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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |