Gene Editing Emerges as New Method in Conservation Science

As Earth faces the dangers of anthropogenic climate change, researchers look to new strategies in conservation to protect our planet’s biodiversity.

Earth is in danger of a “sixth mass extinction” according to the WWF.  Habitat destruction, climate change, pollution, overfishing and hunting, and the introduction of invasive species threaten our planet’s rich biodiversity, and we are desperately in need of effective solutions to defend it.

While our wildlife can be protected through traditional conservation methods — habitat protection, captive breeding programs, artificial habitats, poaching protections, and more — there is a certain kind of damage that these methods are incapable of repairing: the loss of genetic diversity. 

Genetic diversity is crucial for a species’ survival — not only does it prevent inbreeding, but it is also necessary for a population that is resistant to disease and environmental changes. This ability is of utmost importance in today’s world, where wildlife faces threats such as invasive species (and the introduction of new diseases) as well as anthropogenic climate change. What’s worse, once it has been lost, it cannot be recovered without scientific intervention.

When a species experiences loss of genetic diversity, it remains trapped with a lower variance of genes and sees a large amount of harmful mutations in a phenomenon called genetic erosion.

The solution? According to a perspective by Cock van Oosterhout et al. published in the journal Nature in August 2025, we should look to gene editing to solve this pressing issue. 

It’s an emerging tool in conservation science that is already widely used in agriculture to great success. For agriculture, this means creating crops more resistant to pests and droughts. For conservation, this could mean reintroducing lost genetic variants (or introducing new ones) that would be beneficial to wildlife populations and stopping genetic bottlenecks. 

“Advances in genome engineering offer a transformative solution by enabling the targeted restoration of genetic diversity,” writes Oosterhout et al. The researchers argue that conservation methods are of utmost importance to continue enacting, but this new potential strategy for conservation science has the potential to fix this serious issue that they simply cannot.

Cock van Oosterhout, the lead researcher of the study published in the Journal Nature in August 2025. (Photo: EurekAlert!)

Furthermore, in their paper, the international team of researchers contends that some species' survival may even depend on the successful implementation of gene editing technology in conservation.

However, not all species are eligible for this new strategy of conservation. 

According to the researchers, the species in question would need to meet several criteria. They would need to: be at risk of extinction due at least in part to genetic erosion; have genes that contain harmful variants present in the entire population or lack critical variants, especially regarding disease resistance; require intervention outside of traditional conservation methods; have cryopreserved or museum specimens of their own species or related ones available with positive gene variants.

Cock van Oosterhout et al.’s perspective included a flow chart proposing a decision-making process regarding whether or not to implement gene editing as a conservation strategy for a particular species. (Diagram: Nature)

One example that fits these criteria cited was the pink pigeon (Nesoenas mayeri). Over the years, the species has struggled greatly due to habitat destruction and the introduction of invasive species. However, between 1976 and 1981, 12 individuals were taken from the wild and used to establish a captive breeding population in U.S. and U.K. zoos. By 1990, the wild population fell to only ten individuals, but it was able to make an astonishing recovery to approximately 400 by 2000 thanks to traditional conservation methods. 

Yet, their troubles are not over: due to an abundance of unfavorable genes and continued inbreeding, the pink pigeon is expected to become extinct within the next 100 years or so without further genetic rescue. The researchers propose that gene editing could be what’s needed to save this bird from extinction and allow it to recover lost genetic diversity, giving it a strong population able to stand the test of time and even anthropogenic climate change.

Despite its population recovering number-wise, the pink pigeon (Nesoenas mayeri) remains at high risk of extinction due to genetic erosion. (Photo: Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust)

The researchers also considered the possible risks of this strategy — such a change in conservation practices has the potential to introduce sweeping changes in not only our practices, but basic concepts surrounding conservation.

One potential issue raised regarding the implementation of this strategy is the possibility of funding and focus being driven away from traditional conservation methods and work. Critically, gene editing cannot stand on its own as a conservation strategy — it must be paired with traditional methods in order to actually benefit a population. There is no point in restoring genetic diversity if that population will go on to be poached, have its habitat lost or fragmented, or fall victim to pollution.

However, the study’s authors find it unlikely that additional research into gene editing in conservation would actually divert funds from traditional methods in practice. They write that “funding for genome engineering and species restoration often originates from distinct sources specifically targeting technological innovation”. These sources, being private donors, biotechnology firms, or grants focused on scientific advancements, are focused on technological advancements in particular and therefore wouldn’t be funding research and policy utilized for traditional methods in the first place.

The authors also highlight the importance of including diverse voices, particularly those of indigenous and local community members, should this practice be implemented. They point out that “[g]enome engineering technologies can challenge Indigenous perspectives on humans’ spiritual responsibilities and kinship relationships with other species.” Including these perspectives from the very beginning is of extreme importance when considering how to ethically realize this new conservation tool.

Possibly most importantly, however, is ensuring that our implementation of gene editing is well-regulated and evidence-based to ensure its safety, especially for the ecosystem as a whole. Ecosystems are delicate and intricate, and it is important to consider how our actions intended to impact one particular species may affect the ecosystem as a whole.

Gene editing is a promising conservation tool, one that provides new possibilities for saving species from extinction that have largely been unreachable with traditional conservation methods. Yet, they must be implemented alongside one another — gene editing is meant to complement — not replace — the traditional methods that have gotten us to where we are and are still more necessary than ever in the face of anthropogenic climate change and other human-caused dangers to our planet.