What are the ethics of gene editing in wildlife conservation?
Pro Research Analysisby 
Searched over 200M research papers
The Ethics of Gene Editing in Wildlife Conservation
Introduction to Gene Editing in Wildlife Conservation
Gene editing technologies, particularly CRISPR, have opened new avenues for wildlife conservation. These technologies offer the potential to repair damaged ecosystems, save endangered species, and address climate change. However, the ethical implications of such interventions are complex and multifaceted, raising significant moral, social, and ecological concerns2 4.
Public Perception and Moral Acceptability
Public opinion plays a crucial role in the ethical evaluation of gene editing in wildlife. A survey of U.S. adults revealed that the majority perceive more risks than benefits in using gene editing tools for wildlife conservation. Over 70% of respondents expressed concerns that gene editing could be easily misused. Applications aimed at improving the survival of endangered species were deemed more morally acceptable than those intended to decrease or eliminate populations1. This highlights the need for ongoing public consultation to ensure responsible governance and ethical decision-making1 3.
Regulatory and Governance Challenges
The current regulatory framework for biotechnology, particularly in the United States, is outdated and insufficient to address the complexities of CRISPR and gene drives in wildlife. Existing statutes do not adequately cover the novel applications of these technologies, leading to a regulatory gap. Joining international frameworks like the Convention on Biological Diversity could provide a more comprehensive and forward-looking approach to regulating gene editing in wildlife2.
Ethical Considerations Beyond Risk Assessment
The ethical issues surrounding gene editing in wildlife extend beyond traditional risk assessment and management. These technologies have the potential to fundamentally alter conservation practices and the values associated with them. Ethical analysis should therefore include considerations of power dynamics, the meaning of conservation activities, and the relationships between humans and nature. This broader perspective can help illuminate why gene drives and other genetic interventions are so ethically and philosophically significant5.
Inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge
Indigenous communities are key stakeholders in decisions about gene editing in the wild. Engagement activities should not only include Indigenous peoples but also be designed to empower their knowledge and confront historical power imbalances. This inclusive approach can ensure that diverse perspectives are considered in the ethical deliberation of gene editing technologies6.
One Health Ethics and Public Engagement
The concept of One Health ethics, which integrates human, animal, and environmental health, offers a valuable framework for navigating the ethical complexities of gene editing in wildlife. This approach can help balance local and global interests, as well as present and future considerations, ensuring that public health and public interest are adequately addressed8.
Conclusion
The ethics of gene editing in wildlife conservation are intricate and require careful consideration of public opinion, regulatory frameworks, and broader ethical perspectives. Ongoing public engagement, inclusive of Indigenous knowledge, and the adoption of comprehensive ethical frameworks like One Health are essential for responsible and ethical implementation of these powerful technologies.
Sources and full results
Most relevant research papers on this topic
Public views about editing genes in wildlife for conservation
U.S. public has high concerns and skepticism about gene editing in wildlife for conservation, with applications to improve survival for endangered species more morally acceptable than those to decrease abundance or eliminate populations.
Observational StudyCRISPR's Creatures: Protecting Wildlife in the Age of Genomic Editing
The Convention on Biological Diversity provides the best framework for regulating gene editing to protect wildlife and address ethical concerns, while addressing the ethical and social concerns of using CRISPR toolkit for conservation and public health.
Public Deliberation about Gene Editing in the Wild.
Public deliberations about gene editing in the wild should include participation, structure, reporting, and policy linkage to ensure informed decision-making and accountability.
The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature
Academic debate on genome editing in non-human animals needs more diversity, systematic comparisons, and public involvement to better understand the ethical implications and public acceptability of these technologies.
Systematic ReviewThe ethics of genetic engineering and gene drives in conservation
Using genetic engineering and gene drives in conservation raises ethical concerns beyond risk assessment and public engagement, as it could significantly alter conservation practices, concepts, and value commitments.
Empowering Indigenous Knowledge in Deliberations on Gene Editing in the Wild.
Indigenous peoples are key stakeholders in gene-editing in the wild decisions, and engagement activities should include them and empower their diverse knowledges to address power imbalances and shift dominant power dynamics.
Using animal history to inform current debates in gene editing farm animals: A systematic review
Integrating historical approaches from animal history can guide discussions on the acceptability of gene editing in farm animals, highlighting the influence of political, scientific, economic, social, and cultural factors.
Systematic ReviewGene drive gone wild: exploring deliberative possibilities by developing One Health ethics
One Health ethics can strengthen ethical engagement in policy decisions guiding gene drive trials, addressing the tension between publics and public interest.
Ethical and legal implications of gene editing in plant breeding: a systematic literature review.
Gene editing in plant breeding raises ethical and legal concerns, highlighting the need for research priority areas and policy gaps to guide future governance.
Systematic ReviewGene editing of livestock
Sociotechnical imaginaries shape livestock gene editing technology and influence its development and transformation, with three main imaginaries shaping discussions and shaping industry, researcher, government, and citizen relations.
Try another search
What is the economics of renewable energy adoption?
research methodology
social identity
What is the impact of digital twins and simulation technologies on engineering and design?
What is the cultural significance of memes?
What is the impact of wearable fitness technology on physical activity and health outcomes?