TWN Info Service on Biosafety
23 September 2025
Third World Network
www.twn.my
Dear Friends and Colleagues
Genetically Modifying Nature is Not Conservation
A new briefing summarises concerns about the genetic modification of nature, which involves genetic engineering (including genome editing) to create GMOs for release into the wild. It involves the open release of GMOs into the natural environment, including GM wild organisms from a wide range of species. It also involves attempting to genetically modify whole ecosystems, including in nature reserves, and encompasses a wide range of habitats, ranging from grasslands to coral reefs.
Due to the complexity of biological diversity – from the molecular to the ecosystem level – the effects of genetically engineering wild organisms and releasing them into the environment can never be properly assessed. Adequate monitoring and recall will also be impossible. Current environmental risk assessments (mainly designed for GM crops in cultivated environments) are inadequate, while countries are under pressure to allow open releases into the wild of some newer GMOs, produced using gene editing, without any risk assessment.
Genetically modifying nature is being promoted for financial reasons, and is underpinned by hubris and misleading claims. There are significant power imbalances which undermine claims from some developers to be seeking fully informed consent to the release of such GMOs. Non-native species were often introduced as a result of colonial practices in conservation in the past, resulting in multiple problems with alien invasive species. Genetically modifying nature risks repeating aspects of this history.
The briefing concludes that genetically modifying nature is not conservation and risks undermining the very concept of conservation in itself. It states that strict regulation of genetically modifying nature must mean no releases, because the consequences of releasing GM organisms into natural ecosystems are unpredictable and irreversible.
With best wishes,
Third World Network
———————————————————————————————————–
Chimera: The Genetic Modification of Nature
A briefing for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Congress in October 2025
Gene Watch UK, September 2025
https://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/chimera-briefing-fin.pdf
Summary
Chimera:
“a fire-breathing she-monster in Greek mythology having a lion’s head, a goat’s body, and a serpent’s tail…
an imaginary monster compounded of incongruous parts…
an illusion or fabrication of the mind, especially:
an unrealizable dream…”
This briefing summarises concerns about the genetic modification of nature, which involves the use of genetic engineering (including gene editing) to create genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for release into the wild. It is written to draw the attention of members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to serious problems associated with plans to develop the use of so-called synthetic biology in nature conservation.
Genetically modifying nature involves the open release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment, including GM wild organisms from a wide range of species. GM mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, insects, birds, plants, trees and micro-organisms are all part of the concept of genetically modifying nature. Ultimately, genetically modifying nature involves attempting to genetically modify whole ecosystems, including nature reserves, and encompasses a wide range of habitats, ranging from grasslands to coral reefs. All ecosystems, including forests, prairies, deserts, freshwater and marine ecosystems and national parks could be under threat.
The aim of genetically modifying nature is to release GM organisms that perform some of the ecological functions of existing (or extinct) species, but are actually new organisms, with major differences in genetics, epigenetics and learned behaviours. However, changing the definition of conservation in this way has major repercussions and could lead to the end of conservation as it exists today.
All claimed benefits of genetically modifying nature have major potential downsides. For example:
- if GM disease-resistant organisms are developed and released, pathogens can overcome genetically engineered disease resistance, potentially evolving to become more harmful or even creating a ‘spillover’ event into humans or other species;
- alternatively, disease-tolerant GM organisms (which become infected without showing symptoms) can act as silent reservoirs of disease, threatening at-risk wild organisms;
- attempts to genetically engineer at-risk populations to become more resilient can introduce new harmful mutations and, if produced at scale, would be likely to increase inbreeding and monocultures, and hence reduce resilience, due to the limited availability of genetic material for cloning and genetic engineering;
- claims to be able to resurrect extinct species are false: so-called ‘de-extinction’ actually aims to release new hybrid GM species into the environment;
- new GM wild species can harm other species through interactions with non-GM wild species, including competitors, predators and prey, and their open release risks spreading new diseases;
- open releases of GM pests and invasive species may not suppress wild populations, and could even increase them, introduce new traits, or create fluctuating populations with potential adverse consequences for predators or prey.
Plans to genetically modify nature are being driven by commercial interests, in a context where genetic engineering applications in agriculture have stalled, due to the evolution of resistant weeds and pests. Most GM crops on sale today are herbicide-tolerant GM crops, which are genetically engineered to be blanket sprayed with weedkillers, which harms wildlife both directly (through spraying and run-off) and indirectly (though loss of habitat). No GM farm animals are currently produced at scale. Extensive technical difficulties limit what new GM techniques such as gene editing can actually achieve in both plants and animals. Numerous errors occur when such techniques are used, including errors in where the DNA is cut (so-called ‘off-target effects’) and in how the cell repairs itself (‘on-target’ effects), leading to unintended changes in the genome. Even if the desired genetic change is actually achieved, it can have unintended consequences.
Genetically modifying nature involves the use of cloning and other harmful animal experiments. In sentient species, cloning is widely regarding as unethical and is opposed by animal welfare groups, due to the invasive procedures required and the high failure rate, including failed pregnancies, stillbirths and the birth of deformed animals. For applications of genetically modifying nature involving extinct or at-risk animals (such as ‘de-extinction’ or ‘genetic rescue’), cross-cloning is used, which involves using another species as both egg donors and surrogates. For example, dogs were reportedly used in controversial animal experiments by the company Colossal Biosciences, to create GM dogs, which the company falsely claimed were dire wolves.
Genetically modifying nature could involve multiple species, at large scale, and includes highly mobile animals (e.g. insects and fish), long-lived pollinating species such as trees, and even micro-organisms (such as bacteria, viruses and fungi). These could be released into a wide range of habitats, at small or large scales, could spread worldwide, and have cumulative and/or long-term effects, via complex ecosystem and evolutionary processes. It would not be possible to trace or recall open releases of GMOs into wild ecosystems. Since nature conservation applications are, by definition, targeted at endangered, rare or at-risk species (or invasive species that threaten them), open releases into protected areas would be likely to take place. Even if this is not the case, it would be impossible to stop the spread of GM wild organisms into such areas.
Genetically modifying wild ecosystems poses fundamental risks and raises significant uncertainties. Due to the complexity of biological diversity – from the molecular to the ecosystem level – the effects of genetically engineering wild organisms and releasing them into the environment can never be properly assessed. Adequate monitoring and recall will also be impossible. GMOs should therefore never be released into the natural world. Current environmental risk assessments (mainly for GM crops) are in any case inadequate, and many countries are under pressure to allow open releases of some newer GMOs, produced using gene editing techniques, without any risk assessment whatsoever.
Genetically modifying nature relies heavily on biotech and technology companies, including partnerships and funding from them. Many potential applications are highly controversial and risk undermining public trust and support for nature conservation. There are significant power imbalances which undermine claims from some developers to be seeking fully informed consent to the release of GMOs. Non-native species were often introduced as a result of colonial practices in conservation in the past, resulting in multiple problems with alien invasive species. Genetically modifying nature risks repeating aspects of this history. Genetically modifying nature is being promoted for financial reasons, and is underpinned by hubris and misleading claims. Published claims of benefits are barely credible and most proposed applications will never be delivered. Nevertheless, the release of experimental GM organisms could take place in a wide range of habitats, for a wide range of species, including in protected habitats. Irreversible environmental impacts could occur over wide areas and long timescales.
Unlike wild plants and animals, or non-GM plant varieties, GMOs are patented and so are some genetic engineering tools. Media hype encourages investment in the companies involved, but can undermine, and divert resources from, alternative approaches. Misleading claims of benefits can be used to seek to silence opposition to the risks associated with releasing GMOs into the environment and the role of harmful animal experiments. Co-opting conservationists could also undermine objections to the unnecessary and wasteful use of energy and water by large-scale AI (which is beginning to be used to mine genetic databases, looking for genetic sequences that can be edited and changed). Funding genetic modification of nature will lead to significant opportunity costs and misplaced priorities as real conservation projects are increasingly sidelined or ignored, or directly threatened by the release of GMOs.
Proponents of genetically modifying nature seek to turn the idea of protecting nature into the idea of re-designing nature. Changing the meaning of conservation could not only divert resources, and directly threaten conservation projects due to the release of GMOs, but also lead directly to the erosion of legal protections for the environment, protected habitats and endangered species. There could also be major repercussions for public support for conservation programmes and trust in conservation groups.
The briefing concludes that genetically modifying nature is not conservation and risks undermining the very concept of conservation in itself.