

Should Scientists Genetically Engineer Wild Species?
8 snips Oct 20, 2025
Nate Rott, an NPR science correspondent, dives into the heated debate over using synthetic biology for conservation. He explores the alarming decline of endangered frogs and the potential of genetic engineering to help them resist disease. The discussion raises critical questions about unforeseen risks and the ethics of altering nature. Nate also reveals a narrow vote by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which ultimately rejected a moratorium on gene-edited species, showcasing the urgency and division surrounding this controversial topic.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Frog Rescue Led To Genetic Thinking
- Researcher Anthony Waddle described rescuing desert frogs by bringing eggs into captivity and reintroducing them to new sites.
- He moved from classic conservation to exploring genetic fixes when populations kept collapsing from chytrid fungus.
Science Is Feasible, Acceptance Is Harder
- Synthetic biology here mainly means genetic modification to add disease-resistant genes into wild species.
- The scientific challenge is solvable, but public acceptance is the harder barrier, Nate Rott explains.
Synthetic Biology Is A Broad Catchall
- Experts describe synthetic biology as a broad, hard-to-define field that includes genetic engineering and gene editing.
- That breadth conflates well-established medical uses with novel, ecological interventions that carry different uncertainties.