Short Wave - Should Scientists Genetically Engineer Wild Species?

Episode Date: October 20, 2025

Some scientists looking to preserve vulnerable species have turned to a controversial technique: synthetic biology. This catchall term often means genetic engineering – introducing new genes to an organism. And a recent narrow vote by the International Union for Conservation of Nature on using the technology shows how divided scientists are on the issue of releasing genetically altered species. Science correspondent Nate Rott wades into the debate with us and reveals whether or not the Union voted to place a moratorium on releasing gene-edited species.Read more of Nate’s reporting on the topic.  Interested in more science debates? Email us your question at [e-mail] to every episode of Short Wave sponsor-free and support our work at NPR by signing up for Short Wave+ at plus.npr.org/shortwave.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

You're listening to Shortwave from NPR. Hey, shortwavers, Emily Kwong here. Today we're going to focus on an emerging field that could help the natural world, but is also a little controversial. Yes, controversial because it gets at an almost philosophical question, Emily, about what our role should be in the natural world. Science correspondent Nate Rod, ever the philosopher? I'm a pretty poor excuse for a philosopher. But, you know, I think that the easiest way, to explain this technology that we're going to be talking about is to start with an effort that's going on to save something we all know and love.

Frogs. Frogs are little wet things that run around in the mud. They should be absolutely just covered in infections at all times. And the reason they're not is they produce antibiotics. This is Anthony Waddle, a researcher at McCory University in Australia. It's just, Kitrid is too good. The Kitrid fungus, which is like this horrendous and deadly. skin disease affecting amphibians that, you know, the antibiotics they have often can't fix.

And this disease is now found on every continent except Antarctica. And it's considered the worst pandemic ever, worst invasive species ever in terms of biodiversity loss. Anthony has been focused on protecting frog populations from Titrid pretty much his entire scientific career. And he started with the type of desert frog that lived near his hometown, Las Vegas. That work was like classic conservation, you know, bringing eggs in from the, remaining populations, raising them up, putting them at new sites, augmenting existing sites,

surveys. And Anthony says it worked for that population of frogs. But the further he got into the frog world, I'm being approached by people that are watching species and populations go extinct and they're desperate for solutions. It became clear to him what they really need, he says, is like some kind of permanent solution that makes the species more resilient into the future. And he thinks one of those solutions could be something called synthetic biology, which in this case basically means genetic modification. Anthony wants to use genetic tools, new technologies, to essentially splice that chitred-resistant DNA into frogs that do not have it.

Oh, okay, so he's hoping to genetically modify frogs to help them fight off this disease, the chitred. Yes, that's kind of like the pie in the sky aim. But here's where I think this whole thing gets super interesting. I think the challenge isn't the science. We can do this. The challenge is going to be convincing people that it's a good idea. Because, as you might imagine, Emily, the idea of genetically modifying things and then putting them out in the natural world worries a lot of people. Today on the show, the debate over synthetic biology. How far should we go to save species?

You're listening to Shortwave, the science podcast from NPR. All right, Nate, I know we're going to get philosophical in talking about nature. First, though, let's dwell upon synthetic biology. What is that? Okay, so probably the best answer I heard when I asked this question that many people was from Guy Reeves, a scientist who's now working with a German nonprofit. Synthetic biology is like jazz. It's very difficult to define, but people think that they know it when they see it. Cop out answer. What does that even mean? Is synthetic biology is like jazz? It's just like it's kind of this catch-all term, right, for a suite of technologies like genetic modification, genetic engineering, that basically allow scientists to modify or engineer living cells.

Okay. So it's like gene editing. Yeah, basically. So like think of the kinds of work that scientists do to genetically modify foods. Like, you know, making crops more resistant to pesticides or like hardier to endure drought, that kind of stuff. Yeah, I'm thinking about there's genetic work done to refine in particular. produce new medicines. Totally, yeah.

Same exact thing. So the problem the guy has with this kind of like, know it when you see it broad definition is that when supporters, it's jazz. It's jazz. It's just jazz hands. The problem is that it's like so broad that supporters of this technology often talk about synthetic biology as if, you know, genetically engineering insulin in laboratories for people, which is like a proven good use of it, is the same thing as genetically engineering corals

or it's more resistant to warming waters and then making those changes heritable and so they can pass them on from generation to generation and then releasing that into the wild. Yeah, this don't sound the same. They have absolutely no peer-reviewed evidence that they work. They've never been used. So it's like we don't know if it's going to work. And beyond that, we don't know if there might be any unintended consequences. Like, what if the genetic changes hurt the animal in some way or the broader ecosystem they live in?

Like completely on accident, but it's possible. Well, this is what happens when we mess with the genetics of species. Beyond our own, any harmful mutation or unforeseen issue could be passed on to offspring in the wild. Yeah. And I mean, in Guy's view, if that happens, right, he thinks it could be irreversible. Like, how would you capture a bunch of flies that have been released into the wild that are genetically mutated? Yeah. So he really worries that scientists could accidentally misuse these new technologies and accidentally create more problems that they're then trying to fix.

So he kind of sums up the whole debate that we're having in this way. Ultimately, it comes down to do you trust that humans at this point have the capacity to re-engineer nature and probably have to continue to re-engineer it? Or do you not think we're that clever? I don't think we're that clever. I don't trust us to get along at the moment to agree on anything when it comes to science. That's definitely true. We are not in an age of agreements. But you know, like, why I started looking at this big question now is because like one of the largest conservation groups in the world, right? The International Union for the Conservation of Nature just weighed in on this debate that we're having right now at a big meeting this month. Oh, fascinating. What did they say? Okay. So the IUCN's World Conservation Congress only happens every four years and not to get too wonky and bureaucratic. But the IUCN for like anyone who doesn't know what.

what it is, it basically uses the best available science to set conservation standards for the world to use. So Sue Lieberman, the vice president of international policy at the Wildlife Conservation Society, was at this meeting in Abu Dhabi last week. And she says, it's important to know that the IUCN does not have any regulatory authorities, like it can't force governments to do anything. But since its members are both governments and conservation organization, if something passes, then it becomes, it's seen with a lot of respect. And last week they voted on two proposals that directly addressed synthetic biology. One, which called for a moratorium on releasing any genetically modified species into the wild.

And to be clear, it'd be like a temporary ban. So advocates for it, like European biologist, Ricardo Steinbrecker, more or less described it as kind of like pumping the brakes on these new technologies until we better understand them. Because she says, you know, nature, as we all know, is in a super. vulnerable place right now. And there are so many examples where well-intentioned human interventions have gone wrong. Like if you put a rabbit into an area like Australia, we know what happened, that it became a very invasive species and big problems. Nobody expected that. There are so many times that people introduced an animal purposely or accidentally and sometimes well-intentioned, and it upset the existing ecosystem. And Ricardo says when it comes

to synthetic biology, there's a lot of hype around it. Which really sort of makes a proper debate very difficult because it's pushed. Synthetic biology is so often pushed as the solution to problems. And most of the problems cannot be solved with the technology. Nate, there were two proposals you said up for a vote. What was the second one? Yeah. So the other proposal basically says, okay, like if conservationists are going to,

to explore using these technologies, here's how we should do it. But Sue Lieberman says even that was controversial at the recent meeting. Because some people think, no, no, if you have a policy, that means you might use it. But the point is, it is being used. So if it is being used, let's at least have guardrails that say, if you're considering it, you need to look at A, B, and C. You need to look at the benefits, you need to look at the risk. And there are going to be things you don't do. When she says that genetic engineering, synthetic biology, already being used. What does she mean? And that scientists like Anthony Waddle, who we heard from earlier, are like already doing this

research, you know, like scientists are looking right now at how to genetically modify coral to be more resistant to hotter temperatures in the water, how to alter trees like the American chestnut to be more resistant to disease. So from her point of view, the horse is out of the barn. And the fear I heard from people who opposed this moratorium, people like Sue, was that it would make it harder for researchers to fund research in this area. Here's Ryan Feelein, the co-founder and executive director of the nonprofit, revive and restore, which provides funding for synthetic biology conservation efforts. It's hard to find funding for innovation. And it's even hard for researchers to get permission, to do research, and to get support even in their own institutions, if it's at all going to be concerning.

Everybody cares about reputation. Right. And if a big international organization, IUCN, is saying, don't do something. scientists and institutions would be more hesitant. But I don't understand still. What's the harm in pumping the brakes a little? Yeah. So in Ryan's opinion, and I heard this from pretty much everybody who supports the use of synthetic biology, is that when you consider like how fast the climate is changing right now and how poorly we've done to this point globally at stopping issues like deforestation. We just don't have time. I mean, there are 1,500 or some reef building corals worldwide. And we've already lost probably. hundreds of species. We don't even know what they are. They're gone. The idea that we can just stand back and not intervene with nature, it's not going to work anymore. We're going to lose it.

So what did the IUCN ultimately decide with these two proposals? They voted no on the moratorium by like a hair. And yes, on a framework to integrate synthetic biology into conservation with like all of the safeguards that we mentioned. Okay, so it sounds like the IUCN decided scientists can release gene-edited species into the wild. So there's no more debate? Well, they're not going to just like instantly release a bunch of stuff into the wild. Like that's still going to take a lot of time. But in terms of the debate, I think this is still very much up for discussion.

Like, everyone I talked to thinks this will show up again at the next big IUCN meeting. And everyone I talk to thinks that's a good thing. because one of the concerns I heard here is that there's the potential that this could fundamentally change our relationship with nature. Like, if a butterfly is genetically modified, would we still care for it the same way we would for one that's just fluttering around now? Like, would you? I love all living things, so yes. But I don't know. I mean, hard to say until that future comes to pass.

Right. It's a tough question. Anthony Waddled, the frog scientist, we started with here's that argument. but his response is that we've already fundamentally changed nature. Like a chihuahua is the same species as a wolf. That's a bigger sin against nature than doing one little gene change. Like, I think people need to acknowledge that we already impact nature in a profound way. And we have the capacity to use it for good for once.

And maybe we should just consider it. What a fascinating debate. Yeah. Okay. I hope shortwavers who are listening right in with their thoughts on this. Please. I had never considered it before. Nate, thank you so much for bringing this on the show.

Yeah. Thank you so much for letting me talk about something that I am endlessly gaked about. Our email, by the way, is Shortwave at npr.org. This episode was produced by Burley McCoy and edited by our showrunner, Rebecca Ramirez. Tyler Jones checked the facts and Jimmy Keely was the audio engineer. Beth Donovan is our vice president of podcasting. I'm Emily Kwong. Thank you for listening to Shortwerex.

from NPR.