Nate Rott

It's just jazz hands.

The problem is that it's like so broad that supporters of this technology often talk about synthetic biology as if, you know, genetically engineering insulin in laboratories for people, which is like a proven good use of it.

is the same thing as genetically engineering coral so it's more resistant to warming waters and then making those changes heritable so they can pass them on from generation to generation and then releasing that into the wild.

They've never been used.

So it's like we don't know if it's going to work.

And beyond that, we don't know if there might be any unintended consequences.

Like what if the genetic changes hurt the animal in some way or the broader ecosystem they live in?

Like completely on accident, but it's possible.

Yeah, and I mean, in Guy's view, if that happens, right, he thinks it could be irreversible.

Like, how would you capture a bunch of flies that have been released into the wild that are genetically mutated?

So he really worries that scientists could accidentally misuse these new technologies and accidentally create more problems that they're then trying to fix.

So he kind of sums up the whole debate that we're having in this way.

That's definitely true.

We are not in a we are not in an age of agreements.

But, you know, like why I started looking at this big question now is because like one of the largest conservation groups in the world.

Right.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature just weighed in on this debate that we're having right now at a big meeting this month.

OK, so the IUCN's World Conservation Congress only happens every four years and not to get too wonky and bureaucratic.

But the IUCN, for like anyone who doesn't know what it is, it basically uses the best available science to set conservation standards for the world to use.

So Sue Lieberman, the vice president of international policy at the Wildlife Conservation Society, was at this meeting in Abu Dhabi last week.