Turning IUCN's Synthetic Biology Policy Into Action

At the 2025 IUCN World Conservation Congress, Members adopted Motion 087, establishing a policy framework to guide the use of synthetic biology in relation to conservation (IUCN 2025). The policy requires case-by-case, science-based decision-making with rigorous risk and benefit assessment, Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), and transparent governance. It explicitly notes that if these provisions are not met, releases into natural ecosystems should not proceed. This language addresses concerns raised in Motion 133, which had proposed a blanket moratorium on genetically engineering wild species. The ongoing debate on the pros and cons of synthetic biology techniques for conservation was recently summarized by Lenharo (2025). Moreover, an open letter signed by more than 250 scientists urged rejection of a blanket moratorium (https://scienceforbiodiversity.org/). Motion 087 absorbs the legitimate caution in these arguments into a case-by-case, risk-informed process rather than a categorical prohibition. A moratorium would have removed potentially vital tools at a moment of accelerating evolutionary, ecological, and environmental risks in our rapidly changing world. By embedding strong precaution within an enabling framework, Motion 087 adopts a prudent path to the application of biotechnology in conservation science (IUCN 2025). The resulting IUCN Resolution following from Motion 087 will also have implications for synthetic biology developments more generally, such as in agricultural, industrial, or pest management innovations, which may indirectly affect ecosystems and biodiversity. The debate leading to this outcome was intensely divided, and the proposed moratorium (Motion 133) was rejected by only a single vote, reflecting deep social, cultural, and value-based concerns. These concerns are centered on trust, legitimacy, Indigenous rights, and the acceptability of using biotechnology in nature, and they must remain at the forefront as the conservation community moves from policy to practice. This is essential to ensure decisions are not only scientifically robust but also socially legitimate. “Synthetic biology” refers to a continuum of tools from conventional transgenesis and genome editing to engineered gene drives. Genome editing can be used for targeted genetic rescue within a species, often without introducing foreign DNA, while gene drives are designed to bias inheritance. These modalities have different ecological footprints, reversibility, and governance needs, so policy should not treat them as a single risk class but evaluate interventions on a case-by-case basis. Human-driven environmental change is exceptionally fast relative to recent geological history. Populations are forced to either move or adapt, or alternatively they face possible extinction. Genomic erosion, including loss of adaptive variation and increase in genetic load, poses a threat to many declining populations and sometimes also to demographically recovered populations that have survived a recent bottleneck. At the same time, habitat fragmentation reduces the movement of individuals between populations. In some of those cases, genetic rescue and restoration of diversity through gene editing may be the only practical solution to ensure long-term viability (van Oosterhout et al. 2025). Scientific and technological advances have repeatedly redefined boundaries in conservation. Breakthroughs in genomics, assisted reproductive technology (ART), and environmental monitoring have expanded the set of tools available to safeguard biodiversity and to respond to rapid environmental change. These innovations open opportunities that were inconceivable only decades ago, ranging from high-resolution genomic risk assessment to environmental DNA surveillance, and from targeted genetic rescue to species recovery actions guided by genomics-informed conservation (Speak et al. 2024). The lesson is not that technology alone can save us, but that innovation and institutional change together have repeatedly altered gloomy trajectories. Effective global conservation is not constrained by scientific ingenuity; it is hampered by short-term political agendas shaped by electoral cycles, by the unrealistic pursuit of perpetual economic growth, and by a pervasive sense of entitlement rooted in human exceptionalism. Our collective shortsightedness prevents the difficult decisions required for long-term solutions that serve our shared future. Science and technology only serve to buy us a little more time to reach the inevitable conclusion that only a fundamental and collective change in human behavior can safeguard our planet. My concern is that in today's geopolitical climate, scientific and technological advances risk being used to justify the continued exploitation of nature, more so than driving the urgent transformation of how we live on this planet. Minimum operating criteria for case-by-case evaluation should be explicit and include: (1) Problem definition with quantitative risk and benefit hypotheses, including power analysis for detecting effects, supported where possible by predictive eco-evolutionary computer simulations (e.g., ‘digital twins’); (2) Hazard identification across organism, population, community, and ecosystem levels, including off-target and horizontal gene transfer and genetic introgression risks where relevant; (3) Exposure assessment and confinement plan, covering molecular confinement where possible, ecological and geographic containment, and predefined stop rules; (4) Reversibility plan, including genetic countermeasures where feasible, and thresholds for rollback; (5) Postrelease monitoring with public preregistration of indicators and statistical triggers; (6) FPIC documented with community-defined benefit sharing and the right to withdraw consent before release; and (7) Independent review and public reporting at each stage. Synthetic biology interventions also sit within broader structural inequities. Communities asked to provide FPIC may face profound asymmetries in resources, knowledge, and worldviews, which can leave them vulnerable to inequitable access to genomic data and limited long-term benefit sharing. Corporate control of biotechnological tools, including proprietary gene-editing platforms and patented gene-drive constructs, can further entrench these imbalances. Moreover, case-by-case assessments should not overlook cumulative or regional ecosystem effects, underscoring the value of coordinated registries and monitoring systems. Finally, IUCN Resolutions guide global best practice but lack legal enforceability, highlighting the need for stronger mechanisms to ensure accountability and equity in future applications. In a period of rapid environmental change, habitat fragmentation, and widespread genomic erosion, shutting down entire classes of tools would have been a strategic error. The conservation community should embrace disciplined boldness in science and biotechnology grounded in broad participation, transparent evaluation, and willingness to act when evidence supports it. This is not techno-optimism. It is realism about the scale and pace of the crisis. And it is about progress that can be accomplished when science, technology, policy, and governance work together. I thank Hernán E. Morales, Bárbara R. Parreira, Jim J. Groombridge, and Stephen Turner for valuable discussions on the role of synthetic biology in species conservation and restoration, and for their helpful feedback on this Viewpoint. The author has received charitable funding from the Colossal Science Foundation Inc. (“Colossal Foundation”) to support research on the conservation and restoration of the pink pigeon. This funding did not influence the preparation or content of this Viewpoint.