Nate Rott

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.

And she says it's important to know that the IUCN does not have any regulatory authorities, like it can't force governments to do anything.

And last week they voted on two proposals that directly addressed synthetic biology.

One which called for a moratorium on releasing any genetically modified species into the wild.

And to be clear, it'd be like a temporary ban.

So advocates for it, like European biologist Ricarda Steinbrecher, more or less described it as kind of like pumping the brakes on these new technologies until we better understand them.