Nate Rott

It became clear to him what they really need, he says, is like some kind of permanent solution that makes the species more resilient into the future.

And he thinks one of those solutions could be something called synthetic biology, which in this case basically means genetic modification.

Anthony wants to use genetic tools, new technologies to essentially splice that chytrid resistant DNA into frogs that do not have it.

Yes, that's kind of like the pie in the sky aim.

But here's where I think this whole thing gets super interesting.

Because, as you might imagine, Emily, the idea of genetically modifying things and then putting them out in the natural world worries a lot of people.

Okay, so probably the best answer I heard when I asked this question to many people was from Guy Reeves, a scientist who's now working with a German nonprofit.

It's just like it's kind of this catch-all term, right, for a suite of technologies like genetic modification, genetic engineering that basically allow scientists to modify or engineer living cells.

Yeah, basically.

So like think of the kinds of work that scientists do to genetically modify foods, like, you know, making crops more resistant to pesticides or like hardier to endure drought, that kind of stuff.

Totally.

Yeah.

Same exact thing.

So the problem the guy has with this kind of like know it when you see it broad definition is that it's just supporters.

It's jazz.

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.