Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation

Nicholas B W Macfarlane¹, Jonathan Adams², Elizabeth L Bennett³, Thomas M Brooks^{4

5

6}, Jason A Delborne^{7

8}, Hilde Eggermont^{9

10}, Drew Endy¹¹, Kevin M Esvelt¹², Bartlomiej Kolodziejczyk¹³, Todd Kuiken⁸, Maria Julia Oliva¹⁴, Sonia Peña Moreno⁴, Lydia Slobodian¹⁵, Risa B Smith¹⁶, Delphine Thizy^{17

18}, Daniel M Tompkins¹⁹, Wei Wei²⁰, Kent H Redford^{21

22}

Affiliations

¹ IUCN, 1630 Connecticut Avenue NW. Ste 300., Washington, DC 20009, USA.
² Pangolin Words, Inc., 10301 Nolan Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, USA.
³ Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, NY 10460, USA.
⁴ IUCN, 28 rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, Switzerland.
⁵ World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), University of the Philippines Los Baños, Laguna 4031, The Philippines.
⁶ Institute for Marine & Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia.
⁷ Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.
⁸ Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.
⁹ Belgian Biodiversity Platform, WTC III Simon Bolivarlaan 30 Bus 7, 1000 Brussels, Belgium.
¹⁰ Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Vautierstraat 29, 1000 Brussels, Belgium.
¹¹ Stanford University, 443 Via Ortega, Shriram Center RM 252, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
¹² Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Media Lab, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02464, USA.
¹³ University of Gothenburg, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden.
¹⁴ Union for Ethical BioTrade (UEBT), De Ruijterkade 6b, 1013 AA Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
¹⁵ Georgetown University Law Center, 600 New Jersey Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001, USA.
¹⁶ IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, 19915 Porlier Pass, Galiano, BC V0N1P0, Canada.
¹⁷ Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London SW7 2BX, UK.
¹⁸ Delphine Thizy Consulting Scomm, rue Alphonse Hottat 35, 1050 Ixelles, Belgium.
¹⁹ Predator Free 2050 Limited, PO Box 106040, Auckland 1143, New Zealand.
²⁰ State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 20 Nanxincun, Xiangshan, Beijing, China.
²¹ Archipelago Consulting, Portland, ME 04112, USA.
²² Department of Environmental Studies, University of New England, Biddeford, ME 04005, USA.

PMID: 36388962
PMCID: PMC9641226
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2022.105423

Review

Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation

Nicholas B W Macfarlane et al. iScience. 2022.

. 2022 Oct 20;25(11):105423.

doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2022.105423. eCollection 2022 Nov 18.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ IUCN, 1630 Connecticut Avenue NW. Ste 300., Washington, DC 20009, USA.
² Pangolin Words, Inc., 10301 Nolan Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, USA.
³ Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, NY 10460, USA.
⁴ IUCN, 28 rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, Switzerland.
⁵ World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), University of the Philippines Los Baños, Laguna 4031, The Philippines.
⁶ Institute for Marine & Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia.
⁷ Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.
⁸ Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.
⁹ Belgian Biodiversity Platform, WTC III Simon Bolivarlaan 30 Bus 7, 1000 Brussels, Belgium.
¹⁰ Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Vautierstraat 29, 1000 Brussels, Belgium.
¹¹ Stanford University, 443 Via Ortega, Shriram Center RM 252, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
¹² Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Media Lab, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02464, USA.
¹³ University of Gothenburg, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden.
¹⁴ Union for Ethical BioTrade (UEBT), De Ruijterkade 6b, 1013 AA Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
¹⁵ Georgetown University Law Center, 600 New Jersey Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001, USA.
¹⁶ IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, 19915 Porlier Pass, Galiano, BC V0N1P0, Canada.
¹⁷ Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London SW7 2BX, UK.
¹⁸ Delphine Thizy Consulting Scomm, rue Alphonse Hottat 35, 1050 Ixelles, Belgium.
¹⁹ Predator Free 2050 Limited, PO Box 106040, Auckland 1143, New Zealand.
²⁰ State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 20 Nanxincun, Xiangshan, Beijing, China.
²¹ Archipelago Consulting, Portland, ME 04112, USA.
²² Department of Environmental Studies, University of New England, Biddeford, ME 04005, USA.

PMID: 36388962
PMCID: PMC9641226
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2022.105423

Abstract

The world's biodiversity is in crisis. Synthetic biology has the potential to transform biodiversity conservation, both directly and indirectly, in ways that are negative and positive. However, applying these biotechnology tools to environmental questions is fraught with uncertainty and could harm cultures, rights, livelihoods, and nature. Decisions about whether or not to use synthetic biology for conservation should be understood alongside the reality of ongoing biodiversity loss. In 2022, the 196 Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity are negotiating the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework that will guide action by governments and other stakeholders for the next decade to conserve the worlds' biodiversity. To date, synthetic biologists, conservationists, and policy makers have operated in isolation. At this critical time, this review brings these diverse perspectives together and emerges out of the need for a balanced and inclusive examination of the potential application of these technologies to biodiversity conservation.

Keywords: Biotechnology; Environmental Biotechnology; Environmental management; Global change; Nature conservation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

L.S. is on the advisory board (unpaid) of the Modern Agriculture Foundation, an Israeli non-profit organization that supports and promotes development of alternative protein including cultured meat. J.A.D. is a leader of U.S. stakeholder engagement for the Genetic Biocontrol of Invasive Rodents (GBIRd) partnership. D.E. holds stock in Ginkgo Bioworks Inc. and Antheia Inc., and is also an unpaid Director of the BioBricks Foundation, iGEM Foundation, and BioBuilder Foundation - all charities working to advance synthetic biology for public benefit.

Figures

**Figure 1**
Examples of the anticipated costs and benefits of conservation applications of synthetic biology (adapted with permission from K.H. Redford et al., 2019)

**Figure 2**
Global regulatory context for synthetic biology (A) Countries with national laws on risk assessment and management related to genetically modified organisms (dark blue). The map shows those countries whose laws appear in the CBD Biosafety Clearing House or ECOLEX legal database (so lack of inclusion on this map does not necessarily mean that the country has no biosafety regulation). (B) Typical stages in risk regulation applicable to synthetic biology (adapted with permission from K.H. Redford et al., 2019).

See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

1. Abberton M., Batley J., Bentley A., Bryant J., Cai H., Cockram J., de Oliveira A.C., Cseke L.J., Dempewolf H., De Pace C., et al. Global agricultural intensification during climate change: a role for genomics. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2016;14:1095–1098. - PMC - PubMed
1. Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Digital Sequence Information on Genetic Resources . U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity; 2018. Synthesis of Views and Information on the Potential Implications of the Use of Digital Sequence Information on Genetic Resources for the Three Objectives of the Convention and the Objective of the Nagoya Protocol. CBD/DSI/AHTEG/2018/1/4.
1. Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Digital Sequence Information on Genetic Resources . U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity; 2018. Report of the AHTEG on Digital Sequence Information. CBD/DSI/AHTEG/2018/1/4.
1. Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Synthetic Biology . U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity; 2017. Report of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Synthetic Biology. CBD/SYNBIO/AHTEG/2017/1/3; pp. 1–17.
1. Atyame C.M., Cattel J., Lebon C., Flores O., Dehecq J.-S., Weill M., Gouagna L.C., Tortosa P. Wolbachia-based population control strategy targeting Culex quinquefasciatus mosquitoes proves efficient under semi-field conditions. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0119288. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Actions

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation

Affiliations

Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement

Figures

References

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources