Cargando…

Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation

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 c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Macfarlane, Nicholas B.W., Adams, Jonathan, Bennett, Elizabeth L., Brooks, Thomas M., Delborne, Jason A., Eggermont, Hilde, Endy, Drew, Esvelt, Kevin M., Kolodziejczyk, Bartlomiej, Kuiken, Todd, Oliva, Maria Julia, Peña Moreno, Sonia, Slobodian, Lydia, Smith, Risa B., Thizy, Delphine, Tompkins, Daniel M., Wei, Wei, Redford, Kent H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9641226/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36388962
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.105423
_version_ 1784826050675474432
author Macfarlane, Nicholas B.W.
Adams, Jonathan
Bennett, Elizabeth L.
Brooks, Thomas M.
Delborne, Jason A.
Eggermont, Hilde
Endy, Drew
Esvelt, Kevin M.
Kolodziejczyk, Bartlomiej
Kuiken, Todd
Oliva, Maria Julia
Peña Moreno, Sonia
Slobodian, Lydia
Smith, Risa B.
Thizy, Delphine
Tompkins, Daniel M.
Wei, Wei
Redford, Kent H.
author_facet Macfarlane, Nicholas B.W.
Adams, Jonathan
Bennett, Elizabeth L.
Brooks, Thomas M.
Delborne, Jason A.
Eggermont, Hilde
Endy, Drew
Esvelt, Kevin M.
Kolodziejczyk, Bartlomiej
Kuiken, Todd
Oliva, Maria Julia
Peña Moreno, Sonia
Slobodian, Lydia
Smith, Risa B.
Thizy, Delphine
Tompkins, Daniel M.
Wei, Wei
Redford, Kent H.
author_sort Macfarlane, Nicholas B.W.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9641226
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96412262022-11-15 Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation Macfarlane, Nicholas B.W. Adams, Jonathan Bennett, Elizabeth L. Brooks, Thomas M. Delborne, Jason A. Eggermont, Hilde Endy, Drew Esvelt, Kevin M. Kolodziejczyk, Bartlomiej Kuiken, Todd Oliva, Maria Julia Peña Moreno, Sonia Slobodian, Lydia Smith, Risa B. Thizy, Delphine Tompkins, Daniel M. Wei, Wei Redford, Kent H. iScience Review 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. Elsevier 2022-10-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9641226/ /pubmed/36388962 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.105423 Text en © 2022 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Macfarlane, Nicholas B.W.
Adams, Jonathan
Bennett, Elizabeth L.
Brooks, Thomas M.
Delborne, Jason A.
Eggermont, Hilde
Endy, Drew
Esvelt, Kevin M.
Kolodziejczyk, Bartlomiej
Kuiken, Todd
Oliva, Maria Julia
Peña Moreno, Sonia
Slobodian, Lydia
Smith, Risa B.
Thizy, Delphine
Tompkins, Daniel M.
Wei, Wei
Redford, Kent H.
Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation
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 Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9641226/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36388962
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.105423
work_keys_str_mv AT macfarlanenicholasbw directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation
AT adamsjonathan directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation
AT bennettelizabethl directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation
AT brooksthomasm directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation
AT delbornejasona directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation
AT eggermonthilde directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation
AT endydrew directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation
AT esveltkevinm directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation
AT kolodziejczykbartlomiej directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation
AT kuikentodd directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation
AT olivamariajulia directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation
AT penamorenosonia directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation
AT slobodianlydia directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation
AT smithrisab directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation
AT thizydelphine directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation
AT tompkinsdanielm directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation
AT weiwei directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation
AT redfordkenth directandindirectimpactsofsyntheticbiologyonbiodiversityconservation