Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation
Summary: 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 cou...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2022-11-01
|
| Series: | iScience |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004222016959 |
| _version_ | 1811333836905119744 |
|---|---|
| author | Nicholas B.W. Macfarlane Jonathan Adams Elizabeth L. Bennett Thomas M. Brooks Jason A. Delborne Hilde Eggermont Drew Endy Kevin M. Esvelt Bartlomiej Kolodziejczyk Todd Kuiken Maria Julia Oliva Sonia Peña Moreno Lydia Slobodian Risa B. Smith Delphine Thizy Daniel M. Tompkins Wei Wei Kent H. Redford |
| author_facet | Nicholas B.W. Macfarlane Jonathan Adams Elizabeth L. Bennett Thomas M. Brooks Jason A. Delborne Hilde Eggermont Drew Endy Kevin M. Esvelt Bartlomiej Kolodziejczyk Todd Kuiken Maria Julia Oliva Sonia Peña Moreno Lydia Slobodian Risa B. Smith Delphine Thizy Daniel M. Tompkins Wei Wei Kent H. Redford |
| author_sort | Nicholas B.W. Macfarlane |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Summary: 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T16:58:45Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-8a178f407ab742659024274b817f5c0c |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2589-0042 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T16:58:45Z |
| publishDate | 2022-11-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | iScience |
| spelling | doaj.art-8a178f407ab742659024274b817f5c0c2022-12-22T02:38:44ZengElsevieriScience2589-00422022-11-012511105423Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservationNicholas B.W. Macfarlane0Jonathan Adams1Elizabeth L. Bennett2Thomas M. Brooks3Jason A. Delborne4Hilde Eggermont5Drew Endy6Kevin M. Esvelt7Bartlomiej Kolodziejczyk8Todd Kuiken9Maria Julia Oliva10Sonia Peña Moreno11Lydia Slobodian12Risa B. Smith13Delphine Thizy14Daniel M. Tompkins15Wei Wei16Kent H. Redford17IUCN, 1630 Connecticut Avenue NW. Ste 300., Washington, DC 20009, USA; Corresponding authorPangolin Words, Inc., 10301 Nolan Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, USAWildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, NY 10460, USAIUCN, 28 rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, Switzerland; World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), University of the Philippines Los Baños, Laguna 4031, The Philippines; Institute for Marine & Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7001, AustraliaDepartment of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA; Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USABelgian Biodiversity Platform, WTC III Simon Bolivarlaan 30 Bus 7, 1000 Brussels, Belgium; Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Vautierstraat 29, 1000 Brussels, BelgiumStanford University, 443 Via Ortega, Shriram Center RM 252, Stanford, CA 94305, USAMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Media Lab, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02464, USAUniversity of Gothenburg, 405 30 Gothenburg, SwedenGenetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USAUnion for Ethical BioTrade (UEBT), De Ruijterkade 6b, 1013 AA Amsterdam, the NetherlandsIUCN, 28 rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, SwitzerlandGeorgetown University Law Center, 600 New Jersey Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001, USAIUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, 19915 Porlier Pass, Galiano, BC V0N1P0, CanadaImperial College London, Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London SW7 2BX, UK; Delphine Thizy Consulting Scomm, rue Alphonse Hottat 35, 1050 Ixelles, BelgiumPredator Free 2050 Limited, PO Box 106040, Auckland 1143, New ZealandState Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 20 Nanxincun, Xiangshan, Beijing, ChinaArchipelago Consulting, Portland, ME 04112, USA; Department of Environmental Studies, University of New England, Biddeford, ME 04005, USASummary: 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.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004222016959Global changeEnvironmental managementNature conservationBiotechnologyEnvironmental Biotechnology |
| spellingShingle | Nicholas B.W. Macfarlane Jonathan Adams Elizabeth L. Bennett Thomas M. Brooks Jason A. Delborne Hilde Eggermont Drew Endy Kevin M. Esvelt Bartlomiej Kolodziejczyk Todd Kuiken Maria Julia Oliva Sonia Peña Moreno Lydia Slobodian Risa B. Smith Delphine Thizy Daniel M. Tompkins Wei Wei Kent H. Redford Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation iScience Global change Environmental management Nature conservation Biotechnology Environmental Biotechnology |
| title | Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation |
| title_full | Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation |
| title_fullStr | Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation |
| title_short | Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation |
| title_sort | direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation |
| topic | Global change Environmental management Nature conservation Biotechnology Environmental Biotechnology |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004222016959 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT nicholasbwmacfarlane directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation AT jonathanadams directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation AT elizabethlbennett directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation AT thomasmbrooks directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation AT jasonadelborne directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation AT hildeeggermont directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation AT drewendy directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation AT kevinmesvelt directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation AT bartlomiejkolodziejczyk directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation AT toddkuiken directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation AT mariajuliaoliva directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation AT soniapenamoreno directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation AT lydiaslobodian directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation AT risabsmith directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation AT delphinethizy directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation AT danielmtompkins directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation AT weiwei directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation AT kenthredford directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation |