# Emerging trends in genome editing of wild animals

## TL;DR

This paper explores how genome editing could help save endangered species and manage ecosystems, but highlights the need for careful regulation and inclusive practices.

## Contribution

The paper maps emerging trends in genome editing for wild animals and identifies key challenges in conservation biotechnology.

## Key findings

- Current genome editing projects focus on population control and de-extinction rather than preserving threatened species.
- Private funding dominates conservation biotechnology, potentially leading to less transparent research processes.
- Governance frameworks are inadequate to regulate genome-edited animals in the wild.

## Abstract

Globally, nearly one million species are currently threatened with extinction, highlighting the need for more efficient solutions to biological conservation. Genome editing, which allows for faster and more precise changes in genomes, is a promising technique for boosting populations through facilitated adaptation, management of invasive or pathogenic populations, and potentially even facilitating the revival of extinct species. These approaches belong to a new field of research termed conservation biotechnology, which places a great responsibility on researchers and decision makers to ensure sustainability. In this paper, we have mapped the emerging trends in genome editing of wild animals. Current projects primarily focus on population control and de-extinction, with fewer initiatives aimed at preserving threatened species. We then explore four critical dimensions of conservation biotechnology: the technology itself, new perspectives on conservation practices, research organization, and governance and policy. Despite its potential, key questions remain—particularly whether genome editing can increase genetic diversity without causing unintended non-target impacts. Genome editing also provokes new perspectives on conservation practices where ecosystem-wide impact assessment, case-by-case evaluations, and post-release monitoring needs to be prioritized. Furthermore, conservation biotechnology is heavily funded through private funding showing varying stakeholder interest, which can lead to untraditional and less transparent research processes. Stakeholders, including local and indigenous people, are only to a certain degree involved, which may weaken inclusion of local knowledge and monitoring efforts. Finally, concerning governance and policy, there is an urgent need to develop more adequate regulation of conservation biotechnology, as environmental release of genome-edited animals challenges definitions and guidelines in current nature protection laws and GMO regulations. Based on our analysis, we outline key points for further investigation toward a more sustainable approach to conservation biotechnology.