Nature Canada releases report on the genetic engineering of nature
A new report from Nature Canada is tackling a controversial and complex question: whether conservationists should employ genetic engineering, including synthetic biology, in the service of protecting and saving nature.
The report is being released during the 2026 UN Conference on Biodiversity (COP 17) in Yerevan, Armenia, where synthetic biology is very much a topic of discussion.
Mark Butler, Senior Advisor with Nature Canada, has written a report examining the pros and cons of using genetic engineering to eradicate invasive species or engineer plants and animals to be more resilient to rising temperatures.
He said: “The loss of nature is heartbreaking and only accelerating, so the argument from some conservationists, government agencies and more recently, Silicon Valley, that we should use every tool in the toolbox, needs to be fully and thoughtfully considered.”
In preparing the report, Butler talked to natural and social scientists, regulators, ethicists, conservationists, and Indigenous elders. He also attended the World Congress of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in Abu Dhabi in October 2025. The most controversial resolution before the government and NGO members was a resolution calling for a pause on the use of genetic engineering technology. The resolution was defeated by one vote, revealing a deeply divided membership.
While Butler is deeply sympathetic to conservationists who want to use every tool in the toolbox, he is also deeply sceptical that there will be net benefit to nature from the use of genetic engineering.
Why the caution?
Successive waves of technology have been introduced without thought or understanding of the implications for nature. Genetic engineering, the ability to change the heritable traits of a species, paired with the accelerating force of AI, is arguably the most powerful technology yet – and a tool which humans neither fully understand nor control.
In a time where society is increasingly asking whether technology is serving humanity or vice versa, and tech companies are making society-changing decisions without oversight, we need to be careful about this very powerful technology.
Lately, Silicon Valley, in the form of Colossal Biosciences has entered the field of conservation, promising to even bring back long-extinct species such as the Woolly Mammoth. Colossal has just signed a $4 million-dollar partnership with the IUCN, raising questions about the independence of the IUCN on the issue of synthetic biology.
Silicon Valley presents technology as the solution to nature’s problems.
“This solution is both naive and self-serving,” warns Butler. “If we want whales and tigers, birds and bees as part of our children’s future, we need to do the hard political, social and economic work to make room for nature.”
The new report finds that the solutions to conservation problems are “largely not technical; they are political, economic and social”. It concludes by stating: “Nature Canada currently supports a moratorium on the use of genetic engineering in the wild.”
GMWatch’s Claire Robinson commented: “This is an incisive report that isn’t scared to mention the many technical shortcomings of genetic engineering and its failures, which are set alongside the promises that at first glance might attract some well-meaning conservationists. Those failures include the poor performance of the GM supposedly blight-resistant American chestnut and the absurd hype generated by Colossal Biosciences over its ‘de-extinction’ fakery. The report also references important scientific findings about the imprecision and unpredictability of gene editing.
“In addition, the report raises common sense questions that have occurred to many of us, such as why the IUCN’s leadership was ‘willing to put so much effort (including establishing the IUCN’s first ever Citizens’ Assembly) into securing an endorsement of genetic engineering. Why not put the same effort into addressing the root causes of biodiversity loss or challenging the actions of powerful governments or corporations?’ Maybe the $4 million on offer in the IUCN’s deal with Colossal, a biotech company whose carefully orchestrated and highly deceptive publicity stunts have given it a valuation of over $10 billion, goes some way to answering that question.
“Finally, the ethical issues involved in genetically engineering nature are clearly explained and perspectives from Indigenous Peoples are highlighted – including the importance of ‘two-eyed seeing’. Here's a clue: it’s something that has gone missing from many techno-centric discussions about conservation.”
