Archives of Industrial Biotechnology

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.
Reach Us +1 (629)348-3199

Perspective - Archives of Industrial Biotechnology (2024) Volume 8, Issue 5

Enhancing biodiversity through genetic engineering: A double-edged sword?

Alexia Garrido *

Department of Biotechnology, University of Zaragoza, Spain

*Corresponding Author:
Alexia Garrido
Department of Biotechnology, University of Zaragoza, Spain
E-mail: alexiagarrido@hotmail.com < /dd>

Received: 01-Oct-2024, Manuscript No. AAAIB-24-148724; Editor assigned: 02-Oct-2024, PreQC No AAAIB-24-148724 (PQ) Reviewed:15-Oct-2024, QC No. AAAIB-24-148724 Revised:22-Oct-2024, Manuscript No. AAAIB-24-148724 (R); Published:28-Oct-2024, DOI:10.35841/aaaib-8.5.229

Citation: Garrido A. Enhancing biodiversity through genetic engineering: A double-edged sword?. Arch Ind Biot. 2024;8(5):229

Visit for more related articles at Archives of Industrial Biotechnology

Introduction

Biodiversity is essential for the health and stability of ecosystems. It ensures resilience against environmental changes and supports the intricate relationships between species. Yet, with the accelerating impacts of human activity and climate change, biodiversity is under threat like never before. In this context, genetic engineering has emerged as a powerful tool that promises to restore and enhance biodiversity. However, like many technological advancements, it presents both opportunities and challenges, making it a double-edged sword [1].

Genetic engineering offers the potential to revive species that are endangered or even extinct. By editing or replacing defective genes, scientists can enhance the genetic diversity of dwindling populations, making them more resilient to disease, climate change, and habitat loss. For example, efforts to de-extinct species like the woolly mammoth aim to restore lost ecosystems, potentially benefiting existing species by rebalancing certain environmental dynamics [2].

Genetic engineering can be used to develop species that are more resistant to diseases that threaten entire populations. In agriculture, genetically modified crops have been created to resist pests and diseases, reducing the need for harmful pesticides. Similarly, in wildlife, researchers are exploring ways to protect amphibians from fungal infections or bats from white-nose syndrome through genetic modification [3].

One of the most promising uses of genetic engineering is helping species adapt to the rapidly changing climate. For instance, scientists are investigating ways to make coral reefs more tolerant of warmer ocean temperatures and more resistant to bleaching, thus preserving marine biodiversity [4].

Small, isolated populations often suffer from inbreeding, which reduces their genetic diversity and fitness. By introducing genetic material from other populations or even engineering new beneficial traits, genetic engineering could help restore genetic diversity in these populations, ensuring their long-term survival. Despite its potential, genetic engineering poses several risks to biodiversity [5].

Introducing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the wild could have unpredictable effects on ecosystems. A genetically engineered species might outcompete or disrupt native species, leading to new imbalances. For example, genetically modified plants that are resistant to pests could indirectly affect other species that rely on those pests for food [6].

While genetic engineering can introduce beneficial traits into species, it may also lead to genetic homogenization, reducing the overall genetic diversity that is crucial for species’ long-term adaptability. This could make species more vulnerable to future environmental changes, diseases, or unforeseen challenges [7].

Genetic engineering raises significant ethical concerns, particularly when it comes to manipulating the genomes of wild animals or plants. Some argue that humans should not interfere with nature on such a fundamental level, while others worry about the unforeseen consequences of altering the genetic makeup of species. Additionally, de-extinction projects have sparked debates over whether resources would be better spent conserving species that are currently endangered rather than resurrecting extinct ones [8].

The release of genetically modified organisms into the wild could lead to the unintended spread of modified genes through interbreeding with wild populations. This gene flow could result in the permanent alteration of species, with unknown effects on ecosystems. For instance, genetically modified crops have occasionally crossbred with wild relatives, leading to concerns about the unintended spread of engineered traits [9].

There is a risk that the commercialization of genetically engineered species could lead to the privatization of biodiversity. Corporations could patent genetically modified organisms, potentially leading to monopolies over certain species or genetic traits. This could create a scenario where access to biodiversity is controlled by a few entities, restricting its use for conservation purposes [10].

Conclusion

Genetic engineering offers a powerful tool for enhancing biodiversity in a world where human activity and climate change are driving species to extinction at an alarming rate. By restoring endangered species, creating disease-resistant organisms, and helping species adapt to new environmental pressures, genetic engineering has the potential to preserve and even enhance biodiversity. However, the risks and ethical dilemmas it presents cannot be ignored. Careful consideration, strong regulations, and a balanced approach are essential to ensure that genetic engineering serves as a tool for biodiversity enhancement rather than a threat to ecological balance.

References

  1. AL-Hasnawi SM. Incidence of chickenpox and mumps in Karbala Governorate with their seasonal variation. Iraq Med Journ. 2018;2(1):24-7.

    2. Indexed at, Google Scholar

  2. Hambleton S. Current opinion in infectious diseases. 2005;18(3):235-40.

    3. Google Scholar

  3. Atshan RS. Incidence of chickenpox and mumps in Karbala Governorate with their seasonal variation. Iraq Med Journ.2018;2(1):24-7.

    4. Indexed at, Google Scholar

  4. Saiman L, Persistence of immunity to varicella-zoster virus after vaccination of healthcare workers. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 2001;22(5):279-83.

    5. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  5. Leeuwen, Anne. Davis's comprehensive handbook of laboratory & diagnostic tests with nursing implications.
  6. Johannsen EC, KM K. Epstein-Barr virus infectious mononucleosis epstein-Barr virus-associated malignant diseases, and other diseases. Prin pract infec dis. 2015;7(4)255-8.

    7. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  7. Robertson. Epstein-Barr Virus.2009;206(10)10-15.
  8. Luzuriaga, K; Sullivan, JL. Infectious mononucleosis.  N Eng Journ Med.2017;23(2):1-7.
  9. Ebell MH. Epstein-Barr virus infectious mononucleosis. Amer Fam Phy.70 (7): 1279–87.

    10. Indexed at, Google Scholar

  10. Shorvon, Simon D. The Causes of Epilepsy: Common and Uncommon Causes in Adults and Children .2020;19:587(45):13-9.

    11. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Get the App