Biotechnology and Biodiversity:

Understanding the Potential Conservation

Risks and Benefits of Genetic Engineering

Symposium and Discussion

2004 Society for Conservation Biology Annual Meeting

Columbia University, New York (July 31 & August 1)

please send comments regarding the symposium or discussion to Kelly Paulson (bulletin board to come to “Comments” page soon)

The content of this page refers to a symposium and discussion that occurred at the SCB 2004 Annual Meeting in New York City. While the event was organized and attended by some members of the Minnesota Chapter of the Society for Conservation Biology, the views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been approved by the Board of Directors of the MN SCB.

* MN SCB Home * Biotechnology & Biodiversity Home * Speaker Abstracts *

* Participant Feedback * Photos * Comments * Challenging Questions *

SUMMARY (SUBMITTED TO THE INFORMATION SYSTEMS FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY NEWSLETTER)

“Biotechnology & Biodiversity” Symposium and Discussion Educates Conservation Biologists at Annual Meeting

Kelly M Paulson & Erika RL Rivers

Conservation Biology Program

University of Minnesota—Twin Cities

kmp@umn.edu, lind0003@umn.edu

A combined symposium and discussion session entitled, “Biodiversity and Biotechnology: Understanding the Potential Conservation Risks and Benefits of Genetic Engineering,” was held at the 2004 Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) Annual Meeting in New York City on July 31 and August 1. The SCB is an international organization of conservation professionals who are dedicated to promoting the “scientific study of the phenomena that affect the maintenance, loss, and restoration of biological diversity”¹.

The symposium and discussion were organized by Kelly Paulson and Erika Rivers, graduate students at the University of Minnesota’s (Twin Cities) Conservation Biology Program, and Dr. Emily Pullins, former Biotechnology Governance Program Manager at the Institute for Social, Economic, and Ecological Sustainability (ISEES) at the University of Minnesota. The organizers linked the symposium with a discussion session to meet two core needs of the SCB members: 1) to educate conservation practitioners about the potential benefits and risks of genetic engineering to biodiversity, and 2) to initiate a dialogue within the SCB about potential actions that the Society might take to address the myriad issues associated with biotechnology and biodiversity conservation. Prior to this event, the SCB journal had only considered the potential of genetic engineering for conservation purposes in one paper². It appears from the attendance at the event that conservation biologists were eager to hear more about the potential—and risks—of biotechnology for conservation of biodiversity. Both sessions were well attended, with eleven symposium papers drawing audiences of 35-150 conferees, and the discussion session engaging approximately 50 conferees in a conversation about the potential actions the SCB might take to address the roles (positive and negative) of biotechnology in the conservation of biodiversity. Topics covered in both of the sessions included using genetic engineering for conservation purposes, the role of risk assessment, and how SCB and its members might become more involved in the issue of genetic engineering.

Of great interest to symposium participants was the potential use of genetically engineered organisms to further a wide variety of conservation goals—from controlling exotic species, to increasing productivity of already-converted agroforestry lands, to the conservation benefits of alleviating human health problems. For example, symposium speaker, Dr. Ron Thresher of the Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), discussed the possibility of using genetically engineered carp to control destructive non-native carp populations in Australian waterways. In a similar vein, CSIRO’s Dr. Tony Peacock, outlined the potential of a genetically engineered immunocontraceptive virus as a means of controlling Australia’s notorious exotic rabbits. In the realm of silviculture, Dr. Steve Strauss, of Oregon State University, discussed the potential of genetically engineering trees for more efficient conversion to wood products, implying that less land would be needed for agroforestry operations. The potential of genetic engineering to alleviate human health problems by genetically engineering mosquitoes resistant to malaria was introduced by Harvard University’s Dr. Andrew Spielman, along with guidelines for implementing such a technology.

Concerns more familiar to Conservation Biologists were represented by speakers such as Dr. LaReesa Wolfenbarger of the University of Nebraska at Omaha, who joined Dr. Karen Oberhauser of the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities in elucidating the potential of agricultural biotechnology to harm non-target organisms. Drs. Anne Kapuscinski and David Andow, both from the University of Minnesota, introduced the intricacies of risk assessment as applied to genetically engineered fish and the potential for development of pest resistance to genetically engineered crops, respectively. To sate the political appetites of the Society’s multidisciplined audience, presentations by Drs. Susan Haseltine (U.S. Geological Survey) and Ryan Hill (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity) outlined ways in which SCB members could direct their resources to help such organizations craft scientifically grounded policies vis-à-vis genetic engineering.

Regardless of whether a genetically engineered organism is intended for conservation, human health, or consumer purposes, it is customary to assess the ecological risks posed by this technology by some means. The intricacies of risk assessment captured the interdisciplinary nature of the Society’s membership: the science, policy, social consequences, limitations, and even philosophical underpinnings of risk assessment were discussed at length. Dr. David Ehrenfeld (Rutgers University), a co-founder of the SCB and its academic journal, raised many concerns about the utility of risk assessment, the degree of certainty we can expect from such assessments, as well as the failures of many previous “techno-fixes” employed in the name of conservation biology. Many discussion participants expressed a desire for a more proactive and holistic risk assessment process, with a transparent structure that allowed for more public and scientific input. One participant concluded the event with the interesting observation that, by becoming more involved in defining scientific and ethical guidelines for adequate risk assessment, and by engaging in risk assessment policy formation (such as the opportunities for input presented by the Convention on Biological Diversity), Conservation Biologists might be in a better position to advocate for the development and evaluation of biotechnologies that serve the public good.

Finally, results from a participant survey seem to suggest that substantial support exists for a special issue of Conservation Biology, the Society’s journal, which addresses the topics outlined in the symposium. Modest support also exists for a SCB position statement on genetically engineered organisms, and mixed support exists for another symposium or workshop to explore these issues further. Thanks to the overwhelming mandate to continue exploration of the risks and benefits of genetic engineering within the context of the conservation of biodiversity, the symposium may be over, but the discussion is not! Watch for updates on this topic at http://www.ellenjay.net/SCB/Biotech.html.

“Biotechnology and Biodiversity” was organized by the University of Minnesota’s Institute for Social, Economic, and Ecological Sustainability (ISEES) and the Conservation Biology Graduate Program. The symposium and discussion were funded by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey.

1 Conservation in Practice, masthead. 5(1): Winter, 2004.

2 Adams et al. 2002. The case for genetic engineering of native and landscape trees against introduced pests and diseases. Conservation Biology 16(4): 874-879.

SYMPOSIUM PAPERS PRESENTED:

Genetic Engineering in Context

Ashe, Dan¹ and SUSAN HASELTINE²

¹ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA (dan_ashe@fws.gov); ² U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, USA

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS IN FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION: PROPOSALS, BENEFITS, AND CONCERNS

EHRENFELD, DAVID

Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Cook College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

GENETIC ENGINEERING IS NOT A PROMISING TOOL FOR SPECIES CONSERVATION

Genetic Engineering as a Conservation Tool

STRAUSS, STEVEN H.¹ and Scott A. Merkle²

¹Departments of Forest Science and Genetics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA (Steve.Strauss@oregonstate.edu) and ²University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

Genetic engineering (GE) as AN ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION TOOL: The case for tree biotechnology

PEACOCK, ANTHONY

Pest Animal Control Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra, AU.

ENGINEERING VIRUSES TO COMBAT INVASIVE SPECIES.

THRESHER, RONALD, Nic Bax

CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart, Tasmania, AU.

EVALUATION OF GENETIC APPROACHES FOR MANAGING THE IMPACTS OF INVASIVE SPECIES

Spielman, Andrew

Professor of Tropical Public Health, Department of Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA (aspielma@hsph.harvard.edu )

Epidemiological Obstacles to the Suppression of Vector-Borne Infections by Means of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes

Risk Assessment Science and Policy

Oberhauser, Karen S.¹ and Erika R.L. Rivers²

¹ Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA. (oberh001@umn.edu). ² Conservation Biology Program, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA

Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) Larvae & Bt Corn Pollen: A Review of Ecological Risk Assessment for a Non-Target Species

WOLFENBARGER, L. LAREESA, John P. McCarty, Page E. Klug, Lorelle I. Berkeley

Department of Biology, University of Nebraska-Omaha, NE, USA.

The role of conservation science in assessing non-target effects of transgenic crops on communities and ecosystems

ANDOW, DAVID

Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROP PLANTS

KAPUSCINSKI, ANNE R.

Institute for Social, Economic and Ecological Sustainability, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA (kapus001@umn.edu).

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS: INSIGHTS FROM TRANSGENIC FISH

Sendashonga, Cyrie and RYAN HILL

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (cyrie.sendashonga@biodiv.org)

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety – an international instrument for protection of biodiversity from POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS OF genetically modified organisms.