Nav: Home

New study on gene editing in wildlife finds people are wary

June 26, 2019

The applications of CRISPR based genetic engineering tools range from changing colors in butterfly wings to developing gene therapies that might one day cure or prevent human diseases.

Some scientists are also setting their sights on new uses - saving endangered species and possibly eliminating invasive ones to manage wildlife populations for conservation.

However, a University of Central Florida researcher and her colleagues have found that people living in the U.S. are wary of using this technology to achieve wildlife conservation goals.

And this insight is important, as new technology and procedures launched without public input can face backlash later.

The findings were published this month in the journal Conservation Biology and made available ahead of publication in March 2019.

The research represents the first large-scale, systematic survey of U.S. public opinion toward using gene editing for conservation efforts.

"I think scientists learned a lot from what has occurred with genetic modification of crops," says Patrice Kohl, an assistant professor in UCF's Nicholson School of Communication and Media and lead author of the study.

"In the 1990s, biotechnology companies rolled out genetically modified crops without any public input, and there was fierce public pushback in response to that. So, I think there is a lot of interest among scientists in avoiding that happening again."

CRISPR, or clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, is a fast and inexpensive method of genetic engineering that can be used almost like "scissors" to edit DNA without introducing foreign genetic material.

It has also enabled scientists to develop gene drives, a technique that would allow a genetic edit to spread rapidly throughout a wildlife population.

Compared with other emerging fields of research, such as nanotechnology and using gene editing in humans, there has been little public opinion research on gene editing in wildlife, Kohl says.

And understanding public opinion on this emerging technology is not only important for scientists seeking public buy-in so their efforts aren't wasted or their technologies put on a shelf, but it also can inform government officials when deciding how to regulate them.

"It's everybody's planet, and there are huge implications for using this technology," Kohl says. "I think scientists are interested in making sure their technologies or practices are rolled out in ways that are socially acceptable."

Proposals to use gene editing as a wildlife conservation tool include applications that could help endangered species as well as applications that could reduce or eliminate invasive ones.

For example, conservation scientists have proposed using CRISPR to improve disease immunity in populations of the endangered black-footed ferret.

There has also been interest in employing CRISPR-based tools to reduce or eliminate small invasive mammals on islands, such as the Galapagos or New Zealand, where they have devastated native bird species.

"But what if you introduce a gene-edited rat to reduce their populations on an island and then that rat escapes the island and you drive that rat species extinct?" Kohl says. "That has consequences for everyone across the entire planet."

Although the public opinion study didn't specify any particular species that could be saved or eliminated, its findings do offer an overview of people's attitudes toward the risk and benefit of using gene editing for wildlife conservation in general, as well as the factors that could affect those attitudes.

The study analyzed data from a nationally representative survey of 1,600 U.S. adults from December 2016 to January 2017.

It found that, overall, respondents significantly perceived the risks of gene editing wildlife as outweighing the benefits.

More than 80 percent of survey respondents thought it would be at least somewhat risky to nature and humans to use gene editing as a tool to manage wildlife, while 55 to 63 percent thought that it would be at least somewhat beneficial for nature and humans.

However, among individuals who strongly believe in the authority of scientific knowledge, gene editing in wildlife was perceived as more beneficial and less risky.

Respondents also viewed using gene editing tools to help species survive as more morally acceptable than using them to reduce or eliminate species.

And even though respondents were skeptical of the technology, Kohl says that doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't support it.

"Just because you think something is risky doesn't necessarily mean you don't think something should be done," she says. "A lot of medical treatments are risky but sometimes you have to do something that's a little risky to take care of a problem. With cancer, for example, chemotherapy is risky, but that doesn't mean people think it should necessarily be off the table."
-end-
Co-authors of the study were Dominique Brossard, professor and chair of the Department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; Dietram Scheufele, a chaired professor in the Department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; and Michael Xenos, a professor in the Department of Communication Arts at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The study was funded by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.

Kohl received her doctorate in life sciences communication and her master's and bachelor's in journalism and mass communication from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She joined UCF in 2018.

University of Central Florida

Related Conservation Articles:

Conservation research on lynx
Scientists at the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (Leibniz-IZW) and the Leibniz Institute for Molecular Pharmacology (Leibniz-FMP) discovered that selected anti-oxidative enzymes, especially the enzyme superoxide dismutase (SOD2), may play an important role to maintain the unusual longevity of the corpus luteum in lynxes.
New 'umbrella' species would massively improve conservation
The protection of Australia's threatened species could be improved by a factor of seven, if more efficient 'umbrella' species were prioritised for protection, according to University of Queensland research.
Conservation's hidden costs take bite out of benefits
Scientists show that even popular conservation programs can harbor hidden costs, often for vulnerable populations.
Trashed farmland could be a conservation treasure
Low-productivity agricultural land could be transformed into millions of hectares of conservation reserve across the world, according to University of Queensland-led research.
Bats in attics might be necessary for conservation
Researchers investigate and describe the conservation importance of buildings relative to natural, alternative roosts for little brown bats in Yellowstone National Park.
Applying biodiversity conservation research in practice
One million species are threatened with extinction, many of them already in the coming decades.
Making conservation 'contagious'
New research reveals conservation initiatives often spread like disease, a fact which can help scientists and policymakers design programs more likely to be taken up.
Helping conservation initiatives turn contagious
New research shows that conservation initiatives go viral, which helps scientists and policymakers better design successful programs more likely to be adopted.
Overturning the truth on conservation tillage
Conservation tillage does not lower yield in modern cropping systems.
Talking to each other -- how forest conservation can succeed
Forest conservation can be a source of tension between competing priorities and interests from forestry, science, administration and nature conservation organizations.
More Conservation News and Conservation Current Events

Trending Science News

Current Coronavirus (COVID-19) News

Top Science Podcasts

We have hand picked the top science podcasts of 2020.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Clint Smith
The killing of George Floyd by a police officer has sparked massive protests nationwide. This hour, writer and scholar Clint Smith reflects on this moment, through conversation, letters, and poetry.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#562 Superbug to Bedside
By now we're all good and scared about antibiotic resistance, one of the many things coming to get us all. But there's good news, sort of. News antibiotics are coming out! How do they get tested? What does that kind of a trial look like and how does it happen? Host Bethany Brookeshire talks with Matt McCarthy, author of "Superbugs: The Race to Stop an Epidemic", about the ins and outs of testing a new antibiotic in the hospital.
Now Playing: Radiolab

Dispatch 6: Strange Times
Covid has disrupted the most basic routines of our days and nights. But in the middle of a conversation about how to fight the virus, we find a place impervious to the stalled plans and frenetic demands of the outside world. It's a very different kind of front line, where urgent work means moving slow, and time is marked out in tiny pre-planned steps. Then, on a walk through the woods, we consider how the tempo of our lives affects our minds and discover how the beats of biology shape our bodies. This episode was produced with help from Molly Webster and Tracie Hunte. Support Radiolab today at Radiolab.org/donate.