Conservation ==
The technological landscape of genetic engineering in wildlife conservation operates under the broader framework of synthetic biology. This approach applies engineering principles to biology, allowing scientists to redesign existing, natural biological systems or construct entirely new biological parts for conservation purposes<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Redford|first=Kent|last2=Adams|first2=William|last3=Carlson|first3=Rob|last4=Mace|first4=Georgina|last5=Ceccarelli|first5=Bertina|date=July 2024|title=Synthetic biology and the conservation of biodiversity|url=https://doi.org/10.1017/s0030605314000040|journal=Oryx|volume=Vol 48|pages=330-336|via=Cambridge University Press}}</ref>. With rapid advances in molecular biotechnology, recent genetic engineering has leaped from early basic recombinant DNA techniques to precision tools with high specificity and practical potential.

== Examples of Genetic Engineering In Conservation ==
As the human population expands, there will be more demand for food, and thus, more natural habitat land will be converted for agricultural use for livestock, food crops, and feed crops. This poses a tremendous risk to wildlife conservation as the wildlife who previously inhabited that land face greater threats to their survival due to loss of habitat, degradation of the environment, livestock-wildlife conflict, and increased risk of disease transmission<ref>Murphy, K. J., Byrne, A. W., Marples, N., O’Hagan, M. J. H., Kelly, D. J., Quinn, D., Breslin, P., Moreja-Pujol, V., Khouri, R. M., Barrett, D., McGrath, G., & Cutti, S. (2025, July 1). ''Wildlife response to land-use change forces encounters between zoonotic disease hosts and farms in agricultural landscapes''. Science Direct. <nowiki>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880925000933#ab0010</nowiki> </ref>. To combat this risk, Zhang et al. (2018)<ref>Zhang, X., Li, Z., Yang, H., Liu, D., Cai, G., Li, G., Mo, J., Wang, D., Zhong, C., Wang, H., Sun, Y., Shi, J., Zheng, E., Meng, F., Zhang, M., He, X., Zhou, R., Zhang, J., Huang, M., … Wu, Z. (2018). Novel transgenic pigs with enhanced growth and reduced environmental impact. eLife. <nowiki>https://elifesciences.org/articles/34286</nowiki></ref> developed a transgenic pig that showed an 11.5–14.5% improvement in feed conversion rate compared with the wild-type pigs, and growth rate improved by 23.0% (gilts) and 24.4% (boars) compared with that of age-matched wild-type littermates under the same dietary treatment. Additionally, fecal nitrogen and phosphorus outputs in the transgenic pigs were reduced by 23.2 - 45.8%. These results indicate a tremendous opportunity to increase overall food production without increasing wildlife habitat conversion and environmental pollution. By optimizing the efficiency of human consumption systems, GE serves as a mitigation strategy for wildlife conservation against the ecological pressures of land-use expansion.

One of the most significant technological breakthroughs is the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing system. This advancement acts as highly precise “molecular scissors,” which allows scientists to make extremely accurate modifications, additions, or deletions within the DNA sequences of wild organisms<ref name=":0" />. Another area of revolutionary progress is “gene drives” technology. Under traditional Mendelian inheritance, the probability of a specific gene being passed to the next generation is 50%. However, modern gene drives, coupled with CRISPR, bypass this limitation, which force specific genetic traits to be inherited by nearly 100% of all wild offspring<ref>Godwin, J., Serr, M., Barnhill-Dilling, S. K., Blondel, D. V., Brown, P. R., Campbell, K., Delborne, J., Lloyd, A. L., Oh, K. P., Prowse, T. A., Saah, R., & Thomas, P. (2019). Rodent gene drives for conservation: Opportunities and data needs. ''Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences'', ''286''(1914), 20191606. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1606</nowiki> </ref>. This advanced technology is currently being actively developed to control invasive alien species, such as rodents that destroy island ecosystems. Finally, advanced reproductive technologies and stem cell research have opened unprecedented pathways for “de-extinction” and genetic rescue.

== Benefits of Genetic Engineering ==
Advanced reproductive technologies and stem cell research have opened unprecedented pathways for “de-extinction” and genetic rescue. Through somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning) or precisely splicing ancient DNA sequences into extant closely related species, scientists are not only attempting to restore key ecological traits of extinct species but also injecting new genetic diversity into critically endangered species facing genetic bottlenecks<ref>Turner, S. D., Keyte, A., Pask, A., & Shapiro, B. (2025). De-extinction technology and its application to conservation. ''Journal of Heredity''. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esaf069</nowiki></ref>. Together, these continuously evolving technologies form the core of modern conservation genetic engineering.

== Conservation Objectives of Genetic Engineering ==
The use of genetic engineering technologies has potential in modern-day conservation <ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|title=The ethics of genetic engineering and gene drives in conservation. Conservation Biology|journal=Sandler, R. (2019). The ethics of genetic engineering and gene drives in conservation. Conservation Biology, 34(2), 378–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13407}}</ref>, particularly in light of anthropocentric decline in the number of species populations, the outright anthropogenic extinction of species, and the invasive introduction of species into places not of evolutionary origin <ref>{{Cite journal|title=The Land Ethic. In A Companion to Environmental Philosophy|journal=Callicott, J.B. (2001). The Land Ethic. In A Companion to Environmental Philosophy, D. Jamieson (Ed.). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470751664.ch14}}</ref>.

One such mechanism of genetic engineering can be used to facilitate gene drive (genetic systems that guarantee genetic traits are passed on to 100% of offspring) <ref name=":2" />. Gene drive can be used to manage or eliminate populations of invasive species, pests, and disease vectors such as mosquitoes, ticks, or fleas that transmit infectious pathogens (viruses, bacteria, or parasites) between humans or from animals to humans <ref name=":2" />. The ethical concerns point out that the use of gene drive to modify conservation targets promotes problematic human control of the natural world. (Preston, 2018).

Another approach is the use of gene transfer through viral vectors (modified viruses designed to introduce genetic material into the cells of an organism) <ref name=":2" />. This has been proposed as a means of controlling invasive species or vaccinating threatened fauna against a variety of pathogens <ref name=":2" />. Additionally, genetic modification of these threatened fauna species to confer resistance against introduced diseases may be the only viable option to establish resistance in a sufficient time frame <ref name=":2" />.

One argument for the use of genetic engineering in conservation is its potential to alter and increase the diversity of species with small populations <ref name=":2" />. It is widely agreed among conservationists that species diversification is crucial for the survival of small populations <ref name=":2" />. This is due to small populations being at risk of genetic drift, which can lead to gene fixation and loss <ref name=":2" />. Inbreeding is also a concern, as it results in deformities, some of which can cause infertility and loss of life span <ref name=":2" />. Furthermore, the accumulation of deleterious mutations can decrease genetic fitness <ref name=":2" />. All these factors increase the likelihood of the population experiencing bottleneck events <ref name=":2" />. Due to these concerns, many conservationists argue that for the sake of long-term viability and diversification to prevent the bottleneck events of dwindling species, genetic engineering must play a role to prevent some catastrophic events from occurring <ref name=":2" />.

== Ecological and Evolutionary Risks of Genetic Engineering ==
The use of genetic engineering is often cited as a potentially revolutionary tool in conservation in helping to reverse the decline in vulnerable species populations, remove invasive species, resurrect extinct species, and even help replace damaged ecosystem services. This makes it not just a valuable tool for plant and animal conservation but also offers a way to decrease our dependence on the environment and its services, which could lead to decreased exploitation of resources and more sustainable relationships with nature (CBAN, 2025)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Conservation. Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN). (2025, May). https://cban.ca/gmos/issues/conservation/|url=|url-status=live}}</ref>. However, despite the many potential breakthroughs that genetic engineering in conservation could help solve, there are many varied risks and costly consequences with this endeavor.

One risk for the conservation of species associated with genetic engineering is simply the fact that the various processes in genetic engineering can be imprecise and lead to unforeseen consequences. For instance, when it comes to agriculture, the use of gene-editing technologies can have serious environmental and evolutionary consequences, as it causes genetically modified organisms to be too well adapted to their environment, eliciting the behavior of invasive species. For instance, through the use of recombinant gene technology, farmers in Canada created herbicide-resistant canola to increase crop yield and overall profits in the 1990s (Waddell, 2026)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Waddell, M. (2026, February 18). The GMO high-risk list: Canola - the non-GMO project. The Non-GMO Project - Everyone Deserves an Informed Choice. https://www.nongmoproject.org/blog/gmo-feature-canola/#:~:text=Canola%20was%20developed%20a%20full,generating%20volunteer%20or%20feral%20plants.|url=|url-status=live}}</ref>. However, over time, this crop became too hardy and expanded out of cultivation, becoming an extremely hardy invasive, outcompeting and harming the development of native plant species. This has led to an increase in wide-scale herbicide use in an effort to combat its rapid spread, which has created more pollution and chemical use, harming surrounding plant and animal species and disrupting the ecosystem (Olzyk, 2024)<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Olszyk, D., et al. (2024, April 7). Effects of simulated glyphosate drift to native prairie plants and canola-compatible Brassicaceae species of North Dakota, United States. ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219424001200|journal=}}</ref>.

Finally, the use of genetically modified organisms in the wild could have drastic consequences for existing ecosystems and vulnerable species, many of which we don’t fully understand. For example, once released, genetically modified organisms are often impossible to recall and can spread into non-genetically modified species, creating contamination that harms evolutionary development and reproduction (Laskawy, 2010)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Laskawy, T. (2010, August 9). Genetically modified canola goes feral. A new superweed?. Civil Eats. https://civileats.com/2010/08/09/genetically-modified-canola-goes-feral-a-new-superweed/#:~:text=Scientists%20from%20the%20University%20of,genes%20that%20confer%20pesticide%20resistance.|url=|url-status=live}}</ref>. This, along with the use of Gene Drives (genetically mutated organisms meant to target population weaknesses), are living, evolving organisms which can change over time. This, along with the difficulty of recalling them, means they can easily cause devastating problems, most of which are unable to be reversed or effectively combatted through conservation efforts (Biosafety Information Centre, 2019)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Serious threats posed by gene drives for conservation. Biosafety Information Centre. (2019, November 20). https://biosafety-info.net/articles/assessment-impacts/ecological/serious-threats-posed-by-gene-drives-for-conservation/#:~:text=Such%20risks%20include:%20(a),and%20non%2Dhuman%20environmental%20values.|url=|url-status=live}}</ref>. Due to the many concerns regarding the ethics of using GM organisms and their potentially lethal consequences, many scientists oppose their use for conservation, preferring to look more into traditional, less expensive conservation strategies.

== Ethical and Philosophical Perspectives ==
Genetic Engineering (GE) technology has been the subject of numerous ethical and philosophical debates regarding whether humans should intervene in evolution through gene-editing techniques. Common concerns that are often raised include animal welfare, unintended consequences, environmental risks, transparency and regulation, and the naturalness and morality of human interference through such extreme measures <ref>{{Cite journal|title=Social acceptance of genetic engineering technology|journal=Koralesky KE, Sirovica LV, Hendricks J, Mills KE, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM (2023) Social acceptance of genetic engineering technology. PLoS ONE 18(8): e0290070. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290070}}</ref>.

Animal welfare is a major concern in the discussion surrounding GE. Welfare concerns can arise at every stage of the GE process, from the embryonic manipulation to the health and behavior of adult animals <ref name=":2" />. In some cases of GE, many embryos do not survive, or only a small portion carries the intended change in their DNA. This raises the question of whether the potential benefits justify potential harm to animals <ref name=":2" />.

The unintended consequences of GE are a central ethical concern in conservation, encompassing both environmental risks and animal welfare. These technologies can have effects that extend beyond their intended targets, leading to detrimental, cascading ecological changes and unpredictable outcomes that can cause irreversible damage <ref name=":2" />. Even GE approaches that are designed to achieve conservation goals can have unintended consequences that raise ethical concerns, as they may alter ecosystems and conservation practices in ways that are difficult to justify or control. <ref name=":2" />.

The naturalness and morality of GE are among the larger concerns for the general public. This is because the technology can make humans appear as “designers” of nature rather than a part of nature and stewards of it <ref name=":2" />. Questions of morality often revolve around whether reshaping wild populations aligns with conservation values that prioritize human-independent ecological and evolutionary processes <ref name=":2" />. Additionally, there are concerns that intervention through GE may alter power dynamics, relationships, meanings, and value commitments in ways that conservationists should accept <ref name=":2" />.

Transparency and regulation (or oversight) are crucial components of the ethical framework for GE in conservation. Transparency is necessary to ensure that GE remains ethical. Public engagement and acceptance are essential when making decisions and justifying the use of GE as an effective conservation tool <ref name=":2" />.

== Public Policy and Governance of Genetic Engineering ==
The use of genetic engineering for wildlife has long been a contested subject, with many different aspects being debated. One of the centrally debated concepts is who gets to decide whether and how this kind of genetic engineering is utilized. This is because, “[t]he use of genetic engineering is increasingly discussed for nature conservation. At the same time, recent animal ethics approaches debate whether humans should genetically engineer wild animals to improve their welfare” (Bossert & Potthast, 2024)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Bossert, L. N., & Potthast, T. (2024, January 1). Genetic Engineering, Nature Conservation, and Animal Ethics in advance. Environmental Ethics; Philosophy Documentation Center. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics202442674|url=|url-status=live}}</ref>.

As such, many question who makes these rules and decisions. In the modern day, much of this governance is overseen by specific frameworks and agreements. One of these is the Convention of Biodiversity (CBD), with CBD parties having numerous obligations toward conservationist synthetic biology techniques (i.e., cloning), and this agreement also has specific provisions for biotechnology in general and for ‘living modified organisms’ (LMOs). Although not ratified by the U.S, the CBD is a near-agreement by countries around the world, serving as the primary form of governance for genetic engineering on wild species (Reynolds, 2021)<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|title=Reynolds, J. L. (2021). Engineering biological diversity: The international governance of synthetic biology, gene drives, and de-extinction for conservation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 49(1-6), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.10.001|journal=}}</ref>.

Another form of governance can be seen when it comes to the decisions around the creation of proxy species and de-extinction strategies. For instance, in 2016, an IUCN task force finalized ‘Guiding Principles on Creating Proxies of Extinct Species for Conservation Benefit.’ This ruling by the IUCN was crucial because it created guidelines to offer “authoritative advice regarding the need to expect conservation benefit, the selection of candidate species, and the release and management of proxy species. That same year, the IUCN initiated a process toward developing similar guidance for synthetic biology and gene drives” (Reynolds, 2021)<ref name=":1" />.

Lastly, there are many policies and guidelines that specific scientists, researchers, and companies have to mitigate and control the trade and use of genetic engineering on wild species. For example, some synthetic biology researchers and experts have developed high-level principles and other self-governance mechanisms for conservationist synthetic biology, especially in the more controversial case of gene drives” (Reynolds, 2021)<ref name=":1" />. Some of these agreements even call for “sponsors and supporters of gene drive research [to] advance quality science to promote the public good; promote stewardship, safety, and good governance; engage thoughtfully with affected communities” (Reynolds, 2021)<ref name=":1" />. This helps promote further research and innovation, while also making sure that even at lower levels, there is still oversight and healthy discourse and compromise with affected communities and the public.

In conclusion, there are many different levels of policy and governance for the use of genetic engineering on wildlife. This includes conservation for wild animals, de-extinction, synthetic biology, and even the creation of proxy species. These levels of governance are crucial in keeping genetic engineering ethical, efficient, and controlled to mitigate all dangers for both wildlife and people.

==Conclusion==
You should conclude your Wiki paper by summarizing the topic, or some aspect of the topic.[[File:Crepuscular Rays in GGP.jpg|thumbnail|right|Images from [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikimedia Commons] can be embedded easily.]]
==References==
Please use the Wikipedia reference style. Provide a citation for every sentence, statement, thought, or bit of data not your own, giving the author, year, AND page.
For dictionary references for English-language terms, I strongly recommend you use the Oxford English Dictionary. You can reference foreign-language sources but please also provide translations into English in the reference list.

'''Note:''' Before writing your wiki article on the UBC Wiki, it may be helpful to review the tips in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles Wikipedia: Writing better articles].<ref name=":0">Zahoor, M. A. A., Haidar, S. H., Rafique, S., Ahmed, U., Umber Rauf, M. A., Hanif, U., & Shehryar, M. (2025). Biotechnological Advances in Wildlife Conservation: Genetic Engineering, Cloning, Ecosystem Restoration, and Nanoparticle Applications. ''Scholars Academic Journal of Biosciences'', ''4'', 386-416 [Accessed April 11. 2026].
</ref>

<references responsive="0" group="Bossert, L. N., & Potthast, T. (2024, January 1). Genetic Engineering, Nature Conservation, and Animal Ethics in advance. Environmental Ethics; Philosophy Documentation Center. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics202442674" />{{Projectbox CONS200
|names=
|share=no
}}

[[Category:Conservation]]

Course:CONS200/2026WT2/ An overview of genetic engineering for wildlife conservation: Opportunities, risks and limitations

2026-04-13T06:14:23Z

MarcusToth: ethical and philosophical perspectives

== Introduction ==
Genetic engineering (GE) is the intentional manipulation of an organism’s DNA in a laboratory to alter its physical and biological characteristics. Although it has traditionally been applied in agriculture and medicine, GE is now emerging as a promising and controversial tool for wildlife conservation.

Due to the acceleration of anthropogenic climate change, the impacts on wildlife are vast, such as environmental degradation, habitat and biodiversity loss, competition from invasive species, and increased proliferation of diseases and pathogens. Traditional conservation methods, such as protected areas and captive breeding programs, focus on protecting wildlife from external threats such as poaching and habitat loss. These strategies can protect individuals and populations, but fail to effectively enable species to adapt to their ever-changing environments.

As a result, more proactive solutions that facilitate species adaptation have become increasingly popular. By using GE, scientists can proactively prepare species for the changes in their environment that could compromise their survival. This proactive strategy can result in a multitude of benefits, like improving resistance against emerging diseases such as fungal infections in amphibians<ref name=":0" />. This shift of strategy from protected areas to proactive adaptation represents a pivotal juncture in human and wildlife coexistence, where humans transition away from attempting to protect wildlife from human impacts towards a strategy that prioritizes developing resiliency for the wildlife.

Although genetic engineering presents many advantages, it is not without potential consequences. When humans intervene to genetically modify wildlife, it goes against the balance of nature. This raises ethical concerns of deciding which species are most important, and additional concerns exist if the promotion of one species results in the extinction of another. Unintended ecological consequences, such as the loss of biodiversity, are possible if a genetically engineered species outcompetes another species in the same habitat.

==What is Genetic Engineering? ==
[[File:Diagram illustrating how the milk from genetically engineered goats can help produce life-saving medicine for humans.jpg|thumb|'''Diagram illustrating how the milk from genetically engineered goats can help produce life-saving medicine for humans''' Credit to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration]]
Genetic engineering, or genetic modification, is a process that alters the characteristics of an organism by using deliberate human technological intervention to alter the organism’s DNA<ref>Ormandy, E. H., Dale, J., & Griffin, G. (2011, May). ''Genetic Engineering of Animals: Ethical issues, including welfare concerns''. The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne. <nowiki>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3078015/</nowiki></ref>. DNA is composed of four nitrogenous bases: Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C), and Guanine (G). GE's impact can be as small as the replacement of a single base pair (A, T, C, G) with another or the deletion of an entire segment of DNA<ref>Smith, M. (2026). ''Genetic Engineering''. National Human Genome Research Institute . <nowiki>https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetic-Engineering</nowiki></ref>. With this technology, scientists are able to modify the genetic material of organisms, creating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with beneficial traits such as disease resistance, improved reproductive success, and enhanced adaptability to changing environmental conditions<ref name=":0" />. The use of GE allows species to adapt much faster than they would with natural methods such as natural selection and selective breeding.

== History of Genetic Engineering in Conservation ==
The technological landscape of genetic engineering in wildlife conservation operates under the broader framework of synthetic biology. This approach applies engineering principles to biology, allowing scientists to redesign existing, natural biological systems or construct entirely new biological parts for conservation purposes<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Redford|first=Kent|last2=Adams|first2=William|last3=Carlson|first3=Rob|last4=Mace|first4=Georgina|last5=Ceccarelli|first5=Bertina|date=July 2024|title=Synthetic biology and the conservation of biodiversity|url=https://doi.org/10.1017/s0030605314000040|journal=Oryx|volume=Vol 48|pages=330-336|via=Cambridge University Press}}</ref>. With rapid advances in molecular biotechnology, recent genetic engineering has leaped from early basic recombinant DNA techniques to precision tools with high specificity and practical potential.

== Examples of Genetic Engineering In Conservation ==
As the human population expands, there will be more demand for food, and thus, more natural habitat land will be converted for agricultural use for livestock, food crops, and feed crops. This poses a tremendous risk to wildlife conservation as the wildlife who previously inhabited that land face greater threats to their survival due to loss of habitat, degradation of the environment, livestock-wildlife conflict, and increased risk of disease transmission<ref>Murphy, K. J., Byrne, A. W., Marples, N., O’Hagan, M. J. H., Kelly, D. J., Quinn, D., Breslin, P., Moreja-Pujol, V., Khouri, R. M., Barrett, D., McGrath, G., & Cutti, S. (2025, July 1). ''Wildlife response to land-use change forces encounters between zoonotic disease hosts and farms in agricultural landscapes''. Science Direct. <nowiki>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880925000933#ab0010</nowiki> </ref>. To combat this risk, Zhang et al. (2018)<ref>Zhang, X., Li, Z., Yang, H., Liu, D., Cai, G., Li, G., Mo, J., Wang, D., Zhong, C., Wang, H., Sun, Y., Shi, J., Zheng, E., Meng, F., Zhang, M., He, X., Zhou, R., Zhang, J., Huang, M., … Wu, Z. (2018). Novel transgenic pigs with enhanced growth and reduced environmental impact. eLife. <nowiki>https://elifesciences.org/articles/34286</nowiki></ref> developed a transgenic pig that showed an 11.5–14.5% improvement in feed conversion rate compared with the wild-type pigs, and growth rate improved by 23.0% (gilts) and 24.4% (boars) compared with that of age-matched wild-type littermates under the same dietary treatment. Additionally, fecal nitrogen and phosphorus outputs in the transgenic pigs were reduced by 23.2 - 45.8%. These results indicate a tremendous opportunity to increase overall food production without increasing wildlife habitat conversion and environmental pollution. By optimizing the efficiency of human consumption systems, GE serves as a mitigation strategy for wildlife conservation against the ecological pressures of land-use expansion.

One of the most significant technological breakthroughs is the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing system. This advancement acts as highly precise “molecular scissors,” which allows scientists to make extremely accurate modifications, additions, or deletions within the DNA sequences of wild organisms<ref name=":0" />. Another area of revolutionary progress is “gene drives” technology. Under traditional Mendelian inheritance, the probability of a specific gene being passed to the next generation is 50%. However, modern gene drives, coupled with CRISPR, bypass this limitation, which force specific genetic traits to be inherited by nearly 100% of all wild offspring<ref>Godwin, J., Serr, M., Barnhill-Dilling, S. K., Blondel, D. V., Brown, P. R., Campbell, K., Delborne, J., Lloyd, A. L., Oh, K. P., Prowse, T. A., Saah, R., & Thomas, P. (2019). Rodent gene drives for conservation: Opportunities and data needs. ''Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences'', ''286''(1914), 20191606. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1606</nowiki> </ref>. This advanced technology is currently being actively developed to control invasive alien species, such as rodents that destroy island ecosystems. Finally, advanced reproductive technologies and stem cell research have opened unprecedented pathways for “de-extinction” and genetic rescue.

== Benefits of Genetic Engineering ==
Advanced reproductive technologies and stem cell research have opened unprecedented pathways for “de-extinction” and genetic rescue. Through somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning) or precisely splicing ancient DNA sequences into extant closely related species, scientists are not only attempting to restore key ecological traits of extinct species but also injecting new genetic diversity into critically endangered species facing genetic bottlenecks<ref>Turner, S. D., Keyte, A., Pask, A., & Shapiro, B. (2025). De-extinction technology and its application to conservation. ''Journal of Heredity''. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esaf069</nowiki></ref>. Together, these continuously evolving technologies form the core of modern conservation genetic engineering.

== Conservation Objectives of Genetic Engineering ==
The use of genetic engineering technologies has potential in modern-day conservation (Sandler, 2020), particularly in light of anthropocentric decline in the number of species populations, the outright anthropogenic extinction of species, and the invasive introduction of species into places not of evolutionary origin (Callicot, 2001).

One such mechanism of genetic engineering can be used to facilitate gene drive (genetic systems that guarantee genetic traits are passed on to 100% of offspring) (Sandler, 2020). Gene drive can be used to manage or eliminate populations of invasive species, pests, and disease vectors such as mosquitoes, ticks, or fleas that transmit infectious pathogens (viruses, bacteria, or parasites) between humans or from animals to humans (Sandler, 2020). The ethical concerns point out that the use of gene drive to modify conservation targets promotes problematic human control of the natural world. (Preston, 2018).

Another approach is the use of gene transfer through viral vectors (modified viruses designed to introduce genetic material into the cells of an organism) (Sandler, 2020). This has been proposed as a means of controlling invasive species or vaccinating threatened fauna against a variety of pathogens (Sandler, 2020). Additionally, genetic modification of these threatened fauna species to confer resistance against introduced diseases may be the only viable option to establish resistance in a sufficient time frame (Sandler, 2020).

One argument for the use of genetic engineering in conservation is its potential to alter and increase the diversity of species with small populations (Sandler, 2020). It is widely agreed among conservationists that species diversification is crucial for the survival of small populations (Sandler, 2020). This is due to small populations being at risk of genetic drift, which can lead to gene fixation and loss (Sandler, 2020). Inbreeding is also a concern, as it results in deformities, some of which can cause infertility and loss of life span (Sandler, 2020). Furthermore, the accumulation of deleterious mutations can decrease genetic fitness (Sandler, 2020). All these factors increase the likelihood of the population experiencing bottleneck events (Sandler, 2020). Due to these concerns, many conservationists argue that for the sake of long-term viability and diversification to prevent the bottleneck events of dwindling species, genetic engineering must play a role to prevent some catastrophic events from occurring (Sandler, 2020).

== Ecological and Evolutionary Risks of Genetic Engineering ==
The use of genetic engineering is often cited as a potentially revolutionary tool in conservation in helping to reverse the decline in vulnerable species populations, remove invasive species, resurrect extinct species, and even help replace damaged ecosystem services. This makes it not just a valuable tool for plant and animal conservation but also offers a way to decrease our dependence on the environment and its services, which could lead to decreased exploitation of resources and more sustainable relationships with nature (CBAN, 2025)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Conservation. Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN). (2025, May). https://cban.ca/gmos/issues/conservation/|url=|url-status=live}}</ref>. However, despite the many potential breakthroughs that genetic engineering in conservation could help solve, there are many varied risks and costly consequences with this endeavor.

One risk for the conservation of species associated with genetic engineering is simply the fact that the various processes in genetic engineering can be imprecise and lead to unforeseen consequences. For instance, when it comes to agriculture, the use of gene-editing technologies can have serious environmental and evolutionary consequences, as it causes genetically modified organisms to be too well adapted to their environment, eliciting the behavior of invasive species. For instance, through the use of recombinant gene technology, farmers in Canada created herbicide-resistant canola to increase crop yield and overall profits in the 1990s (Waddell, 2026)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Waddell, M. (2026, February 18). The GMO high-risk list: Canola - the non-GMO project. The Non-GMO Project - Everyone Deserves an Informed Choice. https://www.nongmoproject.org/blog/gmo-feature-canola/#:~:text=Canola%20was%20developed%20a%20full,generating%20volunteer%20or%20feral%20plants.|url=|url-status=live}}</ref>. However, over time, this crop became too hardy and expanded out of cultivation, becoming an extremely hardy invasive, outcompeting and harming the development of native plant species. This has led to an increase in wide-scale herbicide use in an effort to combat its rapid spread, which has created more pollution and chemical use, harming surrounding plant and animal species and disrupting the ecosystem (Olzyk, 2024)<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Olszyk, D., et al. (2024, April 7). Effects of simulated glyphosate drift to native prairie plants and canola-compatible Brassicaceae species of North Dakota, United States. ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219424001200|journal=}}</ref>.

Finally, the use of genetically modified organisms in the wild could have drastic consequences for existing ecosystems and vulnerable species, many of which we don’t fully understand. For example, once released, genetically modified organisms are often impossible to recall and can spread into non-genetically modified species, creating contamination that harms evolutionary development and reproduction (Laskawy, 2010)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Laskawy, T. (2010, August 9). Genetically modified canola goes feral. A new superweed?. Civil Eats. https://civileats.com/2010/08/09/genetically-modified-canola-goes-feral-a-new-superweed/#:~:text=Scientists%20from%20the%20University%20of,genes%20that%20confer%20pesticide%20resistance.|url=|url-status=live}}</ref>. This, along with the use of Gene Drives (genetically mutated organisms meant to target population weaknesses), are living, evolving organisms which can change over time. This, along with the difficulty of recalling them, means they can easily cause devastating problems, most of which are unable to be reversed or effectively combatted through conservation efforts (Biosafety Information Centre, 2019)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Serious threats posed by gene drives for conservation. Biosafety Information Centre. (2019, November 20). https://biosafety-info.net/articles/assessment-impacts/ecological/serious-threats-posed-by-gene-drives-for-conservation/#:~:text=Such%20risks%20include:%20(a),and%20non%2Dhuman%20environmental%20values.|url=|url-status=live}}</ref>. Due to the many concerns regarding the ethics of using GM organisms and their potentially lethal consequences, many scientists oppose their use for conservation, preferring to look more into traditional, less expensive conservation strategies.

== Ethical and Philosophical Perspectives ==
Genetic Engineering (GE) technology has been the subject of numerous ethical and philosophical debates regarding whether humans should intervene in evolution through gene-editing techniques. Common concerns that are often raised include animal welfare, unintended consequences, environmental risks, transparency and regulation, and the naturalness and morality of human interference through such extreme measures (Koralesky et al., 2023).

Animal welfare is a major concern in the discussion surrounding GE. Welfare concerns can arise at every stage of the GE process, from the embryonic manipulation to the health and behavior of adult animals (Sandler, 2020). In some cases of GE, many embryos do not survive, or only a small portion carries the intended change in their DNA. This raises the question of whether the potential benefits justify potential harm to animals (Sandler, 2020).

The unintended consequences of GE are a central ethical concern in conservation, encompassing both environmental risks and animal welfare. These technologies can have effects that extend beyond their intended targets, leading to detrimental, cascading ecological changes and unpredictable outcomes that can cause irreversible damage (Sandler, 2020). Even GE approaches that are designed to achieve conservation goals can have unintended consequences that raise ethical concerns, as they may alter ecosystems and conservation practices in ways that are difficult to justify or control. (Sandler, 2020).

The naturalness and morality of GE are among the larger concerns for the general public. This is because the technology can make humans appear as “designers” of nature rather than a part of nature and stewards of it (Sandler, 2020). Questions of morality often revolve around whether reshaping wild populations aligns with conservation values that prioritize human-independent ecological and evolutionary processes (Sandler, 2020). Additionally, there are concerns that intervention through GE may alter power dynamics, relationships, meanings, and value commitments in ways that conservationists should accept (Sandler, 2020).

Transparency and regulation (or oversight) are crucial components of the ethical framework for GE in conservation. Transparency is necessary to ensure that GE remains ethical. Public engagement and acceptance are essential when making decisions and justifying the use of GE as an effective conservation tool (Sandler, 2020).

== Public Policy and Governance of Genetic Engineering ==
The use of genetic engineering for wildlife has long been a contested subject, with many different aspects being debated. One of the centrally debated concepts is who gets to decide whether and how this kind of genetic engineering is utilized. This is because, “[t]he use of genetic engineering is increasingly discussed for nature conservation. At the same time, recent animal ethics approaches debate whether humans should genetically engineer wild animals to improve their welfare” (Bossert & Potthast, 2024)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Bossert, L. N., & Potthast, T. (2024, January 1). Genetic Engineering, Nature Conservation, and Animal Ethics in advance. Environmental Ethics; Philosophy Documentation Center. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics202442674|url=|url-status=live}}</ref>.

As such, many question who makes these rules and decisions. In the modern day, much of this governance is overseen by specific frameworks and agreements. One of these is the Convention of Biodiversity (CBD), with CBD parties having numerous obligations toward conservationist synthetic biology techniques (i.e., cloning), and this agreement also has specific provisions for biotechnology in general and for ‘living modified organisms’ (LMOs). Although not ratified by the U.S, the CBD is a near-agreement by countries around the world, serving as the primary form of governance for genetic engineering on wild species (Reynolds, 2021)<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|title=Reynolds, J. L. (2021). Engineering biological diversity: The international governance of synthetic biology, gene drives, and de-extinction for conservation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 49(1-6), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.10.001|journal=}}</ref>.

Another form of governance can be seen when it comes to the decisions around the creation of proxy species and de-extinction strategies. For instance, in 2016, an IUCN task force finalized ‘Guiding Principles on Creating Proxies of Extinct Species for Conservation Benefit.’ This ruling by the IUCN was crucial because it created guidelines to offer “authoritative advice regarding the need to expect conservation benefit, the selection of candidate species, and the release and management of proxy species. That same year, the IUCN initiated a process toward developing similar guidance for synthetic biology and gene drives” (Reynolds, 2021)<ref name=":1" />.

Lastly, there are many policies and guidelines that specific scientists, researchers, and companies have to mitigate and control the trade and use of genetic engineering on wild species. For example, some synthetic biology researchers and experts have developed high-level principles and other self-governance mechanisms for conservationist synthetic biology, especially in the more controversial case of gene drives” (Reynolds, 2021)<ref name=":1" />. Some of these agreements even call for “sponsors and supporters of gene drive research [to] advance quality science to promote the public good; promote stewardship, safety, and good governance; engage thoughtfully with affected communities” (Reynolds, 2021)<ref name=":1" />. This helps promote further research and innovation, while also making sure that even at lower levels, there is still oversight and healthy discourse and compromise with affected communities and the public.

In conclusion, there are many different levels of policy and governance for the use of genetic engineering on wildlife. This includes conservation for wild animals, de-extinction, synthetic biology, and even the creation of proxy species. These levels of governance are crucial in keeping genetic engineering ethical, efficient, and controlled to mitigate all dangers for both wildlife and people.

==Conclusion==
You should conclude your Wiki paper by summarizing the topic, or some aspect of the topic.[[File:Crepuscular Rays in GGP.jpg|thumbnail|right|Images from [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikimedia Commons] can be embedded easily.]]
==References==
Please use the Wikipedia reference style. Provide a citation for every sentence, statement, thought, or bit of data not your own, giving the author, year, AND page.
For dictionary references for English-language terms, I strongly recommend you use the Oxford English Dictionary. You can reference foreign-language sources but please also provide translations into English in the reference list.

'''Note:''' Before writing your wiki article on the UBC Wiki, it may be helpful to review the tips in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles Wikipedia: Writing better articles].<ref name=":0">Zahoor, M. A. A., Haidar, S. H., Rafique, S., Ahmed, U., Umber Rauf, M. A., Hanif, U., & Shehryar, M. (2025). Biotechnological Advances in Wildlife Conservation: Genetic Engineering, Cloning, Ecosystem Restoration, and Nanoparticle Applications. ''Scholars Academic Journal of Biosciences'', ''4'', 386-416 [Accessed April 11. 2026].
</ref>

<references responsive="0" group="Bossert, L. N., & Potthast, T. (2024, January 1). Genetic Engineering, Nature Conservation, and Animal Ethics in advance. Environmental Ethics; Philosophy Documentation Center. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics202442674" />{{Projectbox CONS200
|names=
|share=no
}}

[[Category:Conservation]]

Course:CONS200/2026WT2/ An overview of genetic engineering for wildlife conservation: Opportunities, risks and limitations

2026-04-13T06:12:03Z

MarcusToth: conservation objectives

== Introduction ==
Genetic engineering (GE) is the intentional manipulation of an organism’s DNA in a laboratory to alter its physical and biological characteristics. Although it has traditionally been applied in agriculture and medicine, GE is now emerging as a promising and controversial tool for wildlife conservation.

Due to the acceleration of anthropogenic climate change, the impacts on wildlife are vast, such as environmental degradation, habitat and biodiversity loss, competition from invasive species, and increased proliferation of diseases and pathogens. Traditional conservation methods, such as protected areas and captive breeding programs, focus on protecting wildlife from external threats such as poaching and habitat loss. These strategies can protect individuals and populations, but fail to effectively enable species to adapt to their ever-changing environments.

As a result, more proactive solutions that facilitate species adaptation have become increasingly popular. By using GE, scientists can proactively prepare species for the changes in their environment that could compromise their survival. This proactive strategy can result in a multitude of benefits, like improving resistance against emerging diseases such as fungal infections in amphibians<ref name=":0" />. This shift of strategy from protected areas to proactive adaptation represents a pivotal juncture in human and wildlife coexistence, where humans transition away from attempting to protect wildlife from human impacts towards a strategy that prioritizes developing resiliency for the wildlife.

Although genetic engineering presents many advantages, it is not without potential consequences. When humans intervene to genetically modify wildlife, it goes against the balance of nature. This raises ethical concerns of deciding which species are most important, and additional concerns exist if the promotion of one species results in the extinction of another. Unintended ecological consequences, such as the loss of biodiversity, are possible if a genetically engineered species outcompetes another species in the same habitat.

==What is Genetic Engineering? ==
[[File:Diagram illustrating how the milk from genetically engineered goats can help produce life-saving medicine for humans.jpg|thumb|'''Diagram illustrating how the milk from genetically engineered goats can help produce life-saving medicine for humans''' Credit to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration]]
Genetic engineering, or genetic modification, is a process that alters the characteristics of an organism by using deliberate human technological intervention to alter the organism’s DNA<ref>Ormandy, E. H., Dale, J., & Griffin, G. (2011, May). ''Genetic Engineering of Animals: Ethical issues, including welfare concerns''. The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne. <nowiki>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3078015/</nowiki></ref>. DNA is composed of four nitrogenous bases: Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C), and Guanine (G). GE's impact can be as small as the replacement of a single base pair (A, T, C, G) with another or the deletion of an entire segment of DNA<ref>Smith, M. (2026). ''Genetic Engineering''. National Human Genome Research Institute . <nowiki>https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetic-Engineering</nowiki></ref>. With this technology, scientists are able to modify the genetic material of organisms, creating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with beneficial traits such as disease resistance, improved reproductive success, and enhanced adaptability to changing environmental conditions<ref name=":0" />. The use of GE allows species to adapt much faster than they would with natural methods such as natural selection and selective breeding.

== History of Genetic Engineering in Conservation ==
The technological landscape of genetic engineering in wildlife conservation operates under the broader framework of synthetic biology. This approach applies engineering principles to biology, allowing scientists to redesign existing, natural biological systems or construct entirely new biological parts for conservation purposes<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Redford|first=Kent|last2=Adams|first2=William|last3=Carlson|first3=Rob|last4=Mace|first4=Georgina|last5=Ceccarelli|first5=Bertina|date=July 2024|title=Synthetic biology and the conservation of biodiversity|url=https://doi.org/10.1017/s0030605314000040|journal=Oryx|volume=Vol 48|pages=330-336|via=Cambridge University Press}}</ref>. With rapid advances in molecular biotechnology, recent genetic engineering has leaped from early basic recombinant DNA techniques to precision tools with high specificity and practical potential.

== Examples of Genetic Engineering In Conservation ==
As the human population expands, there will be more demand for food, and thus, more natural habitat land will be converted for agricultural use for livestock, food crops, and feed crops. This poses a tremendous risk to wildlife conservation as the wildlife who previously inhabited that land face greater threats to their survival due to loss of habitat, degradation of the environment, livestock-wildlife conflict, and increased risk of disease transmission<ref>Murphy, K. J., Byrne, A. W., Marples, N., O’Hagan, M. J. H., Kelly, D. J., Quinn, D., Breslin, P., Moreja-Pujol, V., Khouri, R. M., Barrett, D., McGrath, G., & Cutti, S. (2025, July 1). ''Wildlife response to land-use change forces encounters between zoonotic disease hosts and farms in agricultural landscapes''. Science Direct. <nowiki>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880925000933#ab0010</nowiki> </ref>. To combat this risk, Zhang et al. (2018)<ref>Zhang, X., Li, Z., Yang, H., Liu, D., Cai, G., Li, G., Mo, J., Wang, D., Zhong, C., Wang, H., Sun, Y., Shi, J., Zheng, E., Meng, F., Zhang, M., He, X., Zhou, R., Zhang, J., Huang, M., … Wu, Z. (2018). Novel transgenic pigs with enhanced growth and reduced environmental impact. eLife. <nowiki>https://elifesciences.org/articles/34286</nowiki></ref> developed a transgenic pig that showed an 11.5–14.5% improvement in feed conversion rate compared with the wild-type pigs, and growth rate improved by 23.0% (gilts) and 24.4% (boars) compared with that of age-matched wild-type littermates under the same dietary treatment. Additionally, fecal nitrogen and phosphorus outputs in the transgenic pigs were reduced by 23.2 - 45.8%. These results indicate a tremendous opportunity to increase overall food production without increasing wildlife habitat conversion and environmental pollution. By optimizing the efficiency of human consumption systems, GE serves as a mitigation strategy for wildlife conservation against the ecological pressures of land-use expansion.

One of the most significant technological breakthroughs is the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing system. This advancement acts as highly precise “molecular scissors,” which allows scientists to make extremely accurate modifications, additions, or deletions within the DNA sequences of wild organisms<ref name=":0" />. Another area of revolutionary progress is “gene drives” technology. Under traditional Mendelian inheritance, the probability of a specific gene being passed to the next generation is 50%. However, modern gene drives, coupled with CRISPR, bypass this limitation, which force specific genetic traits to be inherited by nearly 100% of all wild offspring<ref>Godwin, J., Serr, M., Barnhill-Dilling, S. K., Blondel, D. V., Brown, P. R., Campbell, K., Delborne, J., Lloyd, A. L., Oh, K. P., Prowse, T. A., Saah, R., & Thomas, P. (2019). Rodent gene drives for conservation: Opportunities and data needs. ''Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences'', ''286''(1914), 20191606. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1606</nowiki> </ref>. This advanced technology is currently being actively developed to control invasive alien species, such as rodents that destroy island ecosystems. Finally, advanced reproductive technologies and stem cell research have opened unprecedented pathways for “de-extinction” and genetic rescue.

== Benefits of Genetic Engineering ==
Advanced reproductive technologies and stem cell research have opened unprecedented pathways for “de-extinction” and genetic rescue. Through somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning) or precisely splicing ancient DNA sequences into extant closely related species, scientists are not only attempting to restore key ecological traits of extinct species but also injecting new genetic diversity into critically endangered species facing genetic bottlenecks<ref>Turner, S. D., Keyte, A., Pask, A., & Shapiro, B. (2025). De-extinction technology and its application to conservation. ''Journal of Heredity''. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esaf069</nowiki></ref>. Together, these continuously evolving technologies form the core of modern conservation genetic engineering.

== Conservation Objectives of Genetic Engineering ==
The use of genetic engineering technologies has potential in modern-day conservation (Sandler, 2020), particularly in light of anthropocentric decline in the number of species populations, the outright anthropogenic extinction of species, and the invasive introduction of species into places not of evolutionary origin (Callicot, 2001).

One such mechanism of genetic engineering can be used to facilitate gene drive (genetic systems that guarantee genetic traits are passed on to 100% of offspring) (Sandler, 2020). Gene drive can be used to manage or eliminate populations of invasive species, pests, and disease vectors such as mosquitoes, ticks, or fleas that transmit infectious pathogens (viruses, bacteria, or parasites) between humans or from animals to humans (Sandler, 2020). The ethical concerns point out that the use of gene drive to modify conservation targets promotes problematic human control of the natural world. (Preston, 2018).

Another approach is the use of gene transfer through viral vectors (modified viruses designed to introduce genetic material into the cells of an organism) (Sandler, 2020). This has been proposed as a means of controlling invasive species or vaccinating threatened fauna against a variety of pathogens (Sandler, 2020). Additionally, genetic modification of these threatened fauna species to confer resistance against introduced diseases may be the only viable option to establish resistance in a sufficient time frame (Sandler, 2020).

One argument for the use of genetic engineering in conservation is its potential to alter and increase the diversity of species with small populations (Sandler, 2020). It is widely agreed among conservationists that species diversification is crucial for the survival of small populations (Sandler, 2020). This is due to small populations being at risk of genetic drift, which can lead to gene fixation and loss (Sandler, 2020). Inbreeding is also a concern, as it results in deformities, some of which can cause infertility and loss of life span (Sandler, 2020). Furthermore, the accumulation of deleterious mutations can decrease genetic fitness (Sandler, 2020). All these factors increase the likelihood of the population experiencing bottleneck events (Sandler, 2020). Due to these concerns, many conservationists argue that for the sake of long-term viability and diversification to prevent the bottleneck events of dwindling species, genetic engineering must play a role to prevent some catastrophic events from occurring (Sandler, 2020).

== Ecological and Evolutionary Risks of Genetic Engineering ==
The use of genetic engineering is often cited as a potentially revolutionary tool in conservation in helping to reverse the decline in vulnerable species populations, remove invasive species, resurrect extinct species, and even help replace damaged ecosystem services. This makes it not just a valuable tool for plant and animal conservation but also offers a way to decrease our dependence on the environment and its services, which could lead to decreased exploitation of resources and more sustainable relationships with nature (CBAN, 2025)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Conservation. Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN). (2025, May). https://cban.ca/gmos/issues/conservation/|url=|url-status=live}}</ref>. However, despite the many potential breakthroughs that genetic engineering in conservation could help solve, there are many varied risks and costly consequences with this endeavor.

One risk for the conservation of species associated with genetic engineering is simply the fact that the various processes in genetic engineering can be imprecise and lead to unforeseen consequences. For instance, when it comes to agriculture, the use of gene-editing technologies can have serious environmental and evolutionary consequences, as it causes genetically modified organisms to be too well adapted to their environment, eliciting the behavior of invasive species. For instance, through the use of recombinant gene technology, farmers in Canada created herbicide-resistant canola to increase crop yield and overall profits in the 1990s (Waddell, 2026)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Waddell, M. (2026, February 18). The GMO high-risk list: Canola - the non-GMO project. The Non-GMO Project - Everyone Deserves an Informed Choice. https://www.nongmoproject.org/blog/gmo-feature-canola/#:~:text=Canola%20was%20developed%20a%20full,generating%20volunteer%20or%20feral%20plants.|url=|url-status=live}}</ref>. However, over time, this crop became too hardy and expanded out of cultivation, becoming an extremely hardy invasive, outcompeting and harming the development of native plant species. This has led to an increase in wide-scale herbicide use in an effort to combat its rapid spread, which has created more pollution and chemical use, harming surrounding plant and animal species and disrupting the ecosystem (Olzyk, 2024)<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Olszyk, D., et al. (2024, April 7). Effects of simulated glyphosate drift to native prairie plants and canola-compatible Brassicaceae species of North Dakota, United States. ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219424001200|journal=}}</ref>.

Finally, the use of genetically modified organisms in the wild could have drastic consequences for existing ecosystems and vulnerable species, many of which we don’t fully understand. For example, once released, genetically modified organisms are often impossible to recall and can spread into non-genetically modified species, creating contamination that harms evolutionary development and reproduction (Laskawy, 2010)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Laskawy, T. (2010, August 9). Genetically modified canola goes feral. A new superweed?. Civil Eats. https://civileats.com/2010/08/09/genetically-modified-canola-goes-feral-a-new-superweed/#:~:text=Scientists%20from%20the%20University%20of,genes%20that%20confer%20pesticide%20resistance.|url=|url-status=live}}</ref>. This, along with the use of Gene Drives (genetically mutated organisms meant to target population weaknesses), are living, evolving organisms which can change over time. This, along with the difficulty of recalling them, means they can easily cause devastating problems, most of which are unable to be reversed or effectively combatted through conservation efforts (Biosafety Information Centre, 2019)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Serious threats posed by gene drives for conservation. Biosafety Information Centre. (2019, November 20). https://biosafety-info.net/articles/assessment-impacts/ecological/serious-threats-posed-by-gene-drives-for-conservation/#:~:text=Such%20risks%20include:%20(a),and%20non%2Dhuman%20environmental%20values.|url=|url-status=live}}</ref>. Due to the many concerns regarding the ethics of using GM organisms and their potentially lethal consequences, many scientists oppose their use for conservation, preferring to look more into traditional, less expensive conservation strategies.

== Ecological and Evolutionary Risks of Genetic Engineering ==
The use of genetic engineering is often cited as a potentially revolutionary tool in conservation in helping to reverse the decline in vulnerable species populations, remove invasive species, resurrect extinct species, and even help replace damaged ecosystem services. This makes it not just a valuable tool for plant and animal conservation but also offers a way to decrease our dependence on the environment and its services, which could lead to decreased exploitation of resources and more sustainable relationships with nature (CBAN, 2025)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Conservation. Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN). (2025, May). https://cban.ca/gmos/issues/conservation/|url=|url-status=live}}</ref>. However, despite the many potential breakthroughs that genetic engineering in conservation could help solve, there are many varied risks and costly consequences with this endeavor.

One risk for the conservation of species associated with genetic engineering is simply the fact that the various processes in genetic engineering can be imprecise and lead to unforeseen consequences. For instance, when it comes to agriculture, the use of gene-editing technologies can have serious environmental and evolutionary consequences, as it causes genetically modified organisms to be too well adapted to their environment, eliciting the behavior of invasive species. For instance, through the use of recombinant gene technology, farmers in Canada created herbicide-resistant canola to increase crop yield and overall profits in the 1990s (Waddell, 2026)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Waddell, M. (2026, February 18). The GMO high-risk list: Canola - the non-GMO project. The Non-GMO Project - Everyone Deserves an Informed Choice. https://www.nongmoproject.org/blog/gmo-feature-canola/#:~:text=Canola%20was%20developed%20a%20full,generating%20volunteer%20or%20feral%20plants.|url=|url-status=live}}</ref>. However, over time, this crop became too hardy and expanded out of cultivation, becoming an extremely hardy invasive, outcompeting and harming the development of native plant species. This has led to an increase in wide-scale herbicide use in an effort to combat its rapid spread, which has created more pollution and chemical use, harming surrounding plant and animal species and disrupting the ecosystem (Olzyk, 2024)<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Olszyk, D., et al. (2024, April 7). Effects of simulated glyphosate drift to native prairie plants and canola-compatible Brassicaceae species of North Dakota, United States. ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219424001200|journal=}}</ref>.

Finally, the use of genetically modified organisms in the wild could have drastic consequences for existing ecosystems and vulnerable species, many of which we don’t fully understand. For example, once released, genetically modified organisms are often impossible to recall and can spread into non-genetically modified species, creating contamination that harms evolutionary development and reproduction (Laskawy, 2010)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Laskawy, T. (2010, August 9). Genetically modified canola goes feral. A new superweed?. Civil Eats. https://civileats.com/2010/08/09/genetically-modified-canola-goes-feral-a-new-superweed/#:~:text=Scientists%20from%20the%20University%20of,genes%20that%20confer%20pesticide%20resistance.|url=|url-status=live}}</ref>. This, along with the use of Gene Drives (genetically mutated organisms meant to target population weaknesses), are living, evolving organisms which can change over time. This, along with the difficulty of recalling them, means they can easily cause devastating problems, most of which are unable to be reversed or effectively combatted through conservation efforts (Biosafety Information Centre, 2019)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Serious threats posed by gene drives for conservation. Biosafety Information Centre. (2019, November 20). https://biosafety-info.net/articles/assessment-impacts/ecological/serious-threats-posed-by-gene-drives-for-conservation/#:~:text=Such%20risks%20include:%20(a),and%20non%2Dhuman%20environmental%20values.|url=|url-status=live}}</ref>. Due to the many concerns regarding the ethics of using GM organisms and their potentially lethal consequences, many scientists oppose their use for conservation, preferring to look more into traditional, less expensive conservation strategies.

== Public Policy and Governance of Genetic Engineering ==
The use of genetic engineering for wildlife has long been a contested subject, with many different aspects being debated. One of the centrally debated concepts is who gets to decide whether and how this kind of genetic engineering is utilized. This is because, “[t]he use of genetic engineering is increasingly discussed for nature conservation. At the same time, recent animal ethics approaches debate whether humans should genetically engineer wild animals to improve their welfare” (Bossert & Potthast, 2024)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Bossert, L. N., & Potthast, T. (2024, January 1). Genetic Engineering, Nature Conservation, and Animal Ethics in advance. Environmental Ethics; Philosophy Documentation Center. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics202442674|url=|url-status=live}}</ref>.

As such, many question who makes these rules and decisions. In the modern day, much of this governance is overseen by specific frameworks and agreements. One of these is the Convention of Biodiversity (CBD), with CBD parties having numerous obligations toward conservationist synthetic biology techniques (i.e., cloning), and this agreement also has specific provisions for biotechnology in general and for ‘living modified organisms’ (LMOs). Although not ratified by the U.S, the CBD is a near-agreement by countries around the world, serving as the primary form of governance for genetic engineering on wild species (Reynolds, 2021)<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|title=Reynolds, J. L. (2021). Engineering biological diversity: The international governance of synthetic biology, gene drives, and de-extinction for conservation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 49(1-6), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.10.001|journal=}}</ref>.

Another form of governance can be seen when it comes to the decisions around the creation of proxy species and de-extinction strategies. For instance, in 2016, an IUCN task force finalized ‘Guiding Principles on Creating Proxies of Extinct Species for Conservation Benefit.’ This ruling by the IUCN was crucial because it created guidelines to offer “authoritative advice regarding the need to expect conservation benefit, the selection of candidate species, and the release and management of proxy species. That same year, the IUCN initiated a process toward developing similar guidance for synthetic biology and gene drives” (Reynolds, 2021)<ref name=":1" />.

Lastly, there are many policies and guidelines that specific scientists, researchers, and companies have to mitigate and control the trade and use of genetic engineering on wild species. For example, some synthetic biology researchers and experts have developed high-level principles and other self-governance mechanisms for conservationist synthetic biology, especially in the more controversial case of gene drives” (Reynolds, 2021)<ref name=":1" />. Some of these agreements even call for “sponsors and supporters of gene drive research [to] advance quality science to promote the public good; promote stewardship, safety, and good governance; engage thoughtfully with affected communities” (Reynolds, 2021)<ref name=":1" />. This helps promote further research and innovation, while also making sure that even at lower levels, there is still oversight and healthy discourse and compromise with affected communities and the public.

In conclusion, there are many different levels of policy and governance for the use of genetic engineering on wildlife. This includes conservation for wild animals, de-extinction, synthetic biology, and even the creation of proxy species. These levels of governance are crucial in keeping genetic engineering ethical, efficient, and controlled to mitigate all dangers for both wildlife and people.

==Conclusion==
You should conclude your Wiki paper by summarizing the topic, or some aspect of the topic.[[File:Crepuscular Rays in GGP.jpg|thumbnail|right|Images from [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikimedia Commons] can be embedded easily.]]
==References==
Please use the Wikipedia reference style. Provide a citation for every sentence, statement, thought, or bit of data not your own, giving the author, year, AND page.
For dictionary references for English-language terms, I strongly recommend you use the Oxford English Dictionary. You can reference foreign-language sources but please also provide translations into English in the reference list.

'''Note:''' Before writing your wiki article on the UBC Wiki, it may be helpful to review the tips in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles Wikipedia: Writing better articles].<ref name=":0">Zahoor, M. A. A., Haidar, S. H., Rafique, S., Ahmed, U., Umber Rauf, M. A., Hanif, U., & Shehryar, M. (2025). Biotechnological Advances in Wildlife Conservation: Genetic Engineering, Cloning, Ecosystem Restoration, and Nanoparticle Applications. ''Scholars Academic Journal of Biosciences'', ''4'', 386-416 [Accessed April 11. 2026].
</ref>

<references responsive="0" group="Bossert, L. N., & Potthast, T. (2024, January 1). Genetic Engineering, Nature Conservation, and Animal Ethics in advance. Environmental Ethics; Philosophy Documentation Center. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics202442674" />{{Projectbox CONS200
|names=
|share=no
}}

[[Category:Conservation]]

An overview of genetic engineering for wildlife conservation: Opportunities, risks and limitations

2026-03-02T00:09:24Z

MarcusToth: Created page with "=== Introduction (Defining Genetic Engineering in a wildlife context) === Genetic engineering is the use of molecular biology technology to modify DNA sequence(s) is genomes. Many approaches are used but the most elegant and applicable to wildlife conservation is CRISPR/Cas9 technology."

=== Introduction (Defining Genetic Engineering in a wildlife context) ===
Genetic engineering is the use of molecular biology technology to modify DNA sequence(s) is genomes. Many approaches are used but the most elegant and applicable to wildlife conservation is CRISPR/Cas9 technology.