Using genes to rescue animal and plants from extinction

Sep 25, 2013 by Blaine Friedlander

(Phys.org) —With estimates of losing 15 to 40 percent of the world's species over the next four decades – due to climate change and habitat loss, researchers ponder in the Sept. 26 issue of Nature whether science should employ genetic engineering to the rescue.

The technique would involve "rescuing a target population or species with adaptive alleles, or gene variants, using genetic engineering," write Josh Donlan, Cornell visiting fellow in ecology and , and his colleagues. The method is "an increasingly viable … option, which we call 'facilitated adaptation,' [but it] has been little discussed," they add.

To avert mass extinctions, the group thinks that three options, each with its own set of challenges, complications and risks, exist. They are:

  • Animals or plants could be crossed with individuals of the same species from better-adapted populations to introduce adapted into threatened animal or .
  • Direct transfers from populations with adapted genomes could be introduced into the threatened populations of the same species.
  • Genes from a well-adapted species could be incorporated into the genomes of endangered species.

The Nature commentary draws from a recent National Science Foundation-funded workshop, "Ecological and Genomic Exploration of Environmental Change," in March, where scientists met to understand issues surrounding climate change adaptation. In those spirited discussions, a hot question emerged: Is managed relocation of animal and plant species really the only approach to averting extinction? Instead of moving plant and , could genes be moved into populations? "Thus, the term 'facilitated adaptation' was born," said Donlan.

Averting climate change altogether would be a preferable – albeit unlikely – outcome. The scientists fear that implementing genetic solutions could potentially deter other climate change action.

"A serious concern is that even the possibility of using genetic-engineering tools to rescue biodiversity will encourage inaction with regard to climate change. Before genetic engineering can be seriously entertained as a tool for preserving biodiversity, conservationists need to agree on the types of scenario for which facilitated adaptation, managed relocation and other adaptation strategies might be appropriate, and where such strategies are likely to fail or introduce more serious problems," they write.

Joining Donlan on the Nature commentary, "Gene Tweaking for Conservation," are Michael A. Thomas, Idaho State University, first and corresponding author; Gary W. Roemer, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, N.M.; Brett G. Dickson, Conservation Science Partners, Truckee, Calif.; and Marjorie Matocq and Jason Malaney, University of Nevada, Reno. Donlan is also executive director of the Advanced Conservation Strategies, Midway, Utah.

Explore further: Japan's new whaling plan will prove hunt is science: negotiator

More information: Nature paper: dx.doi.org/10.1038/501485a

Related Stories

Climate change threatens hotspots of genetic diversity

Aug 01, 2013

(Phys.org) —Past climates shaped the current hotspots of genetic diversity for the grey long-eared bat, one of the UK's rarest mammals, but future climate change threatens these biodiversity hotspots, according ...

Iberian lynx threatened by climate change

Jul 21, 2013

Climate change could drive the Iberian lynx ‒ the world's most threatened cat – to extinction within 50 years, despite substantial ongoing conservation efforts, a new international study has found.

Recommended for you

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Sinister1811
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2013
Even more have become extinct over the past couple of decades. If only they could go back in time and rescue even more. But then they will cop criticism from naysayers for "playing God".
jsdarkdestruction
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2013
Even more have become extinct over the past couple of decades. If only they could go back in time and rescue even more. But then they will cop criticism from naysayers for "playing God".

pollution and habitat destruction are bigger concerns at the moment imo for most of the recent extinctions. we need suitable habitat before we can bring back species destroyed by such. stopping poachers is another, bringing back a species destroyed for their ivory or other medicinal/folklore purposes and reintroducing them Into the wild would be pointless as the poachers would just drive them extinct again.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.