Nate Rott

Scientists are looking right now at how to genetically modify coral to be more resistant to hotter temperatures in the water.

How to alter trees like the American chestnut to be more resistant to disease.

So from her point of view, the horse is out of the barn.

And the fear I heard from people who opposed this moratorium, people like Sue, was that it would make it harder for researchers to fund research in this area.

Here's Ryan Phelan, the co-founder and executive director of the nonprofit Revive and Restore, which provides funding for synthetic biology conservation efforts.

Yeah.

So in Ryan's opinion, and I heard this from pretty much everybody who supports the use of synthetic biology, is that when you consider like how fast the climate is changing right now and how poorly we've done to this point globally at stopping issues like deforestation.

They voted no on the moratorium by like a hair.

And yes, on a framework to integrate synthetic biology into conservation with like all of the safeguards that we mentioned.

Well, they're not going to just like instantly release a bunch of stuff into the wild.

Like that's still going to take a lot of time.

But in terms of the debate, I think this is still very much up for discussion.

Like everyone I talk to thinks this will show up again at the next big IUCN meeting.

And everyone I talk to thinks that's a good thing.

Because one of the concerns I heard here is that there's the potential that this could fundamentally change our relationship with nature.

Like, if a butterfly is genetically modified, would we still care for it the same way we would for one that's just fluttering around now?

Like, would you?

Right.

It's a tough question.

Anthony Waddle, the frog scientist we started with, hears that argument.