Conservation community split as IUCN prepares vote on releasing gene-edited organisms

Global conservation groups, scientists and beekeepers are sharply divided over whether to ban the deliberate release of genetically engineered organisms into the wild. Dozens of NGOs have urged the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to adopt a moratorium on field use of synthetic-biology tools — arguing the ecological consequences could be unpredictable and irreversible.

The issue will be decided at next week's IUCN World Conservation Congress in Abu Dhabi, where members will vote on competing proposals. One motion (Motion 133) calls for a broad moratorium on genetically engineering wild species, while another (Motion 087) would adopt a policy framework for regulated, case-by-case use of synthetic biology in conservation. Although IUCN resolutions are not legally binding, they strongly influence national policies and international practice.

Supporters of the moratorium warn that applications such as gene drives or other genetic interventions could worsen pressures on vulnerable species — particularly pollinators — and have long-term, hard-to-reverse effects on ecosystems. Organizations like Pollinis and allied groups have publicly highlighted pollinator risks and urged caution.

Opponents say a blanket ban would stifle innovation and eliminate potential tools for tackling urgent problems, including public-health threats. Research institutes working on gene-modified mosquitoes argue such technologies could one day help eliminate malaria — a disease that still kills hundreds of thousands each year — and that banning the research would close off those options.

Faced with this divide, many in the scientific community have proposed a middle path: keep research and careful testing alive but require independent, transparent, case-by-case risk assessments by competent national regulators and international bodies before any environmental release. That compromise — which aims to balance innovation with the precautionary principle — is also under discussion at the Congress.