Short Wave (NPR): “Should Scientists Genetically Engineer Wild Species?”

Air Date: October 20, 2025
Hosts: Emily Kwong & Nate Rott
Guests: Anthony Waddle, Guy Reeves, Sue Lieberman, Ryan Phelan

Episode Overview

This episode explores the contentious scientific and ethical debate over using synthetic biology—particularly genetic engineering—to save threatened wild species. Hosts Emily Kwong and Nate Rott take listeners through real-world conservation challenges, explain the science and stakes behind gene editing in nature, and discuss new guidance from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Frog Crisis and Chytrid Fungus

• Chytrid fungus is a deadly disease decimating amphibian populations globally—“the worst pandemic ever” for biodiversity. (Anthony Waddle, 01:27)
• Conventional conservation efforts (raising and relocating frogs) have had limited, local success.
• Researchers like Anthony Waddle are pursuing genetic modification as a long-term solution: “Some kind of permanent solution that makes the species more resilient into the future.” (Nate Rott, 02:07)
• Waddle hopes to splice chytrid-resistant DNA into at-risk frogs—“The challenge isn’t the science. We can do this. The challenge is going to be convincing people that it’s a good idea.” (Anthony Waddle, 02:46)

2. What is Synthetic Biology?

• Synthetic biology is defined as “very difficult to define, but people think they know it when they see it… like jazz.” (Guy Reeves, 04:58)
• Encompasses familiar advances (e.g., gene editing for hardy crops or new medicines) and controversial ideas (modifying wild species, heritable changes).
• Applies to organisms as varied as coral reefs and American chestnut trees.

3. Risks & Philosophical Concerns

• Lack of evidence & unknowns: “They have absolutely no peer reviewed evidence that they work. They've never been used.” (Guy Reeves, 06:20)
• Unintended consequences, such as ecological disruption or harmful mutations, could be irreversible, especially in wild populations. “If that happens…it could be irreversible.” (Nate Rott, 06:49)
• Fundamental question: “Do you trust that humans at this point have the capacity to re-engineer nature… or do you not think we’re that clever?” (Guy Reeves, 07:13)
• Emily’s skepticism: “I don’t think we’re that clever. I don’t trust us to get along at the moment to agree on anything when it comes to science.” (Emily Kwong, 07:30)

4. Global Debate: The IUCN’s Role

• The IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) sets influential global standards. At its latest World Conservation Congress, it debated two major proposals:
  • Temporary moratorium on releasing genetically modified species (cautious ‘pause’).
  • Framework for cautious integration of synthetic biology into conservation, with specified safeguards.
• Pro-moratorium side: “There are so many examples where well intentioned human interventions have gone wrong.” (Sue Lieberman, 09:13)
  • Example cited: Introduction of rabbits to Australia, creating an invasive species disaster.
• Critics of the moratorium caution against stifling innovation:
  • "It's hard to find funding for innovation… Everybody cares about reputation, right?" (Ryan Phelan, 11:12)
  • With biodiversity loss accelerating, “We just don’t have time.” (Nate Rott, 11:39)
  • “The idea that we can just stand back and not intervene with nature, it’s not gonna work anymore. We're gonna lose it.” (Sue Lieberman, 11:55)

5. The IUCN’s Decision & Ongoing Debate

• The IUCN narrowly voted against a moratorium and for a framework to allow synthetic biology under specific safeguards. (12:21)
• Debate far from over: “I think this is still very much up for discussion… this could fundamentally change our relationship with nature.” (Nate Rott, 12:41)
  • Emily ponders: “If a butterfly is genetically modified, would we still care for it the same way we would for one that’s just fluttering around now?” (Emily Kwong, 13:16)
• Waddle’s counterpoint: “Like, a Chihuahua is the same species as a wolf. That’s a bigger sin against nature than doing one little gene change.” (Anthony Waddle, 13:34)
  • He argues we’ve already profoundly changed nature, and using gene editing for good deserves consideration.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the public’s trust and technological uncertainty:

  • “Ultimately it comes down to do you trust that humans at this point have the capacity to re-engineer nature…and probably have to continue to re-re-engineer it, or do you not think we're that clever?”
    (Guy Reeves, 07:13)

• Nature as an experiment gone wrong:

  • “Like, if you put a rabbit into an area like Australia, we know what happened, that it became a very invasive species and big problems. Nobody expected that.”
    (Sue Lieberman, 09:13)

• Urgency amid the biodiversity crisis:

  • “We don't even know what they are. They're gone. The idea that we can just stand back and not intervene with nature, it's not gonna work anymore. We're gonna lose it.”
    (Sue Lieberman, 11:55)

• Perspective on human impact on nature:

  • “A Chihuahua is the same species as a wolf. That’s a bigger sin against nature than doing one little gene change… we already impact nature in a profound way and we have the capacity to use it for good for once.”
    (Anthony Waddle, 13:34)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:56 – Chytrid fungus threatens frogs worldwide (Anthony Waddle)
• 02:07 – Why conventional conservation may not be enough
• 04:50 – “Synthetic biology is like jazz”: defining the field (Guy Reeves)
• 06:18 – Concerns about evidence and risks in gene editing wild species
• 07:13 – The philosophical debate: should humans “play God” with nature?
• 08:00 – IUCN weighs in: global conservation policy and gene editing
• 09:13 – Example of failed interventions: rabbits in Australia (Sue Lieberman)
• 11:39 – The argument for urgency: biodiversity loss & climate change
• 12:21 – The IUCN’s decision: No moratorium, cautious framework adopted
• 13:34 – Have we already fundamentally altered nature? (Anthony Waddle)

Tone & Takeaways

The episode strikes a thoughtful, inquisitive, and slightly skeptical tone, balancing wonder about scientific progress with concern for unknown consequences. Hosts and guests mix philosophy, policy, and practical science, ultimately leaving listeners to grapple with whether gene editing is a responsible tool for conservation or an unacceptable risk.

Final Thought:
“Maybe we should just consider it.” (Anthony Waddle, 13:34)

For feedback and thoughts, listeners are encouraged to email the show at shortwave@npr.org.