Friday, 18 July 2025, 12:42 pm
Press Release: Science Media Centre
Much has been made of the potential of genome engineering
for “de-extinction”. But what about its potential to
help existing threatened species?
In a Perspectives
article in Nature Reviews Biodiversity, a team of
overseas scientists — including some from the startup
behind recent “de-extinction”
announcements
— examine how genome engineering can be a new tool to add
to the conservation toolkit. For example, gene editing could
help restore lost genetic diversity to species with small
populations. They say it also could help by removing harmful
mutations, or introducing new genes from closely related
species to confer traits like heat tolerance or disease
resistance.
The Science Media Centre asked third-party
experts to comment.
Professor Peter Dearden, Director
of Genomics Aotearoa, University of Otago,
comments:
“This is a good review of the use of gene
technologies in conservation, pointing out where gene
technologies can play a role, but it is silent on the fact
that most of these technologies have never been implemented
in the conservation species of interest. Gene editing works
well in systems where it has been developed, but developing
it in multiple species is going to be hard. Alongside that,
the review talks about putting genetic diversity back into
the genomes of species with low genetic diversity. This
seems optimistic, in that we don’t understand what genetic
diversity does even in species that are well studied.
Conservation species are never well studied from a genetic
point of view, so information as to what variation is
‘good’ and what ‘bad’ is really hard to
assess.
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
“Finally, the cultural context of all of
these technologies is really important. These are treasured,
rare species. Who makes the decision about whether these
manipulations can be done? What are the consequences for the
cultural value of these species? The review points out a
bunch of useful technologies, but is very quiet about
whether ethically, socially, culturally or even
biologically, these can be used.”
No conflicts of
interest.
Associate Professor Nic Rawlence,
Director of the Otago Palaeogenetics Lab, University of
Otago, comments:
“Worldwide, genetic engineering is
becoming another tool in the conservation tool box that can
be used alongside more traditional methods like predator
control, habitat restoration, translocation, and genetic
rescue (i.e. interbreeding of distinct populations to
increase genetic variation) to conserve endangered species.
While this technology is still illegal in Aotearoa New
Zealand as the current ban has not been lifted, now is the
time to be having these conversations as a community, and
with mana whenua, over its use, not just on endangered
species but also to control predators. The genetic
engineering technology that is being developed for
‘de-extinction’ efforts can and should be used for
saving species—imagine if we could genetically engineer a
species to be resistant to a disease or reintroduce lost
genetic variation back into a population to give it the
evolutionary potential to adapt to a fast changing
world.
“This paper by Cock van Oosterhout and
colleagues (including scientists at Colossal Biosciences
involved in ‘de-extinction’) is a good start in
initiating these conversations, arguing for a measured and
cautious approach, with genetic engineering as one tool in
the conservation arsenal. There will be challenges to using
genetic engineering in endangered species from unintended
consequences to the individual, but also the wild
populations and ecosystems where these individuals may get
released into—it was nice to see a paper that discussed
the potential downsides of this technology for a change.
While this technology could be a game changer in some
situations, it may not be a silver bullet for New Zealand
birds, which are characterised by small populations that are
slow breeding—this makes getting any new genetic variant
(like a disease resistant gene or lost genetic variation)
fixed in the population difficult, due to inbreeding
(breeding with close relatives) and random loss of genetic
variants from generation to generation.
“Where this
paper by Cock van Oosterhout and colleagues misses a beat is
around discussing Indigenous perspectives and community
engagement, which to me feels minimised, and could create
the false perception that it’s a ‘nice to have’ but
not necessary. In New Zealand, and many other parts of the
world, Indigenous and community voices are crucial. There
are valid concerns that Māori have been excluded from
conversations about using genetic engineering and the draft
Gene Technology Bill. Like I raised in my recent Conversation
piece, without Māori support or involvement, the genetic
engineering of animals and their release would constitute a
breach of Article Two of Tiriti of Waitangi (the Treaty of
Waitangi). Māori have exclusive rights over taonga species.
Māori and many other Indigenous cultures also have
whakapapa (genealogical) relationships with plants and
animals, and view genetic engineering as unnatural and with
disgust, which could have negative consequences for
genetically engineered organisms and the
environment.
“One aspect of genetic
engineering in conservation that is not discussed in the
paper is its use on pest species, like gene drives where
genetic variants that make individuals sterile, for example,
are spread throughout a pest population to cause its
collapse. Public perception and engagement here will again
be crucial. In a study published in Nature
Ecology and Evolution in 2017, there was more
agreement amongst Department of Conservation staff for the
use of this technology to genetically edit pests than
endangered species.
“Overall, given
recent publicity around genetic engineering and
‘de-extinction’, it’s nice to see a measured approach
advocated (including discussing the downsides—you don’t
see that with de-extinction) that was not science by press
release. In the current environment, funding this
potentially revolutionary science will be difficult—the
authors were quick to point out, without mentioning
de-extinction, that the same private funders could fund this
research. If the challenges with this technology can be
overcome, then it could be a game changing tool in the
conversation toolbox, so long as there was widespread
Indigenous and community support, with free, prior and
informed consent. Only time will tell, but best to keep up
our current conservation initiatives in the
meantime.”
No conflicts of interest.
The UK Science Media Centre has also
gathered third-party
expert comments in response.
Prof
Bruce Whitelaw, Professor of Animal Biotechnology and
Director of The Roslin Institute,
said:
“Biodiversity across our planet is both
facing unprecedented challenges and increasing recognised as
critical for planetary health. Genome editing technology
offers approaches that overcome aspects that current
approaches addressing biodiversity cannot address – it can
restore lost genetic diversity and increase the resilience
of endangered species. Genome editing technology is
advancing fast and for species where we know much about
their genetic make-up could be used now to reduce genetic
load and enable adaption to environmental change. This could
include restoration of lost variation but we are still some
way-off from restoring a species – although this is
foreseeable for the future. No single technology can solve
all biodiversity concerns. Genome editing should be adopted
alongside traditional conservation methods and habitat
restoration. The driver should be for social benefit, have
societal involvement, and be guided by science-based
regulation – and should be viewed as another useful method
in the race to safeguard the world’s needed
biodiversity.”
Conflict of interest statement:
“I receive funding from BBSRC, Roslin Foundation, and
Gates Foundation. I am a member of FSA’s Advisory
Committee for Novel Foods & Processes, and the
Engineering Biology Responsible Innovation Advisory
Panel.”
Prof Dusko Ilic, Professor of Stem Cell
Science at King’s College London, said:
“The
article is a thoughtful and forward-looking synthesis,
offering a powerful vision for integrating genome
engineering into conservation biology. However, its
weaknesses lie in over-optimism, lack of robust comparative
cost-effectiveness analysis, and occasional underplaying of
ecological, regulatory, and ethical risks—especially in
complex field scenarios.
“The paper persuasively
argues that genome engineering can address genomic
erosion—an underappreciated long-term threat in
conservation biology—by restoring adaptive genetic
variation and reducing genetic load. The technology has
potential, but the evidence base is currently stronger in
theory and in model organisms than in demonstrated success
with real-world.
“The authors assume that the
relationship between genome-wide variation and fitness is
sufficiently understood to justify editing decisions. In
reality, the genotype–phenotype–fitness map remains
poorly resolved in most non-model organisms, which weakens
confidence in editing targets. What improves fitness in
captivity or small restored habitats may not translate under
fluctuating wild conditions.
“The paper
clearly articulates how genome engineering can target fixed
deleterious alleles, reintroduce lost immunogenetic
diversity, and enhance climate adaptation capacity—things
traditional conservation (e.g. protected areas, captive
breeding) cannot accomplish once variation is
lost.
“The concept is compelling but
lacks quantitative modelling or comparative data to support
the claim that genome editing is more effective or feasible
than scaled-up traditional approaches in most
cases.
“The argument presumes that ancestral or
heterospecific alleles can be confidently identified and
reintroduced without negative pleiotropic effects, but this
is rarely tested rigorously outside lab
settings.
“The paper is also light on cost-benefit
comparisons. For example, how does gene editing for climate
resilience compare (in cost, efficacy, and ecological risk)
to investing in habitat corridors that allow natural gene
flow?
“International approvals for edited wildlife
release is a probable limiter of near-term feasibility.
Regulatory inertia and public scepticism that have
historically limited the rollout of genetically modified
(GM) organisms—particularly in agriculture, where decades
of commercial GM crop use remain contentious in many
countries despite robust safety data. Scientific bodies
(e.g., WHO, NAS, EFSA) consistently find no substantiated
health risks from approved GM crops, yet public acceptance
varies widely. The first GM crop was approved in the US in
1994. Thirty years later, only about 30 countries cultivate
GM crops, and about 70 allows imports but not domestic
cultivation.
“The distinction between technical
readiness (editing) and ecological readiness (release,
integration, adaptation) is important. Timescales needed for
breeding, backcrossing, release, and population
establishment, are equally complex. In species with long
generation times, edited lineages may not reach ecological
relevance for decades.
“While critical of
de-extinction, the authors do not fully confront the
blurring of boundaries in practice—e.g. Colossal
Biosciences’ projects (which some authors are affiliated
with) walk a fine line between de-extinction branding and
conservation justification.
“The critique of
de-extinction would be more credible if potential conflicts
of interest were explicitly addressed, and if more scrutiny
were applied to projects that market proxy-species
restorations as conservation.
“The call for
responsibility is ethically sound, but implementation
guidance is vague. How, for example, will conservation
scientists ensure openness when working with private-sector
collaborators like biotech firms or proprietary genome
platforms? How engineered lineages may tie future
conservation efforts to specific technologies or patents,
raising issues of access, control, and
continuity?”
Conflict of interest statement: “I
declare no conflict of interest.”
Prof Tony
Perry, Head of the Laboratory of Mammalian Molecular
Embryology at the University of Bath, said:
“This
timely Perspective collates potential contributions
from the revolution in ‘genome engineering’ (including
genome editing) to biodiversity conservation. The piece
points out that to be effective, these advances need to
include advanced assisted reproduction methodologies, such
as embryonic and stem cell chimeras and nuclear transfer
cloning. In addition, the behaviour of individual or small
numbers of gene variants moved into a foreign genome may be
difficult or impossible to predict, making it desirable to
replicate entire genomes from the oldest sources
available.
“The challenges of achieving this are
considerable even for well-studied species, but by raising
the profiles of these challenges, the Perspective
promises to accelerate our efforts to solving them for
species conservation and its retroactive cousin,
de-extinction.”
Conflict of interest statement:
“None”
Our aim is to promote accurate, evidence-based reporting on science and technology by helping the media work more closely with the scientific community.
The Science Media Centre is New Zealand’s only trusted, independent source of information for the media on all issues related to science. Thousands of news stories providing context from and quoting New Zealand researchers have been published as a direct result of our work.