*** Posted on behalf of the moderator, Mr. Martin Batič (Slovenia)***

Dear Participants,

Welcome to the Open-Ended Online Forum on Synthetic Biology!

My name is Martin Batič. I am Head of the Biotechnology Section at the Ministry of Environment, Climate and Energy of the Republic of Slovenia and the national focal point for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. I am also Secretary General of the Slovenian Scientific Committee for the deliberate release of LMOs into the environment. I hold a PhD in Biotechnology. I have previously been a member of the AHTEGs on synthetic biology.

Under this thread, we will be discussing the potential benefits of synthetic biology in relation to the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Diversity Framework (KMGBF). Thus, this discussion is meant to be broad and focused on how synthetic biology could potentially be applied for the implementation of  the objectives of the Convention and the achievement of the KMGBF targets.

To start the discussions, I would like to ask you the following:
What are the potential benefits of synthetic biology in relation to the Convention and the KMGBF?
Which targets could be most impacted and how could synthetic biology be potentially relevant?

In sharing information, I kindly ask you to provide DOI links (or URLs where DOIs are unavailable).

I look forward to the fruitful discussions,

Martin Batič

Dear Participants,

The Open-Ended Online Forum is now open.

Kind regards,

The Secretariat

Dear Forum,

I would like to thank Martin Batič for moderating this discussion.

Within the context of conserving biodiversity, synthetic biology—while broadly defined and with this technique having applied use dating back to recombinant protein production from microorganisms in the 1980s—offers the singular example of a current, realized benefit for biodiversity : recombinant Factor C (rFC) production in contained laboratory facilities as an alternative to harvesting horseshoe crab blood.

As this forum question is intended to focus on the CURRENT benefits of synthetic biology, it is essential to identify sources where USE is reported, rather than the availability of reagents or services, or published evaluations. At least based on this company webpage it is reported that rFC is currently in use:

"Currently, Lilly has converted 80% of our testing of medicines from LAL to rFC testing. We began to implement rFC testing in 2016. Lilly now uses rFC testing in all our injectable manufacturing facilities and for all our new injectable medicines." https://sustainability.lilly.com/environmental/biodiversity

The environmental value of this approach stems from its use within production contained facilities and the avoidance of modifying wild species or natural environments.

Estimates suggesting that the biomedical industry could achieve a 90% reduction in the use of reagents derived from horseshoe crabs by adopting rFC for routine testing applications [1] — are currently just estimates and beyond the scope of the terms of this discussion.

[1] Maloney, Tom, Ryan Phelan, and Naira Simmons. 2018. 'Saving the Horseshoe Crab: A Synthetic Alternative to Horseshoe Crab Blood for Endotoxin Detection'. PLoS Biology 16 (10): e2006607. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006607.


Thanks and I look forward to a productive discussion.

Dr R. Guy Reeves

Save Our Seeds Zukunftsstiftung Landwirtschaft / Foundation on Future Farming Büro Berlin / Berlin office

Dear Forum

Synthetic biology tools have experienced significant reductions in costs, as well as improvements in capability and availability over the past two decades. Examples of this include increased capability and availability in DNA sequencing and synthesis, genome editing as well as computer-aided design, and the application and automation of machine learning capabilities. These advances have enabled the development of high throughput organism development capabilities in commercial and research settings such as biofoundries.

Synthetic biology is a transformative and interdisciplinary field of science. It applies engineering workflows and sophisticated genetic technologies to rapidly design and build novel biological solutions.
These solutions can underpin new products and manufacturing approaches across a range of industries, from novel medical products to the sustainable production of food, energy, medicines, chemicals, and materials.

Synthetic biological solutions also has potential to enable carbon emissions reduction and sequestration across these industries, accelerate the decarbonisation of the global economy, and create new jobs. CSIRO in Australia, estimates that with appropriate support and investment, this capability could underpin up to $30 billion in annual revenue across for impacted sectors and create over 50,000 new jobs by 2040 in Australia.

Synthetic biology applications also offer bold solutions to biodiversity conservation, including the conservation of critically endangered species. Australian researchers at the University of Melbourne have been using synthetic biology approaches to help restore the Southern Corroboree frogs to their natural habitat. The Southern Corroboree frog, a critically endangered endemic species to Australia, has been driven to functional extinction in the wild. The loss of the Southern Corroboree frog would mean the disappearance of an iconic species and the destabilisation of alpine ecosystems. Synthetic biology approaches can safeguard the Southern Corroboree frog and redefine what is possible for biodiversity conservation.

The conservation benefits and social benefits therefore would contribute to many, if not all of the KMGBF targets in some way.

Thanks for this interesting discussion on the potential benefits of synthetic biology. I am Onyeka Nwosu from Nigeria.

Synthetic Carbon fixation pathways has shown very high potentials for synthetic carbon fixation pathways aimed at engineering biochemical routes that capture and assimalate CO2 beyond the capabilities of natural systems, and redirect it into biomass or valuable products.

These systems are largely at proof-of-concept and laboratory implementation stages, with engineered microbes and plants showing enhanced CO₂ fixation under controlled conditions. They are not yet commercial solutions, but they are tangible experimental advances demonstrating that carbon fixation can be redesigned and improved beyond natural limits. They represent one of the most scientifically promising applications of synthetic biology for climate mitigation.

Researchers have engineered artificial fixation pathways such as the CETCH cycle (crotonyl-CoA/ethylmalonyl-CoA/hydroxybutyryl-CoA), designed to fix CO₂ more efficiently than the traditional Calvin–Cycle used in natural photosynthesis. These cycles combine enzymes from multiple organisms into entirely new metabolic routes.

An international team led by the Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology has inserted parts of synthetic fixation pathways into bacteria, demonstrating higher biomass generation from CO₂ and formate than natural strains—showing that engineered routes can outperform nature in vivo.

Academia Sinica in Taiwan engineered a novel carbon fixation cycle (the McG cycle) into plants, enabling a dual-cycle system that boosted carbon uptake efficiency by about 50%, increased biomass and lipid production, and suggests new avenues for both carbon capture and sustainable biomass production.

Other synthetic pathways such as the THETA cycle have been modularly implemented in E. coli, representing progress toward fully synthetic autotrophic microbes that convert CO₂ into central metabolites like acetyl-CoA.

Climate relevance and potentials:
By increasing the efficiency and capacity of biological carbon capture, synthetic carbon fixation pathways offer a route to enhanced sequestration, support for bio-based materials, and integration into future climate mitigation strategies.

Impacts to the Implementation of the KMGBF:
Synthetic carbon fixation—engineered metabolic pathways that enhance biological CO₂ capture—can directly support implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF).
a) Target 8 (Climate change & ocean acidification): By increasing the efficiency of biological carbon sequestration in plants or microbes, synthetic fixation pathways contribute to climate mitigation, reducing climate-driven biodiversity loss and strengthening ecosystem resilience.
b) Target 17 (Biosafety): Deployment of engineered carbon-fixing organisms requires robust risk assessment, monitoring, and containment systems, reinforcing biosafety governance under the CBD framework.
c) Target 20 (Capacity-building & technology transfer): Development of synthetic carbon fixation advances biotechnology capacity, supports South–South collaboration, and promotes equitable access to sustainable climate technologies.

References
Chen, Y., Burke, A., Chriscoli, V., et al. (2026). Reprogramme the E. coli metabolism by engineering a functional carbon-fixation pathway. Journal of Biological Engineering, 20, Article 21.

Pei-Ru Chen & Xia, P.-F. (2023). Carbon recycling with synthetic CO₂ fixation pathways. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 85, 103023.

Erb, T. J., Luo, S., et al. (2024). Synthetic biology of metabolic cycles for enhanced CO₂ capture. Bioorganic Chemistry, 153, Article 107774.

Lu, K.-J., Hsu, C.-W., Jane, W.-N., Peng, M.-H., Chou, Y.-W., Huang, P.-H., Yeh, K.-C., Wu, S.-H., & Liao, J. C. (2025). Dual-cycle CO₂ fixation enhances growth and lipid synthesis in Arabidopsis thaliana. Science, 389(6765), eadp3528.

Schwander, T., von Borzyskowski, L. S., Burgener, S., et al. (2016). A synthetic pathway for the fixation of carbon dioxide in vitro. Science, 354(6314), 900–904.

I can only agree with your statements and would like to add an additional approach which has been tested in rice plants, the TaCo pathway. The synthetic TaCo pathway—a three-enzyme route (GCS, GCCM5, and TCR) that converts glycolate into glycerate via glycolyl-CoA carboxylation, thereby re-fixing additional CO₂ while reducing ATP and reducing power consumption—creates a carbon-positive photorespiratory bypass, and field trials show 11.1–17.2% higher biomass and 14.2–20.2% greater grain yield driven mainly by increased grain number per panicle and larger grain size, highlighting its strong potential for improving crop productivity and climate resilience.

Chen, G., Jin, K., Wang, J., Li, Y., Tian, X., Zhang, L., Wu, S., Yang, J., Cui, X., Sun, J., Sun, X., Lu, T. and Zhang, Z. (2025), Carbon-positive photorespiratory bypass via the tartronyl-coenzyme A pathway enhances carbon fixation efficiency and yield in rice. Plant Biotechnol. J, 23: 4712-4714. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.70258

Dear All

My name Vimbai Samukange I am the Director of the Biotechnology Research Institute at SIRDC in Zimbabwe.

In Agriculture one of the most notable benefits of synthetic biology is seen in Bt corn and cotton varieties. The transfer of Cry and VIP  genes into these crops confers resistance to a host of lepidopteran pests. Thus reducing the need for seed dressing and repeated spraying of pesticides.

https://gmopromises.org/article/nitrogen-fixing-gm-crops/
https://entomology.mgcafe.uky.edu/ef130
Other potential benefits whilst largely still experimental include the development of biological nitrogen fixing crops.  This will help to reduce the demand for nitrogenous fertilizers and the negative downstream effects associated with fertilizer application.

Dear Participants,

I am happy to see such lively discussions under the topic of potential benefits of synthetic biology. I am seeing that several areas could be related to climate change, biomanufacturing, natural product replacement, environmental monitoring, conservation, among others. Thank you for linking the potential benefits to particular targets of the KMGBF, as well as providing explanations/illustrative examples describing the potential link.

I also acknowledge that the context is also important. There were a few mentions that some of the research remains in its early stages (e.g. proof-of-concept). In this regard, it would be also interesting to hear about research that is more advanced or nearing deployment. For any examples that have been deployed, I encourage you to post under the current benefits topic as that information would surely enrich those discussions.

I also appreciate the information sources shared relating to the roadmaps, policies, scientific papers and reports.
 
For those that have not posted yet, there is still time to add your valuable perspectives.

I look forward to the continued discussions,

Martin

Dear All,

Many thanks to Dr. Batič for moderating this forum. 

My name is Piet van der Meer. I am a biologist and lawyer by trade and have been involved in biosafety legislation since 1986 and in COPs and in COPs and MOPs since COP1 in 1994. I am a former member of the RA AHTEG.

Having followed the field of Synthetic Biotechnology for many years, I echo the many examples of potential benefits of biotechnology, such as those illustrated in posts #3516, #3518, #3521 and #3539.

Moderator Batič made in post #3549 a useful grouping of areas that have been suggested to benefit from the potential of Synthetic Biotechnology: climate change, biomanufacturing, natural product replacement, environmental monitoring, and conservation.

More generally, I agree with post #3537 that the potential benefits would contribute to many, if not all, of the KMGBF targets.

A crucial next step will be to identify in which areas the potential of synthetic biotechnology could be harnessed in the short term. An interesting approach for that could be the technical research road mapping mentioned in post #3516.

Regards and good weekend to all!

Piet van der Meer

Dear All
I am Idah Sithole Niang of the Department of Biotechnology and Biochemistry at the University of Zimbabwe and Chairperson of the National Biotechnology Authority (NBA) Board of Zimbabwe.

In Zimbabwe, synthetic biology is currently regulated under the broad provisions of the National Biotechnology Authority Act [Chapter 14:31] of 2006, which mandates the National Biotechnology Authority (NBA) to oversee biotechnology research, development, and application. Under this legislative framework, researchers can conduct their work upon securing the requisite permits from the NBA. However, as the Act just refers to biological and molecular engineering technologies it will be reviewed to explicitly include new and emerging technologies such as synthetic biology and gene editing. Such an update would provide greater regulatory clarity, address potential gaps, and align the country’s governance framework with international biosafety standards.

The deliberations have been very fruitful/
Thank you 
Idah

Thank you Mr. Martin Baltic and SCBD for coordination of this Forum and colleagues for the insightful contributions so far.

My name is Sarah Agapito. I am a plant molecular biologist working on environmental risk assessment and biotechnology governance. I have contributed to the work of the CBD since 2012, including through the Network of Laboratories for the Detection and Identification of LMOs and previous SynBio processes, and I currently serve as a member of the SynBio AHTEG. I worked for ten years at the Norwegian competence centre for biosafety (GenØk) on biosafety and risk governance. I am now Science Director at the Rio Institute in Paris, focusing on biosafety, risk assessment and socio-economic considerations related to emerging biotechnologies in agriculture.

In responding to this topic, it may be helpful to recall that, under Decision 16/21 on the identification of the “current and potential benefits of synthetic biology in relation to the three objectives of the Convention and the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.”

In that light, potential benefits should be considered specifically in terms of:

1. Conservation of biological diversity – for example, applications that may contribute to ecosystem restoration, reduced chemical inputs, improved monitoring tools, or enhanced understanding of ecological interactions. However, such potential benefits are context-dependent and require robust assessment of ecological risks, long-term effects and cumulative impacts before environmental release.
2. Sustainable use of biodiversity – including applications that may reduce pressure on wild species, improve resource efficiency, or support climate resilience in agroecosystems. Importantly, sustainability should be evaluated holistically, including socio-economic dimensions and alternatives assessment.
3. Fair and equitable sharing of benefits – in line with Articles 16 and 19 of the Convention. Potential benefits must include mechanisms for equitable participation in research and development, access to technology — including risk assessment technologies — and benefit-sharing with developing countries and with indigenous peoples and local communities.
In line with the precautionary approach reaffirmed in Decision 16/21, it is important that the identification of benefits be accompanied by consideration of the conditions under which such benefits could realistically materialize, including adequate regulatory capacity, risk assessment infrastructure, monitoring systems and governance frameworks.

Several peer-reviewed studies highlight potential contributions of synthetic biology to crop resilience, reduced pesticide use, invasive species control and bioproduction of high-value compounds (e.g., Haider et al., 2026; Esvelt et al., 2014; Hartley et al., 2022; Waltz, 2016). While these contributions may be promising, much of the literature evaluates benefits primarily in agronomic or technological terms. Moreover, benefits are not experienced equally across regions, production systems, or stakeholder groups. For example, agronomic gains in productivity or input efficiency may accrue differently to large-scale producers, smallholders, or technology developers, and may not automatically translate into biodiversity conservation outcomes or equitable benefit-sharing.

There is comparatively limited evidence assessing these applications explicitly against the three objectives of the Convention — particularly with respect to long-term biodiversity outcomes and fair and equitable sharing of benefits.

Aligning benefit assessments more directly with Articles 16 and 19 of the Convention, and with the precautionary approach reaffirmed in Decision 16/21, would help ensure that capacity-building, technology transfer and knowledge-sharing efforts under the forthcoming thematic action plan genuinely support the implementation of the Convention’s three objectives.

References with links:
Haider, S., Singh, A.P.,  Panthi, B., Sindhu, S.R., et al. (2026).
CRISPR/Cas9-mediated crop improvement for food security, climate resilience, and nutritional enhancement. Current Plant Biology, 46, 100593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpb.2026.100593
Esvelt, K.M., Smidler, A.L., Catteruccia, F., & Church, G.M. (2014).
Concerning RNA-guided gene drives for the alteration of wild populations. eLife 3:e03401. https://elifesciences.org/articles/03401
Hartley, S., Taitingfong, R., & Fidelman, P. (2022).
The principles driving gene drives for conservation. Environmental Science & Policy, 135, 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.06.018
Waltz, E. (2016).
Gene-edited CRISPR mushroom escapes US regulation. Nature volume 532, page293. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2016.19754
Liu, Y., Ji, A., Jia, H., et al. (2026).
Advanced applications of synthetic biology technology in biosynthesis of bioactive compounds from medicinal plants. Chinese Herbal Medicines, 18, 11–28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S167463842500125X
Usami, A. (2025).
Development of biocatalysts for high-value-added compounds. Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry, 89, 496–501. https://doi.org/10.1093/bbb/zbae139

Dear all,
I'm Ma Zhaoqi, soon to start my PhD at Peking University, working on structural biology. I took part in the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition from 2023 to 2025, and wanted to share a few thoughts.
iGEM has grown a lot in recent years. Hundreds of student teams join every year, working on all kinds of synthetic biology projects. What stood out to me most is how seriously the competition takes biosafety. Every team has to go through safety forms, risk assessments, and community engagement. These requirements actually align pretty well with the precautionary approach encouraged by the CBD—especially Article 8(g), which asks parties to manage the risks of living modified organisms. From a capacity-building perspective, this also ties into Target 20 of the KMGBF, which is about strengthening capacities and scientific cooperation.
Beyond the paperwork, many projects directly engage with biodiversity issues. A few examples:
•In my own iGEM project, we worked on engineering soybean rhizobia to produce deep-sea fish oil—basically trying to add nutritional value to a staple crop without expanding farmland. （https://2024.igem.wiki/cau-china/）We also spent a lot of effort designing multilayered suicide circuits to prevent gene leakage. I'd say this connects to the "sustainable use" objective of the Convention, and also to Target 10 of the Framework, which focuses on sustainable management of agricultural areas.
•Lyon 2025 developed "FluoroBreaker," a system to detect and degrade PFAS—those "forever chemicals" that persist in the environment（https://2025.igem.wiki/lyon/） . This speaks to Target 7, particularly the part about reducing risks from highly hazardous chemicals.
•UCSC 2024 designed RNA sensors to detect white-nose syndrome in bats, which directly supports species protection. （https://2024.igem.wiki/ucsc/） . This fits Target 4, which calls for urgent action to halt human-induced extinction of known threatened species.
I would like to thank the Secretariat and the moderator for organizing this forum and giving me the opportunity to participate. It has been valuable to see how discussions like this connect laboratory work with broader policy conversations..
Hope to have more chances to exchange with all of you.
Best regards,
Zhaoqi

Dear all,

My name is Efraín Rodríguez Ocasio, I am a bioenergy fellow at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and I was nominated by the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering. Various participants have argued that synthetic biology may be a helpful tool to meet the Convention objectives and KMGBF targets through direct and indirect strategies. I would like to highlight some of the past posts before contributing my perspective. For direct contributions, I support the statements that synthetic biology may deliver biosensors to monitor ecosystems and pollution, tools to support species resilience and protection, and mechanisms for environmental remediation [#3516, #3569, #3572, #3573]. For indirect contributions, I would like to reiterate the potential for sustainable manufacturing, waste reduction, and climate change mitigation [#3516, #3518, #3537, #3538, #3569].

Having acknowledged previous posts, I would like to add to the discussion from the perspective of industrial biotechnology.

- Reduction of carbon emissions: Synthetic biology has expanded the scope of what can be achieved through engineered biology. Microbial strains can be engineered to make chemicals and fuels from renewable feedstocks, reducing carbon emissions by replacing petroleum-based feedstocks. Engineered biology also enables chemical reactions and transformations at low temperatures, reducing emissions derived from heating and energy. [1]

- Recycling of carbon emissions: While carbon emissions from industrial processes are inevitable, synthetic biology has already been used to develop industrial bioprocesses for the recycling of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. An example of such technology deployed at a commercial scale is LanzaTech’s gas fermentation with Clostridium autoethanogenum. [2]

- Circularity and waste reduction: Synthetic biology may also reduce harmful pollution by enabling biodegradable materials or creating circular life cycles though novel recycling and upcycling technologies. Any post-consumer material may be deconstructed into fermentable feedstocks and using engineered microbial strains to make products of equal or higher value that re-enter the value chain instead of ending up in landfills or ecosystems. A major effort in this space in the United States is the BOTTLE Consortium: Bio-Optimized Technologies to keep Thermoplastics out of Landfills and the Environment. [3]

Finally, I want to recognize the need for responsible development of any technology, and while this post focuses on industrial applications that advance the objectives of the Convention, I would like to mention a recent article discussing the design and regulation of engineered bacteria for environmental release. [4]

Efraín Rodríguez Ocasio, Ph.D.

References:
[1] Garza Elizondo, A., et al. (2025). Building an expanded bio-based economy through synthetic biology. Biotechnology Advances, Article 108775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2025.108775
[2] Mihalcea, C., Burton, F., Conrado, R., Simpson, S. (2023). R&D&I and Industry Examples: LanzaTech’s Gas Fermentation. In: Kircher, M., Schwarz, T. (eds) CO2 and CO as Feedstock. Circular Economy and Sustainability. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27811-2_27
[3] Beckham, Gregg T., et al. "BOTTLE 1 - Introduction and BOTTLE Overview." , Apr. 2023. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1971859
[4] Chemla, Y., Sweeney, C.J., Wozniak, C.A. et al. Design and regulation of engineered bacteria for environmental release. Nat Microbiol 10, 281–300 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-024-01918-0

Dear Forum,

Synthetic biology is recognized as having potential to contribute to global environmental and biodiversity goals under the CBD and KMGBF, though specific benefits remain largely aspirational rather than demonstrated. The sources show moderate but non-specific evidence of potential benefits. Keiper and Atanassova, (2025) notes that the KMGBF’s inclusion of Target 17 (biosafety) reflects “renewed recognition of the potential for biotechnology to contribute to global environmental goals,” marking a shift toward acknowledging benefits alongside risks. Macfarlane et al., (2022) states that synthetic biology “has the potential to transform biodiversity conservation, both directly and indirectly,” though emphasizing this comes “fraught with uncertainty.” DeLisi, (2019) identifies climate change mitigation as a potential application through carbon cycle modulation and conservationist uses like gene drives for conservation purposes (Reynolds, 2020). The sources however, provide limited concrete examples of realized benefits and consists primarily of policy reviews and conceptual discussions rather than empirical demonstrations of conservation outcomes.

• Keiper, F., & Atanassova, A. (2025). International synthetic biology policy developments and implications for global biodiversity goals. Frontiers in Synthetic Biology, 3, 1585337. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsybi.2025.1585337
• Macfarlane, N. B., Adams, J., Bennett, E. L., Brooks, T. M., Delborne, J. A., Eggermont, H., ... & Redford, K. H. (2022). Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation. Iscience, 25(11). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.105423
• DeLisi, C. (2019). The role of synthetic biology in climate change mitigation. Biology Direct, 14(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13062-019-0247-8
• Reynolds, J. L. (2021). Engineering biological diversity: the international governance of synthetic biology, gene drives, and de-extinction for conservation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 49, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3688323


Thanks

Wendy A. Dogbegah

Thanks wendy for briefly mentioning the potential benefits of Synthetic Biology to climate change mitigation.

Let me further mention its benefit as adopted for Engineering Autotrophic Microorganisms for CO₂ Utilization. Studies have shown that Synthetic biology enables non-photosynthetic organisms to assimilate CO₂. A study by
Gleizer et al. (2019) showed that engineered E. coli fixes CO₂ as its sole carbon source by rewiring its metabolism and applying adaptive laboratory evolution. This strongly demonstrates the possibility of adopting Synthetic Biology in designing industrial microbes that can convert atmospheric or industrial CO₂ into Biofuels, Bioplastics, Industrial chemicals etc.

Reference:
Gleizer S et al. (2019). Conversion of Escherichia coli to generate all biomass carbon from CO₂. Cell 179(6).

Onyeka
Nigeria

Dear Ms. Dogbegah and colleagues,

Thank you for noting that many discussions on synthetic biology benefits remain aspirational and that concrete, on-the-ground examples are still limited. In that spirit, I would like to share a practical, current example from the Philippines that focuses on open, IP-free tools supporting diagnostics and national R&D capacity.

I am Leocris S. Batucan Jr from the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP) | Department of Science and Technology (DOST). With permission, I am sharing the following Philippine case study and led by Dr. Edjohn Aaron Macauyag (Reclone Reagent Collaboration Network Philippines / University of the Philippines Diliman):

***I am pleased to share the experience of the Reclone Reagent Collaboration Hub that we established in the Philippines. The hub currently stewards and distributes hundreds of IP-free plasmids for enzyme expression, supporting applications in diagnostics and synthetic biology.

This initiative has been instrumental in advancing national efforts toward the local production of diagnostic enzymes through the Integrated Protein R& D Center. It has also contributed to addressing antimicrobial resistance through the PhageRx project which focused on bacteriophages as alternative therapeutic agents against drug-resistant pathogens, as well as supporting several initiatives within the Vaccine Institute of the Philippines.

We are currently expanding distribution of these plasmids to a broader national network to strengthen research capacity and biotechnology education. In parallel, we are developing IP-free expression strains through synthetic biology to empower emerging biotech startups and promote greater freedom to innovate.

Collectively, these efforts aim to reinforce and future-proof the country’s
biotechnological infrastructure. ***

From a KMGBF implementation perspective, this type of work may be relevant as a capacity-building and technology transfer pathway (including enabling local production of critical reagents and widening access to tools). I would be interested in others’ views on how “open” reagent ecosystems like this should be recognized and tracked as realized benefits in CBD/KMGBF discussions.

Some refs:
Macauyag, E. A., et al. (2024). A low-cost production method for Bst DNA polymerase (large fragment).  https://doi.org/10.54645/2025181HVR-89

Ho, Yan-Kay, et al. "Reclone Connect: Empowering Researchers Towards Co- Creating a Self-Sustainable Ecosystem for Adopting, Sharing, and Maintaining the Open DNA Collections Toolkit for Affordable Local Enzyme Production in LMICs"

https://reclone.org/hubs-nodes/

Kind regards,
Leo

follow up on my previous post #3555.

Just to be more explicit on the KMGBF linkage: this case study is most directly relevant to KMGBF Target 20 (capacity-building, technology transfer, and scientific/technical cooperation), given its focus on widening access to tools and enabling local production of critical reagents. It may also be indirectly relevant to Target 19 (mobilizing resources for implementation) where open, IP-free tool ecosystems reduce cost barriers and make capacity-building more feasible in practice.

Hello all,

My name is Mark Christensen.  I have been nominated by IUCN to participate in this on-line forum along with my colleagues Carolina Torres Trueba and Nicholas Macfarlane. I am an environmental lawyer in private practice in New Zealand, and a member of IUCN’s World Commission on Environmental Law and Commission on Ecosystem Management.  I was also a member of IUCN’s Policy Development Working Group on Synthetic Biology in Relation to Nature Conservation.

At IUCN’s October 2025 World Conservation Congress in Abu Dhabi, IUCN members adopted the IUCN Council sponsored Resolution on Synthetic Biology in Relation to Nature Conservation . The Resolution includes the IUCN policy which provides a basis to inform decision-making:
● on whether or not to use a synthetic biology application for nature conservation, and on the responsible use of synthetic biology for nature conservation; and
● on how to address the implications for nature conservation of the use of synthetic biology in other sectors.

This policy is the first-ever global policy on synthetic biology and nature conservation. It can be found at https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/52736

Here is a brief background to the development of the policy.

At the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Hawai‘i, USA, in September 2016, IUCN Members adopted a resolution which mandated the development and publication of an assessment on synthetic biology and biodiversity conservation, under the authority of the Chairs of all six of IUCN’s independent expert Commissions, and the IUCN Director General. This assessment was published in 2019 as Genetic Frontiers for Conservation  https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2019.05.en  with an accompanying  Synthesis and Key Messages  https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2019.04.en for policy-makers.  These documents considered current and potential benefits of synthetic biology as well as both potential positive and negative impacts of the most recent technological developments in synthetic biology in relation to the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Diversity Framework.

Building from this, the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Marseille, France in 2021 adopted a further resolution establishing a process for development of an IUCN policy, to include both an inclusive process across the Union and the appointment of a Policy Development Working Group.

The process of appointment of the Policy Development Working Group members ran from June through October 2023.  The inclusive and participatory process comprised the following phases:

1. A call for information was run from June through August 2023.
2. The IUCN Citizens’ Assembly on Synthetic Biology in relation to Nature Conservation convened participants from IUCN Members selected in a stratified random fashion. It undertook a training workshop in Nairobi, Kenya, in 2023, followed by a deliberation workshop in Bangkok, Thailand, in February 2024, where it produced recommendations for the Policy Development Working Group.
3. The production in 2024 of a guidance document, an introductory video, and a Briefing Document https://doi.org/10.2305/UGAT2818 on what synthetic biology is and why its implications for nature conservation require inclusive debate. This Briefing Document further considered current and potential benefits of synthetic biology as well as both potential positive and negative impacts of the most recent technological developments in synthetic biology in relation to nature conservation.
4. Solicitation of feedback from all IUCN constituents 15 March 2024 – 31 May 2024, in particular through the IUCN National, Regional, and Interregional Committees, the IUCN Regional Conservation Fora, the IUCN Commissions, and the IUCN Indigenous Peoples’ Organisation Members.
5. Further solicitation of feedback from all IUCN constituents 11 July 2024 – 16 August 2024.

IUCN’s Policy Development Working Group met on three occasions in 2024 and developed two drafts of the policy which were peer reviewed as set out above. The Policy Development Working Group considered and carefully deliberated every single comment until consensus was reached as to the way that the draft policy would be revised to take the comments into consideration, thoughtfully balancing the diverging views received across the many comments. One important property of the comments on the second draft IUCN Policy, especially when taken together with comments on the first draft, was the frequency with which clusters of comments emerged, with some peer reviewers proposing one perspective and others proposing a diametrically different perspective. A large portion of the work of the third meeting of the Policy Development Working Group was therefore necessarily dedicated to seeking approaches which forged middle ground intended to be acceptable to the broad majority of IUCN Members. The third draft of the policy was completed in September 2024 and provided to IUCN’s Council.  It is this third draft, with very minor amendments, which was then considered by IUCN Members at the World conservation Congress in Abu Dhabi in October 2025.

Further information on IUCN’s global policy can be found at https://iucn.org/news/202510/iucn-agrees-first-global-policy-synthetic-biology  and https://www.context.news/nature/opinion/synthetic-biology-gets-iucn-nod-as-possible-nature-defender .

Thank you Mark Christensen for bring forward the position of IUCN. The case-by-case process will be vital to ensure potential applications of synthetic biology are appropriate, approved, safe, and benefits all life. 

Many participants in this Open Forum express concerns about process, underscoring the findings and recommendations of IUCN.

The KMGBF calls for inclusion and recognition of the rights and needs of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities and for Free Prior and Informed Consent regarding access to knowledge and materials. The strong interest in access to biodiversity resources (specimens, biobanks, biovaults) reflects the pressure for global development of synthetic biology applications.

The rapid acceleration of development of genomics and Digital Sequence information creates tensions with processes that support and sustain FAIR and CARE practices. These tensions need to be resolved equitably and with full participation of all interests, including those of future generations.

Thank you to the Secretariat for organising this forum. I am Pat Thomas, Director of Beyond GM and A Bigger Conversation, two linked UK-based civil society initiatives engaged in cross-sectoral analysis, dialogue, and policy engagement on genetic and synthetic biotechnologies. I welcome the framing of "potential benefits" in the plural – because that immediately raises the questions: benefits for whom, under what conditions and assessed against what baseline?

There are documented current applications of synthetic biology that deserve honest acknowledgement. These include the use of engineered microorganisms, produced in in contained industrial settings, in pharmaceutical production and the production of certain food ingredients, enzymes, and bio-based materials.

However, future benefits cannot be projected or evaluated in isolation from context. The same techniques that enable beneficial pharmaceutical or food applications are now proposed to be deployed in open agricultural and ecological systems – contexts where the risks are qualitatively different, where containment is not possible, and where the actors and governance structures (where they exist at all) are very different from those in regulated medicine/food. Conflating these applications muddies the evidence base and leads to poorly calibrated policy.

Many claimed future benefits remain at the R&D or early commercial stage. Independent, long-term post-market/post-deployment surveillance data is limited. This is not a reason to dismiss the possibility of benefits, but I hope we can avoid conflating proof-of-concept with established fact.

Hello Colleagues,

My name is Emily Aurand. I serve as Senior Director of Roadmapping and Education at the Engineering Biology Research Consortium (EBRC). EBRC is a U.S.-based, nonprofit organization with a mission to advance engineering biology (including synthetic biology) to address national and global needs. We support responsible science, engineering, and innovation through research-community-led science policy programs and activities. You can learn more about us at https://ebrc.org.

One of our core programs is technical research roadmapping. These roadmaps, freely available at https://roadmap.ebrc.org, envision future tool and technology development, impactful potential innovations, and novel applications of synthetic/engineering biology. The roadmaps are written by the engineering biology research community: over a 12-24 month period, we bring together large groups of volunteer academic and nonprofit research scientists (including students, early-, mid-, and late-career scientists), biotech industry professionals, and research stakeholders (including ethicists, policymakers, security professionals, and others) to contribute their ideas and challenges. While not comprehensive and reflecting a snapshot in time, these roadmaps capture a breadth of technical challenges and bottlenecks, short-term research directions, and longer-term ambitious milestones and applications for synthetic biology.

In 2022, we published “Engineering Biology for Climate & Sustainability” (https://roadmap.ebrc.org/engineering-biology-for-climate-sustainability/; DOI: 10.25498/E4SG64), which assesses opportunities around synthetic/engineering biology developments that may contribute to tackling global climate change and long-term environmental sustainability. Among application topics detailed in the roadmap, we considered the conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity, particularly how synthetic biology might be used to non-disruptively monitor ecosystems with biosensors and reporters (KMGBF Targets 4, 5, 7), approaches that could complement nature-based solutions to restore and protect biodiversity, such as tools to support organism resilience and protection (KMGBF Targets 2, 8, 10), and enabling robust strategies for biocontainment for environmental deployment (KMGBF Targets 10, 17). The roadmap includes references (citations) to other publications that offer further detail and discussion. An accompanying comment article is available at https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-023-00089-8 (DOI: 10.1038/s44168-023-00089-8).

I, along with my EBRC colleagues, Kaitlyn Duvall and Dalton George, look forward to contributing to this online forum, and hope that the above resource might be helpful to identifying benefits and challenges of synthetic biology to the Convention objectives and the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

Dear all,
I am Fatou NDIAYE, from Senegal and representing women caucus on CBD.
Here are some examples of how the benefits from synthetic biology can help drive delivery of CBD goals and support KMGBF targets (note that the list below is not exhaustive, and those benefits presented below have been grouped by their particular area of benefit; they also indicate which KMGBF targets will support them, along with some related references that include details for obtaining the DOI or URL for them):

1) Rapid and less invasive monitoring of biodiversity for decision-making (e.g., through parks).

Benefit: Through eDNA/metabarcoding and other molecular-based monitoring solutions, detecting rare or cryptic species and identifying community composition is more efficient. This will provide valuable information to support conservation planning and monitor the effectiveness of possible interventions.

CBD link: Conservation + sustainable use (access to improved information will result in improved management).

KMGBF targets impacted: Targets T1 to T4 relate to planning and area-based conservation; Target T21 relates to providing knowledge for biodiversity; there are also opportunities to support T2 / T3 monitoring.

References:

Sahu et al Journal of Natural Conservation (2023), DOI: 10.1016/j.jnc.2022.126325.

Pascher et al (2022) Diversity DOI: 10.3390/d14060463.

2) Deployment of field applicable biosensors to monitor pollution (water/soil) and compliance.

Benefits: Using synthetic biology and cell-free biosensors to monitor contaminants (such as arsenic and pathogens) will allow for decentralized monitoring (thereby providing earlier detection, response and enforcement) and will assist governmental and non-governmental organizations with their respective pollution management goals and public health objectives.

CBD link: Conservation + sustainable use.

Regards,
Fatou

Dear moderator and participants,
My name is Enkhchimeg Vanjildorj, a professor of Biotechnology department of Mongolian University of Life Sciences. As I was recently selected to participate in the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Synthetic Biology I am glad to participate in Online open forum.
Synthetic biology is emerging as a powerful field to address global climate challenges. By enabling the rational design of biological systems with programmable and sustainable functions, it offers innovative strategies for both climate change mitigation and adaptation.
SILVA, E.F. da; PALMEIRAS, M. de A.; ROCHA, A.P.; PASCOAL, P.V.; PRADO, N.V.; ARAUJO, M.M.C.; BONFIM, K.; ROSINHA, G.M.S.; BITTENCOURT, D.M. de S. Synthetic biology and climate change: innovations for a sustainable future. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, v.60, e04148, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-3921.pab2025.v60.04148.
Potential Positive Impact on GBF:

Target 8: Minimize the Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity and Build Resilience
Target 10: Enhance Biodiversity and Sustainability in Agriculture, Aquaculture, Fisheries, and Forestry
Regards,
Enkhchimeg

Hello all,

I would also like to comment on the situation in Aotearoa New Zealand. In relation to the assessment of synthetic biology/biotechnology, Aotearoa New Zealand has two characteristics which are of particular significance, compared with most other jurisdictions.  First, the role of the Treaty of Waitangi between the Government of New Zealand and iwi/Māori. Second, because of our isolation Aotearoa New Zealand evolved a unique biodiversity which is particularly vulnerable to introduced invasive animal and plant species.

For some years it has been recognised that Aotearoa New Zealand’s legislative regime for the assessment and management of synthetic biology/genetically modified organisms has failed to keep pace with developing technology. The existing legislation is currently under review with a revised Gene Technology Bill before Parliament.  In preparation for this review, the Royal Society of New Zealand prepared a series of papers which considered the current and potential benefits of synthetic biology, together with the potential positive impacts and negative impacts of the most recent technological developments in synthetic biology.

The papers are:

2019: Scenarios and summary paper exploring the potential uses of gene editing in healthcare in Aotearoa - https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/assets/Uploads/Gene-Editing-Scenarios-Healthcare-DIGITAL.pdf

2019: Scenarios and summary paper exploring the potential use of gene editing for the primary industries in Aotearoa - https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/assets/Uploads/Gene-Editing-Scenarios-Primary-industries-DIGITAL.pdf

2019: Scenarios and summary paper exploring the potential uses of gene editing for pest control in Aotearoa - https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/assets/Uploads/Gene-Editing-Scenarios-Pest-Control-DIGITAL.pdf   With regards to invasive species management, the New Zealand government is currently funding population suppression gene drive development for both invasive wasps and rodents – see https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/pests-and-threats/predator-free-2050/innovative-tools-and-technology/ .

In 2024, the then Prime Minister’s Chief science advisor updated her briefing to the Prime Minister on ‘genetic engineering’. The update noted that “Gene editing is a tool with many possible applications including in research, medicine, agriculture, and pest management. The scientific community, government, and New Zealand public are having discussions about how this technology should be used and governed.” The briefing can be found at https://www.pmcsa.ac.nz/topics/gene-editing/

Dear Forum,
My name is Dr. Jude Igborgbor, from the African Society for Synthetic Biology (ASSB). I am delighted to be part of this forum and sincerely appreciate the moderators and participants for fostering such an intellectually stimulating and insightful discussion.
Synthetic biology, a term for which no internationally accepted definition exists also referred to as advanced genetic-engineering biology has opened up a new landscape for advanced materials with novel functionalities and performance. The recent emergence of CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) as a gene-editing tool has enabled even more precise and inexpensive methods of engineering individual organisms, biological systems, and entire genomes. As an emerging interdisciplinary field that applies engineering principles to biology to design, construct, and modify genetic systems, synthetic biology presents both opportunities and governance challenges. Some potential benefits of synthetic biology in relation to the convention and the KMGBF include
• Conservation of biodiversity : This could  done by using synthetic biology applications to enable genetic rescue of endangered species to reduce inbreeding depression, help in developing gene-drive systems to control invasive alien species threatening native biodiversity and engineering wildlife vaccines to prevent disease-driven extinction events.
• Sustainable Use of Biodiversity: Synthetic biology enables microorganisms to produce compounds traditionally extracted from wild species, including Medicinal plant metabolites Flavors and fragrances Industrial enzymes. Synthetic biosynthesis will reduce over harvesting pressure on threatened species while also improving crop resilience and soil microbiome performance. Thus reducing land conversion pressures.
• Restoration and Pollution Reduction: With the advent of synthetic biology, engineered microbial consortia can assist in Bioremediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils, Plastic degradation, Wastewater treatment, Soil fertility restoration. Such approaches align strongly with ecosystem restoration and pollution reduction targets
• Finally Synthetic biology has the potential to create equitable value through Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS). Synthetic biology increasingly relies on Digital Sequence Information (DSI),  If equitably governed, synthetic biology could Strengthen participation of biodiversity-rich countries in bioeconomy innovation and promote technology transfer and capacity development.

KMGBF Targets that could be most significantly impacted by Synthetic Biology include:
Target 2: Restoration of Degraded Ecosystems: engineered microbes and synthetic ecological tools could accelerate restoration of degraded terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
Target 4: Halting Species Extinction: Gene editing and genetic rescue strategies may reduce extinction risk and increase adaptive capacity in small populations.
Target 5: Sustainable Use and Harvest:  Biomanufacturing alternatives may reduce demand-driven exploitation of endangered species.
Target 7: Pollution Reduction: Synthetic microbes designed for pollutant degradation could reduce chemical and plastic pollution entering ecosystems.
Target 8: Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: Applications include of synthetic biology include: Enhanced carbon sequestration systems, Climate-resilient crops, Stress-tolerant microbial consortia.
Target 13: Access and Benefit Sharing: The governance of DSI is central to synthetic biology. Effective implementation of the KMGBF DSI mechanism will shape equitable outcomes
Target 17: Biosafety and Biotechnology Governance: Robust risk assessment and biosafety frameworks—particularly under the Cartagena Protocol—are essential for responsible deployment (CBD, 2000)
Targets 18 & 19: Financial Resources and Capacity Building: Synthetic biology innovation ecosystems in developing countries could enhance domestic biodiversity-linked bioeconomies.



REFERENCES
• Catts O. Strange Natures: Conservation in the Era of Synthetic Biology by Kent H. Redford & William M. Adams (2021) 296 pp., Yale University Press, London, UK. ISBN 978-0-300-23097-0 (hbk), GBP 25.00. Oryx. 2022;56(1):159-159. doi:10.1017/S003060532100168X
• Keiper F and Atanassova A (2025) International synthetic biology policy developments and implications for global biodiversity goals. Front. Synth. Biol. 3:1585337. doi: 10.3389/fsybi.2025.1585337
• Singh, J.S., Abhilash, P.C., Singh, H.B., Singh, R.P., & Singh, D. (2011). Genetically engineered bacteria: an emerging tool for environmental remediation and future research perspectives. Gene, 480 1-2, 1-9 .

Dear Dr. Igborgbor and colleagues,

Thank you for highlighting “Restoration and Pollution Reduction” (including plastic degradation) and the relevance to KMGBF Target 7 in your post #3538. In relation, I would like to share another Philippines example that is being developed around environmental applications of synthetic biology and metabolic engineering.

Below is a short description of the University of Mindanao Biomolecular Engineering Laboratory (UMBEL), shared as provided. The text inside the asterisks is quoted verbatim from the proponent, Dr. Angelo Bañares:

***The University of Mindanao Biomolecular Engineering Laboratory (UMBEL), inaugurated on July 23, 2024, at the UM Bolton Campus in Davao City, stands as the Philippines' pioneering facility dedicated to synthetic biology and metabolic engineering for environmental solutions.

Key Research Projects

UMBEL's flagship project engineers the non-pathogenic E. coli K12 strain for direct conversion of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic waste into glycolic acid, bypassing energy-intensive upstream chemical pretreatments and enabling low-input, sustainable PET valorization.

Another initiative transforms E. coli K12 into a microbial cell factory producing semiochemicals to disrupt fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis) oviposition in mango and avocado crops, providing an eco-friendly alternative to synthetic pesticides.

These efforts prioritize carbon efficiency, renewable waste utilization, and minimized high-energy industrial processes, aligning with circular economy goals like waste-to-value conversion.***

Their work points to two possible benefit pathways: first, turning PET plastic waste into a useful product (waste-to-value), which could reduce pollution burdens if it becomes scalable and safe; and second, developing biology-based pest management tools that may help reduce reliance on broad-spectrum synthetic pesticides in high-value crops, if proven effective and responsibly deployed.

Indicative KMGBF linkages include:

Target 7 (pollution reduction, including plastics and hazardous chemicals), because the PET-to-value pathway directly targets plastic waste streams;

Target 10 (more sustainable agriculture), because more targeted pest management approaches can potentially reduce pesticide use and related impacts; and

Target 20 (capacity-building and technology transfer), because a dedicated regional lab strengthens local skills, training, and longer-term scientific infrastructure.

If others have tried to track similar initiatives, I would appreciate suggestions on practical, “light-touch” indicators that show progress without creating new reporting burdens, for example: number of trainees supported, partner institutions engaged, movement from lab proof-of-concept to pilot testing, and early signs of adoption (collaborations, pilots, validation work).

Reference / URL:
*** SunStar (29 July 2024): https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/business/um-launches-biomolecular-engineering-lab
*** Scolari, F., Valerio, F., Benelli, G., Papadopoulos, N. T., & Vaníčková, L. (2021). Tephritid Fruit Fly Semiochemicals: Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives. Insects, 12(5), 408. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12050408
***Yan W, Qi X, Cao Z, Yao M, Ding M, Yuan Y. Biotransformation of ethylene glycol by engineered Escherichia coli. Synth Syst Biotechnol. 2024 Apr 11;9(3):531-539. doi: 10.1016/j.synbio.2024.04.006. PMID: 38645974; PMCID: PMC11031724. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405805X24000577


Leocris S. Batucan Jr
NCBP | DOST, Philippines

Dear respected moderator and colleagues,

Thank you for this stimulating discussion and valuable shared perspectives
I am Saiful Effendi, research scientist / lecturer at the National University of Malaysia where I focus on CRISPR-based gene editing, particularly in biomedical and translational research. I also serve as a member of the Genetic Modification Advisory Committee under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability where I am involved in regulatory and biosafety considerations related to synthetic biology and modern biotechnology.

From my perspective, synthetic biology—particularly via the utilization of CRISPR technology—has already demonstrated substantial benefits in agriculture-related fields. These applications are highly relevant to KMGBF Objective 2 as they support food security, enhance crop resilience (Pusa DST rice 1 variety), improve yield and nutritional value (like the GABA-enriched tomato, DRR Dhan 100 rice). Moving forward, I think an important priority is to further harness and responsibly deploy this technology in ways that reduce costs, shorten turnaround times and improve accessibility so that the benefits of synthetic biology can be more widely shared across populations.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41587-021-00026-2

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d44151-025-00078-2

However, CRISPR translational application in medicine remains limited (only 1 FDA-approved therapy so far to treat Beta-Thalassemia) despite its popularity and widespread use in medical research. I see huge potential, but making CRISPR therapies widely usable will require addressing safety and efficiency challenges, as well as ensuring they remain accessible and affordable.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-gene-therapies-treat-patients-sickle-cell-disease

https://www.chop.edu/news/worlds-first-patient-treated-personalized-crispr-gene-editing-therapy-childrens-hospital

I also agree with my colleagues on the potential of synthetic biology to engineer bacteria for bioremediation and other environmental applications as well as its benefits in the medical field. It is also worth noting that several research groups are exploring the use of CRISPR to engineer animals for organ transplantation, which could have transformative implications.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2025.11.014

https://www.science.org/content/article/can-gene-edited-pigs-solve-organ-transplant-shortage

https://doi.org/10.3389/ti.2025.13807

In addition, there have been recent efforts to use CRISPR to “bring back” extinct species such as CRISPR editing the genome of the grey wolf to recreate traits of the dire wolf, and similar research is being pursued to revive the woolly mammoth. It will be fascinating to see how these developments unfold in the near future.

https://crisprmedicinenews.com/press-release-service/card/colossal-announces-worlds-first-de-extinction-birth-of-dire-wolves/

https://crisprmedicinenews.com/press-release-service/card/colossal-creates-the-colossal-woolly-mouse-showcasing-breakthroughs-in-multiplex-genome-editing-and/

Thanks, and looking forward for further discussion related to this interesting topic

Thank you very much to Mr. Martin Batič for moderating this discussion.

My name is Ediner Fuentes-Campos, national focal point for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for the Republic of Panama, and on this occasion I speak on behalf of my country.

In response to the moderator's first question on what are the potential benefits of synthetic biology in relation to the Convention and the KMGBF, Panama aligns itself with the contributions shared in posts #3516, #3518, #3521 and #3539, which clearly illustrate the broad spectrum of current and potential benefits of synthetic biology. We wish to highlight that these benefits extend well beyond the debates on access and benefit-sharing: they encompass climate change mitigation and ecosystem restoration, biodiversity monitoring, bioremediation, and the sustainable production of materials. In particular, Schwander et al. (2016) demonstrated the viability of synthetic CO₂ fixation pathways in vitro that are more efficient than natural systems, an advance that Lu et al. (2025) extended to Arabidopsis plants, achieving an approximately 50% increase in carbon absorption and biomass production, providing concrete scientific evidence of the contribution of these technologies to climate mitigation. It is essential that this analysis explicitly links concrete examples to the specific Targets of the KMGBF, as several participants in this forum have done in an exemplary manner.

Regarding the moderator's second question on which KMGBF targets could be most affected, we welcome the fact that contributions have illustrated applications across sectors as diverse as health, energy, materials, diagnostics, the pharmaceutical industry, and the conservation of threatened species. Maintaining this multisectoral vision is essential: an overly narrow focus on a single sector would limit our ability to appreciate the transformative potential of synthetic biology to contribute to the full range of the Convention's objectives and the KMGBF. In this regard, eDNA and metabarcoding tools have demonstrated greater efficiency in detecting rare and cryptic species, with direct applications for Targets T1 to T4 and T21 (Sahu et al., 2023; Pascher et al., 2022), further reinforcing the relevance of synthetic biology for biodiversity monitoring and conservation.

On capacity-building and technology transfer, we value initiatives such as the one highlighted by the Philippines in relation to open and accessible reagent ecosystems. We consider that assessments and frameworks developed by specialized international bodies constitute resources that Parties can draw upon directly, making the most of existing processes rather than generating parallel assessments under the CBD, whose core mandate extends beyond being a technology-focused forum.

Thank you very much.
Ediner Fuentes-Campos, National Focal Point — Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Republic of Panama

References
Lu, K.-J., Hsu, C.-W., Jane, W.-N., Peng, M.-H., Chou, Y.-W., Huang, P.-H., Yeh, K.-C., Wu, S.-H., and Liao, J.C. (2025). Dual-cycle CO₂ fixation enhances growth and lipid synthesis in Arabidopsis thaliana. Science, 389(6765), eadp3528. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp3528
Pascher, K., et al. (2022). Diversity and eDNA-based monitoring. Diversity, 14(6), 463. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14060463
Sahu, S.K., et al. (2023). Metabarcoding applications for conservation. Journal of Nature Conservation, 72, 126325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2022.126325
Schwander, T., von Borzyskowski, L.S., Burgener, S., et al. (2016). A synthetic pathway for the fixation of carbon dioxide in vitro. Science, 354(6314), 900–904. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah5237

Dear colleagues
Thank you to Martin and the secretariat for organising the symposium and to all contributors. My name is Jack Heinemann. I have contributed previously to these fora and as a past member of the Risk Assessment and Risk Management AHTEG, among other things.

To frame my contribution to this thread, I’d like to begin by declaring my understanding of the terms “synthetic biology”, “current”, and “benefit”.
The Syn Bio definition used by the AHTEG is that “synthetic biology is a further development and new dimension of modern biotechnology that combines science, technology and engineering to facilitate and accelerate the understanding, design, redesign, manufacture and/or modification of genetic materials, living organisms and biological systems” [1]. Therefore, I look beyond the history of use of modern biotechnology to the current developments and new dimensions of modern biotechnology that presumably could not have been done prior to synthetic biology. I take my timeline arbitrarily as early 21st Century [2].

Another component of this topic is benefit. As risk relates to hazard, benefit relates to utility. Benefit is not a universal experience, due to factors that contextualise benefits (access or even valuing the utility), leading to different potential realisations of benefit by different people, ecosystems, and countries [#3514].

The biochemical techniques that enable synthetic biology are evolving rapidly, even though the fundamental properties are not new and have been used since the 1970s [3]. The industrial qualities of the most powerful new tools, such as CRISPR/Cas, have made it possible to make changes in more kinds of organisms faster than ever before.

As mentioned in post #3537, the industrial qualities of new techniques have created a market demand for the reagents large enough to create an economy of scale that lowers the price or reagents. Nevertheless, for some benefits to be realised the products of synthetic biology are expected to be commercialised and the price of commercialisation includes the patent license fees in the product’s history. These may be large. One report of a fee was $50 million USD for one product [4].

My personal experience with the potential benefits of synthetic biology is the use of less expensive reagents to teach principles of synthetic biology in my undergraduate molecular biology course. In this course, students are tasked with designing a genetic switch. The switch is dependent upon a coordinated interaction between multiple kinds of gene control elements and ultimately a gene that is expressed only in one position of the switch. To have use, the switch must be genetically stable in either position and have equal (preferably little) fitness costs in either position, so as to be stable in populations over many generations without further input of a triggering experience.

This is not an easy task and is the focus of an interesting literature. Somewhat ironically, the actual organisms provided to the students to test switching parameters were not made using the latest techniques [5]! But newer iterations do use them.

In theory the benefit may be related to KMGBF targets such as capacity building (considering that my students can come from anywhere in the world), but is probably more directly related to strengthening biosafety (17) because I embed this practical activity within a course that prioritises the skills of risk assessment using the techniques of modern biotechnology. And I teach people who may, anywhere in the world, be the future capacity for assessing responsible use of safe biotechnologies.

Another benefit of the use of synthetic biology in university level learning is the opportunity to temper the hype of its promise with the realities of its limitations, technical as well as conceptual challenges, and a comprehensive overview of its potential to concentrate access to benefits in a world with structural barriers to benefit sharing.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute and I look forward to reading the interventions of others.

[1] https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-100-en.pdf
[2] doi:10.1038/nrg1637
[3] https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2021.00086
[4] doi: 10.1038/d41586-024-03989-9
[5] https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1321321111

Dear Moderator and colleagues,

My name is Lúcia de Souza and I participate in COPs and MOPs with the Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI).

Thank you for the thoughtful contributions so far. I agree that context and governance are important considerations when discussing synthetic biology. These considerations apply to all biodiversity interventions, including protected areas, biological control, pesticides, and nature-based solutions, and are essential for responsible implementation.

At the same time, in the spirit of the moderator’s question on potential benefits in relation to the Convention and the KMGBF, it may be helpful to focus on potential benefits, the specific targets they could support, and reference that would support the contribution.

Building on several constructive contributions already made in this forum, for example posts #3516, #3518, #3521, #3537, #3555, and #3558, I would like to highlight a few areas where the scientific literature provides relevant examples.

1. Biodiversity monitoring and ecosystem assessment
(KMGBF Targets 1 to 4 and 21)
Environmental DNA, or eDNA, approaches are increasingly used to detect rare, cryptic, and invasive species in a non-invasive manner, thereby enhancing biodiversity monitoring and conservation planning. The field has seen substantial methodological development and increasing empirical application across freshwater, marine, and terrestrial systems (Thomsen and Willerslev, 2015, Trends in Ecology and Evolution and Çevik, T. & Çevik, N. (2025). Environmental DNA (eDNA): a review of ecosystem biodiversity detection and applications. Biodiversity and Conservation).
Such approaches support knowledge generation under Target 21 and can strengthen the implementation of area-based conservation and restoration planning under Targets 1 to 4.

2. Climate mitigation and carbon utilization
(KMGBF Target 8)
Advances in engineering biology have enabled researchers to design and test new biological pathways that capture and process carbon dioxide.
While applications remain at research or pilot stages, this line of work illustrates plausible biological routes that may contribute to climate mitigation, which is a major driver of biodiversity loss (Schwander et al. 2016, Science).

3. Sustainable production and indirect biodiversity benefits
(KMGBF Target 5 and Target 10)
Macfarlane et al. (2022, iScience) review direct and indirect interactions between synthetic biology and biodiversity conservation. The authors discuss how substitution of resource intensive production systems with biological manufacturing may reduce land use pressure and emissions, depending on implementation pathways.
Similarly, the OECD (2025), Synthetic Biology in Focus, identifies areas where synthetic biology may contribute to more resource efficient production systems and food security. To the extent that such transitions reduce land conversion, chemical inputs, or extractive pressures, they may support sustainable use objectives under Target 5 and improvements in agricultural sustainability under Target 10.
In contained industrial contexts, such substitution represents a potential sustainable use pathway aligned with the Convention’s objectives.

4. Capacity building and technology transfer
(KMGBF Target 20)
As illustrated in post #3555, the Philippines case study, initiatives that expand access to tools and local production capacity represent tangible enabling benefits aligned with Articles 16 and 19 of the Convention. Strengthening scientific and technical capacity, including for biosafety assessment, directly supports effective implementation of the KMGBF.

I appreciate the diverse perspectives shared so far and look forward to continued discussion.

Dear Secretariat and Colleagues,

My name is Dr. Tiffany Kosch. I am an Honorary Senior Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne and Director of the Amphibian Genomics Consortium. I participated as an observer in the most recent CBD m-ATHEG on synthetic biology and have contributed to IUCN discussions on its conservation applications.

I wish to highlight potential positive impacts of synthetic biology in my field: increasing species’ resilience to otherwise intractable environmental threats. Many species today cannot persist in the wild without ongoing human intervention because their threats cannot be eliminated. Examples include trees such as the American chestnut, devastated by chestnut blight [1], and more than 200 amphibian species worldwide threatened by chytridiomycosis [2]. Numerous species are also at increasing risk from climate change, notably tropical reef-building corals [3, 4]. Synthetic biology offers tools that may help bolster species’ fitness and support long-term conservation outcomes.

My research group is currently developing chytridiomycosis-resilient Australian corroboree frogs for environmental release [5, 6]. This species can no longer survive in the wild after the introduction of the chytridiomycosis pathogen into the environment in the 1980’s. Over the past decade we have developed the genomic tools and resources to support this work, including a reference genome and transcriptome for the species [7], and extensive phenotypic [8] and genetic association data identifying loci linked to disease resistance (manuscript in review). We plan to begin genetic engineering trials next month.

A central focus of our program is strong governance, rigorous monitoring, and meaningful engagement with Indigenous communities. We are developing safety and risk guidelines that align with national and international regulatory frameworks and biosafety review processes. Our risk assessment includes pre-release ecological impact analyses, measures to identify and minimise potential non-target effects, and clear contingency plans. We will implement long-term, adaptive post-release monitoring with predefined success and remediation metrics and transparent public reporting of results. Crucially, we have established long‑term, reciprocal collaboration with Traditional Owners — including ongoing consultation, respect for free, prior and informed consent, and co‑development of key decision points — and we run multi‑stakeholder workshops and nationwide public attitude studies to ensure the work proceeds transparently and with broad social licence.

We aim to proceed cautiously with multiple safety checks to maximise benefits, secure social licence, and minimise risks.

REFERENCES
1. Powell, W.A., A.E. Newhouse, and V. Coffey, Developing blight-tolerant American chestnut trees. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 2019. 11(7): p. a034587.
2. Scheele, B.C., et al., Amphibian fungal panzootic causes catastrophic and ongoing loss of biodiversity. Science, 2019. 363(6434): p. 1459-1463.
3. van Oppen, M.J., et al., Building coral reef resilience through assisted evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 2015. 112(8): p. 2307-2313.
4. Cleves, P.A., et al., Reduced thermal tolerance in a coral carrying CRISPR-induced mutations in the gene for a heat-shock transcription factor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 2020. 117(46): p. 28899-28905.
5. Kosch, T.A., et al., Genetic approaches for increasing fitness in endangered species. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2022. 37(4): p. 332-345.
6. Berger, L., et al., Advances in Managing Chytridiomycosis for Australian Frogs: Gradarius Firmus Victoria. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences, 2024. 12(1): p. 113-133.
7. Kosch, T., et al., A chromosome-level reference genome for the critically endangered Southern Corroboree frog (Pseudophryne corroboree) Wellcome Open Research, 2025. 10(228).
8. Davidson, M.J., et al., Exposure to low doses of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis reveals variation in resistance in the Critically Endangered southern corroboree frog. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2025. 60: p. e03587.

Good morning, everyone.

I'm Felix Moronta Barrios from the Regulatory Science Group at the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB), in Trieste, Italy.

I would like to bring to your attention a recent paper in Conservation Letters that introduces the concept of “Synthetically Assisted Conservation”: https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.13114

The value of this concept, in my view, is that it places synthetic biology within established conservation practice rather than treating it as something separate. It asks how emerging biological tools could support familiar conservation pathways, such as species recovery, restoration, or improved management of threats. This may help us connect the discussion of “benefits” more directly to the three objectives of the Convention and to specific KMGBF targets.

For example, some contributions in this thread already reflect this logic. Post #3572 discusses increasing resilience of an endangered amphibian species, which links clearly to Target 4 on halting extinctions. Post #3500 highlights substitution in a contained system to reduce pressure on wild species, which can relate to sustainable use objectives. Posts on monitoring tools, such as #3521 and #3569, connect well with Targets 1 to 4 and 21. The “Synthetically Assisted Conservation” framing helps make these links more explicit and structured.

I would also like to share an entreaty from the 2025 Spirit of Asilomar meeting, which I co-authored: https://doi.org/10.25611/M0DY-C049. It was produced as part of the Asilomar 2025 process, which deliberately echoed the historical role of the 1975 Asilomar meeting in shaping shared norms and guardrails for biotechnology, and it was one of a set of entreaties intended to translate that “spirit” into present day commitments.

This document reflects on responsible governance of emerging biotechnologies. In the context of the KMGBF, it connects strongly with Target 17 on biosafety and governance, and Target 20 on capacity building. Several posts in this forum, such as #3565 and #3555, have already stressed that potential benefits depend on regulatory capacity, monitoring, and fair access. The Asilomar entreaty reinforces that benefits are not only technical outcomes, but also depend on how technologies are governed and embedded in society.

I hope these two resources are useful in further grounding our discussion of benefits within the logic of the Convention and the KMGBF.

Dear participants,

Thank you to Mr. Martin Batič for moderating this discussion and all participants for the insightful comments.

My name is Luciana Ambrozevicius, I'm a agronomist with a Ph.D. on Genetic and Plant Breeding and a regulator at Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock in Brazil, a risk assessor at our National Biosafety Commission and a former member in the SynBio AHTEG and the RA AHTEG.

In the context of CBD, the potential benefits have to be perceived considering the three objectives (conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources) and the provisions of art 16 (Acces and transfer of technology), art 17 (Exchange of information), art. 18 (Technical and scientific cooperation) and art 19 (Handling of biotechnology and distribution of its benefits). 

In this exercise of analyzing the potential benefit of the technology, I concur with #3516 about the use of roadmaps to capture both opportunities and challenges associated with these innovations, highlighting the need for proactive preparation by authorities and stakeholders.

In  this regard I would like to mention roadmaps from different countries:
- USA: https://www.biotech.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/NSCEB-%E2%80%93-Full-Report-%E2%80%93-Sep-30-.25.pdf
- UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/synthetic-biology-leadership-council 
- Australia: https://www.csiro.au/en/work-with-us/services/consultancy-strategic-advice-services/csiro-futures/future-industries/synthetic-biology-roadmap 

There are also international organizations conducting this foresight exercise:
- FAO:
https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/a21712a8-b125-444e-96eb-b07b057e4fe1/content 
- OECD:
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2026/01/the-evolution-of-the-biotechnology-sector_9bc5d07a/420bb546-en.pdf 

The roadmaps are examples of how the information that are being shared in this on line forum (and also in the country’s submissions and the independent scientific study) can be used to capture the challenges and bottlenecks to reach the potential of synthetic biology to contribute with the Convention's objectives and the implementation of the KMGBF.

Thank you,

Best regards,
Luciana

Dear participants,

My name is Taemin Woo, a research professor at KAIST working on synthetic biology governance from a science and technology policy perspective.

In Korea, the potential benefits of synthetic biology are increasingly discussed at the national policy level. In 2023, the Ministry of Science and ICT announced the strategy “Synthetic Biology Core Technology Development and Diffusion Strategy,” which includes several flagship projects applying synthetic biology to societal and environmental challenges (MSIT, 2023). Among the examples highlighted are microbial systems designed to convert greenhouse gases into industrial feedstocks, synthetic biology approaches for detecting and degrading persistent plastics, and strategies to improve photosynthetic efficiency in plants.

Recent studies from Korean research groups illustrate these directions. For example, microbial cell factories have been developed for producing adipic acid, a key precursor for nylon and biodegradable plastics, from renewable resources (Bioresource Technology, 2024, DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2023.129920). Enzyme engineering studies have also identified highly efficient PET-depolymerizing enzymes with potential for plastic waste degradation (Science, 2025, DOI: 10.1126/science.adp5637). More recently, synthetic metabolic pathway design has enabled the biosynthesis of novel polymer precursors in engineered microorganisms (Nature Chemical Biology, 2025, DOI: 10.1038/s41589-025-01842-2).

Together, these research directions illustrate how synthetic biology may contribute to pollution reduction, circular bioeconomy pathways, and sustainable bio-based production systems, which are relevant to KMGBF Target 7 (reducing pollution) and Objective 2 (sustainable use of biological diversity).

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute. I look forward to further discussions in this forum.

All the best,
Taemin Woo

Dear all,
My name is Jean-Baptiste Boulé, I am a researcher in Paris, France leading a research group studying synthetic and natural microbial consortia.

Synthetic biology holds unprecedented potential to accelerate the transition from laboratory research to real-world applications, particularly in the remediation of polluted soils and the reduction of chemical use in industry and agriculture. By engineering microorganisms or microbial consortia with enhanced capacities to degrade pollutants, this field could revolutionize how we address environmental degradation. Yet, this potential is not being realized equitably. Instead, it remains largely confined to a burgeoning startup economy, emerging from high-profile labs and concentrated in the hands of a few. In doing so, it risks undermining Target 13 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which calls for the respect and integration of indigenous and local knowledge in biodiversity governance.
The promise of synthetic biology for remediation, however, comes with a critical caveat: deploying engineered microorganisms into the environment carries inherent risks. These include the potential for unintended spread into natural ecosystems, where modified microbes could disrupt ecological balance or transfer engineered traits to wild populations, with unpredictable consequences. Such risks directly challenge the ethos of Target 7, which aims to reduce pollution to levels that are non-harmful to biodiversity and ecosystem function.
While high-profile pilot studies often capture academic and media attention, field studies, though less glamorous, are the backbone of responsible innovation. These studies provide the real-world data needed to assess containment strategies, long-term ecological impacts, and the efficacy of engineered microbes in diverse environments. Yet, they are frequently underfunded, despite being essential for bridging the gap between lab breakthroughs and scalable, safe solutions. Governing bodies must significantly increase financing for academic field research to ensure that policy can shape virtuous technology cycles, prioritizing transparency, ecological safety, and equitable access over hype or commercial rush.
The scientific community has long recognized the risks of uncontrolled releases and has responded by exploring containment strategies (biological, physical, and ecological) to mitigate potential harms (e.g. George et al., 2024). However, no single approach is foolproof. This underscores the need for rigorous, independent field-based assessments of containment efficacy, long-term monitoring of microbial spread, and the development of context-specific designs tailored to local ecosystems and communities.
To harness the benefits of synthetic biology while aligning with the GBF’s goals, we must prioritize collaborative, well-funded field research. Controlled, small-scale releases, such as time- and site-limited decontamination projects, should serve as pilot studies to evaluate real-world performance, containment reliability, and ecological impacts. Only through transparent, inclusive, and scientifically robust frameworks can we ensure that synthetic biology serves global biodiversity goals rather than exacerbating existing inequities or ecological risks.
________________________________________
Reference : George DR, Danciu M, Davenport PW, Lakin MR, Chappell J, Frow EK. A bumpy road ahead for genetic biocontainment. Nat Commun. 2024 Jan 20;15(1):650. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-44531-1.

Thank you for the interesting discussions! I’m Lim Li Ching, from the Third World Network.

If synthetic biology is to contribute to the three objectives of the Convention and the implementation of the KMGBF, Parties would firstly need tools to separate out hype (see for example, https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjaf007) from fact. Agreeing with #3514, #3546 and others, that while there are many claims of potential benefits, particularly at R&D stage, this may not translate to concrete benefits of actual development and use.

Particularly when it comes to releases into the environment, there could instead be potential negative impacts given the move from containment to open release, “from lab to the field” (See for example, https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201845760). These impacts would need to be adequately assessed, from the standpoint of biodiversity, human health and socio-economic, cultural and ethical dimensions.

As such, a process that is able to provide an overview of recent developments, to be able to detect and identify early warnings, and rapidly review or assess upcoming pipeline products is much needed. Such a process would alert regulators and policy makers to potential threats, particularly given the speedy developments that are happening in the field of synthetic biology. (See for example, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav7568 and https://doi.org/10.3389/fgeed.2024.1376927). This is also in keeping with the precautionary approach embedded in the CBD and called for in numerous Decisions on synthetic biology.

Secondly, the key question to ask is not just, what are the potential benefits, but to whom do benefits accrue? This brings up issues of who controls the technologies, and how are they governed, as highlighted also by #3514 and #3565. Again, this points to the need for multidisciplinary assessment, so as to tease out these nuances.

The last point I wanted to make, also in agreement with #3560 and #3565, was that if developing countries in particular wish to benefit from synthetic biology, then there has to be a strong link with the regulation and assessment thereof. Capacity building, transfer of technology and knowledge sharing, as explored in the draft Thematic Action Plan, have to be situated within this frame, as if the regulation and assessment of synthetic biology are inadequate or not fit for purpose, and negative impacts occur, then any benefits would be quickly eroded.

Kind regards,
Li Ching

Dear all, thank you for the rich exchange. My name is Nancy Serrano Silva, PhD in Biotechnology. I´m part of the “Investigadoras e Investigadores por México” program and I am currently affiliated with the Executive Secretariat of the Intersecretarial Commission on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (Cibiogem), Mexico.

From Mexico’s perspective, discussions on synthetic biology must demonstrate clear and direct contributions to the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): biodiversity conservation, sustainable use, and fair and equitable benefit-sharing. Synthetic biology should therefore be considered a potential tool, not an end in itself.

Scientific literature suggests that synthetic biology may contribute to biodiversity goals primarily through environmental monitoring, pollution mitigation, and sustainable production systems. For example, cell-free synthetic expression biosensors have been developed to detect environmental contaminants and food hazards with high sensitivity and portability, potentially strengthening environmental monitoring and early warning systems (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.155632). Similarly, advances in enzyme engineering for polyethylene terephthalate (PET) degradation could contribute to reducing plastic pollution pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.154183).

These developments could be relevant to KMGBF Target 7 (reducing pollution) and Target 21 (knowledge generation and information sharing). However, we emphasize that potential benefits can only be realized where robust biosafety frameworks, environmental risk assessment capacity, and national baselines on synthetic biology are established.

Importantly, any evaluation of synthetic biology benefits must remain linked to fair and equitable benefit-sharing, including ongoing international discussions on Digital Sequence Information (DSI) and the operationalization of benefit-sharing mechanisms.

Mexico agrees with contributions emphasizing that “benefits” must be evidenced and explicitly tied to the CBD’s three objectives and specific KMGBF targets, while remaining context-dependent and contingent on robust biosafety and risk-assessment capacity, monitoring and governance (including the precautionary approach), clear baselines, and fair and equitable benefit-sharing/DSI mechanisms, avoiding hype or proof-of-concept being treated as realized outcomes (#3514, #3560, #3565, #3595).

Hello Colleagues

I forgot to introduce myself on my earlier post. I am Mel Cotterill and I am the National Focal Point of the CBD and lead negotiator on synthetic biology, DSI and ABS for Australia.

I'd like to share a few links of work underway in Australia in addition to those mentioned in my last post.

The Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Banana Biotechnology Program have been transforming bananas for more than 25 years.

In 2004, the Banana Biotechnology Program was successful in obtaining an ARC Discovery Grant to mine for potential TR4 resistance genes in wild bananas that had been demonstrated to be resistant to TR4. One gene, called RGA2, was transformed into Cavendish Grand Nain bananas under the control of the Nos promoter. The resulting transgenic lines could not be screened for TR4 resistance in Brisbane due to biosecurity restrictions, so in 2011, funded by an ARC Linkage Grant in collaboration with Premier Fresh Australia, we commenced a field trial in the Northern Territory on land that had previously grown a TR4 decimated Cavendish crop. Four lines showed excellent disease resistance and in 2018 a larger field trial at the same site was planted to confirm the results. After 2.75 years, one line, RGA2-4, had no infected plants and a second line, RGA2-3, had only 2% infection, compared with non-transgenic Cavendish controls showing over 50% infection. The best line, now renamed as QCAV-4, has undergone regulatory approval in Australia and is now approved for commercial planting and consumption in Australia. This is the world’s first genetically modified banana approved for market release.

GM field trials in Australia and elsewhere are conducted under strict regulatory guidelines. The Banana Biotechnology Program at QUT has already conducted five GM banana field trials in Australia, including three disease trials and two fruit quality (biofortification) trials. These have all been conducted without any negative incidents and have required regular and extensive monitoring and assessment. All the trials have been physically remote from QUT. Further, we have been actively involved in five biofortification field trials in Uganda and one BBTV resistance field trial in Malawi.

This has the potential to avoid losses of whole crops, reduce use of pesticides and fungacides which helps to achieve KMGBF T6, T7, T10, T11 among others.

https://research.qut.edu.au/cab/research/banana-biotechnology/

Colossal Biosciences with the University of Melbourne are also looking to save a species from extinction and deal with a pest species at the same time which may help achieve KMGBF T2, T4, T6 among others.

Over the past two years, scientists working in collaboration with Colossal at the University of Melbourne have been developing the resources and technology necessary for this project, including establishing information like a reference genome from northern quoll tissue samples and perfecting the ability to make genetic edits on the dunnart — a close relative to the northern quoll considered a lab-based marsupial model species — with husbandry requirements and a reproductive cycle favorable for developing robust gene edits.

The team has recently engineered toxin resistance in dunnart cells by introducing traits found in the toad’s natural predators from South America. This represents a major breakthrough toward protecting Australia’s ecosystems, as it acts as a stepping stone for developing toxin resistance in other marsupials and susceptible animals.

The University of Melbourne and the team at Colossal are now working to introduce toxin resistance to northern quoll communities using eight cell lines that have been established from pouch young. These cells are currently being reprogrammed into iPSC cells — a pluripotent cell crucial for gene editing — as it can be reprogrammed into any type of cell. Once generated, these iPSC cells will allow for precise cellular-level edits of the northern quoll’s genome, ensuring a hereditary resistance to bufotoxin.

https://colossal.com/new-genes-for-the-northern-quoll-a-colossal-step-toward-bufotoxin-resistance/

Thank you all for your participation in this forum.

Mel

Hello,

My name is Lorrie Boisvert and I am acting unit head in the Biotechnology, Innovation and Novel Sciences Section at Environment and Climate Change Canada.  My group is responsible for doing the risk assessment of novel organisms before they can be produced or imported into Canada.

Synthetic biology has several potential benefits. Some examples include:

Cultured meat:
Meat produced by growing a small sample of animal cells in a controlled, nutrient-rich environment eliminates the need to raise and slaughter livestock and offers a more sustainable and humane alternative to conventional meat production. Although  the majority of cellular agriculture products are likely to be novel in Canada, Health Canada has already assessed some food ingredients produced from cellular agriculture methods.
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/cellular-agriculture.html

Conservation of species through gene drives:
Gene drives use CRISPR to spread a specific gene through a wild population. This can help remove invasive species, protect threatened species, reduce disease, and support native biodiversity. One example is the wild boar, an invasive species in Canada. Researchers at the University of Guelph are exploring the use of gene drives to control their population in Canada. 
https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/4ebbd940-61cf-46da-8222-d88f2f1b52e3/content

Reduction of waste through creation of novel materials:
The ability to create novel, sustainable materials such as biodegradable plastics and biobased chemicals offer new opportunities to reduce waste and support a circular economy.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtsust.2024.101067

Dear Moderator and colleagues,

My name is Florencia Goberna. I am a biotechnologist working at the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries of Argentina. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this technical exchange.

Argentina values the well-founded contributions that have been shared in this discussion. We agree with Brazil’s intervention regarding the importance of addressing this topic from a forward-looking perspective, focused on enabling conditions, capacity-building, and the reduction of structural gaps that limit equitable participation in innovation processes.

Synthetic biology represents an increasingly relevant area within modern biotechnology. It enables the generation of organisms with new metabolic pathways, new functions, and even genetic combinations that do not exist in nature. In practice, most current developments focus on microorganisms, with applications in human and animal health, the environment, industry, and agriculture, among other areas.

The examples presented illustrate the broad spectrum of possible applications of synthetic biology in areas such as sustainable agriculture, climate change mitigation, environmental monitoring, and bio-based production systems.

In relation to the objectives of the Convention and the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), Argentina considers that certain applications may contribute, where appropriate, to various targets.

With regard to Target 10 (sustainable agriculture), advances in genetic improvement and in the development of microorganisms with functions such as biocontrol, biofertilization, and biostimulation may enhance productivity while reducing pressure on natural ecosystems. In agricultural systems, improvements in resource-use efficiency, reduction of chemical inputs, and increased resilience to abiotic stresses may indirectly contribute to biodiversity conservation objectives.

Concerning Target 8 (climate change mitigation and adaptation), efforts aimed at improving photosynthetic efficiency, optimizing microbial production platforms, and developing bio-based alternatives to carbon-intensive materials illustrate possible pathways through which biotechnology could support climate objectives. The relevance of these applications should be assessed in light of their demonstrated environmental performance, scalability, and overall sustainability.

Argentina also underscores the importance of Target 20 (capacity-building, technology transfer, and scientific cooperation). Strengthening national scientific infrastructure, bioinformatics capabilities, regulatory expertise, and risk assessment capacity enhances Parties’ ability to assess and, where appropriate, utilize living modified organisms developed through synthetic biology applications in a manner consistent with biodiversity conservation, sustainable use, and fair and equitable benefit-sharing. In this regard, enabling conditions and implementation support are central to achieving balanced outcomes under the Convention.

Another proven benefit is the use of yeast capable of synthesizing artemisinin, a compound used in the treatment of malaria (Keasling et al., Science, 2006; DOI: 10.1126/science.1132481). Another example is the contribution of an Argentine research group that developed an open-access biosensor for arsenic detection in water: Gasulla, J., Teijeiro, A. I., Alba Posse, E. J., & Nadra, A. D. (2026). Design and implementation of an open-access arsenic biosensor. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-38693-3
.

Biosafety regulatory frameworks should not constitute an obstacle for these developments to reach the market. Indeed, most synthetic biology products arise from the application of genetic modification techniques already covered by regulatory frameworks for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). After more than 30 years of accumulated experience in GMO risk assessment, many countries have developed robust methodologies based on case-by-case evaluations and modern approaches such as Problem Formulation. These principles remain fully applicable to products derived from synthetic biology. Rather than creating entirely new regulatory categories, efforts should focus on capacity-building, regulatory modernization, and improving the efficiency of science-based assessment processes.

In this sense, Argentina reiterates that synthetic biology applications resulting in living modified organisms fall within the scope of existing national biosafety frameworks and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Ensuring proportional, science-based, and case-by-case approaches, while avoiding unnecessary duplication of regulatory efforts, is essential to maximize potential benefits while maintaining high standards of environmental protection.

From Argentina’s perspective, a forward-looking approach that strengthens capacities, promotes cooperation, and supports evidence-based assessments will better enable Parties to evaluate both the potential positive and potential negative impacts of biotechnology in alignment with the three objectives of the Convention and the KMGBF.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important discussion.

Dear Participants,

Thank you for your interventions this week thus far. This thread has been busy!

I appreciate the sharing of further illustrative examples and more advanced research, as well as the suggested links to the KMGBF targets. I am happy to see a diverse set of examples is being collected and other ways in which there could be potential benefits for the targets.
In addition, this forum comes at a time when there have been limited and critical conversations about mapping these applications against the three objectives of the Convention and the targets of the KMGBF. In this regard, there will be several considerations, including the context of use, that will be crucial. Taken together, all of this information will be important in beginning to understand how synthetic biology may relate to broad policy conversations under the Convention.

As a kind reminder, there is still time to post and share additional examples of the potential benefits of synthetic biology. The forum will close tomorrow at 5 p.m. Montreal time.

Best,

Martin

I am Tae Seok Moon, a full professor at J. Craig Venter Institute, a non-profit research institute in the United States. In addition, I serve as the director of an NSF global center called CIRCLE that focuses on waste valorization and circular economy. This center consists of >20 companies and >40 academic investigators at 18 institutes from 6 nations and aims to solve global waste and pollution problems by using synthetic biology, outreach activities (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHXKHYZj0ec&list=PL-440if8TYxKhZI6CmoxFcLflOJ5l0bQl), and education.

In 2022, I summarized my views and visions on synthetic biology (benefits and risks) after ~20 years of research in this field (doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2022.08.010). Briefly, I propose we can see the entire planet as a huge bioreactor where microbes and microbiota can be harnessed to fix greenhouse gases to mitigate climate problems, fix nitrogen more efficiently to solve food inequality and shortage (by reducing chemical fertilizers), and engineer plastic eating bacteria that self-destruct once microplastic clean-up missions are accomplished (doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2022.08.010).

My views and visions have been confirmed and reinforced after traveling for ~180 days a year to give seminars and conference talks as well as to see nature and ecosystems, especially including Oceania (dying coral reef), Americas (coast cities with more pollutions), Europe (many cities suffering from waste issues), and Asia (developing countries that try to catch up with developed nations in exchange of polluting the environments). My conclusion after those trips was that engineering biology or synthetic biology is NOT conquering nature BUT living together in nature. In short, “Human arrogance that we own this world is a culprit for the current climate crisis; this earth belongs to all living creatures, including viruses, microbes, insects, plants, animals, and humans. We must change our mindset or paradigm to solve global problems such as climate crisis, pollution, sustainable agriculture, and green production.” (doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2022.08.010) Synthetic biology or engineering biology can help realize this view and solve global problems, including biodiversity issues.

As other technologies, synthetic biology has risks, including biodiversity loss by introducing GMOs and engineered invasive species. However, the issues of the biodiversity loss have been created more by other human activities, including climate crisis partly due to coal/petroleum-based industrialization, pollutions due to urbanization, and unrestricted farming and fishing. To quickly and sustainably solve these problems created by human activities, synthetic biology or engineering biology can be used (doi.org/10.1038/s44168-023-00089-8 & doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2024.02.002).

Thanks for the wonderful discussion.

Sincerely,

Tae Seok Moon, Professor at J. Craig Venter Institute
Moonshot Bio Founder, SynBYSS Chair & EBRC Council Member
NSF Global Center CIRCLE Director

Dear moderator and colleagues,
My name is Cinthia Valentina Soberanes Gutiérrez, PhD in Chemical-Biological Sciences. I am Investigadora por México affiliated with the Executive Secretariat of the Intersecretarial Commission on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (CIBIOGEM), Mexico.
Several colleagues in this forum have already highlighted possible areas where synthetic biology could contribute to the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and to the implementation of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), including environmental monitoring, climate mitigation and bio-based production systems (e.g. posts #3516, #3569 and #3576). These discussions are important, but they also underscore the need to distinguish clearly between demonstrated outcomes and anticipated benefits, particularly where applications may involve environmental release.
Synthetic biology tools may indeed support certain objectives of the Convention in specific contexts. For example, synthetic biosensors and cell-free expression systems are being explored as tools for rapid detection of environmental contaminants and pathogens, which could strengthen monitoring systems relevant to KMGBF Target 7 (reducing pollution) and Target 21 (knowledge generation and information sharing) (Jia et al., 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.155632).
At the same time, a growing body of scientific literature emphasizes that organisms developed through synthetic biology may pose novel ecological and biosafety challenges, particularly where environmental exposure is possible. These include potential persistence, ecological interactions, and the risk of gene flow or horizontal gene transfer into wild populations, which may affect evolutionary trajectories or ecosystem dynamics (George et al., 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-44531-1).
These considerations are especially relevant for countries that are centres of origin and diversification of major crops. In such regions, wild relatives and traditional varieties represent reservoirs of genetic diversity essential for global food security. Gene flow from genetically engineered organisms into wild or cultivated relatives has been documented in several crop systems, highlighting the need for careful assessment of ecological and genetic impacts (Ellstrand et al., 2013. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135840 ; Quist & Chapela, 2001. https://www.nature.com/articles/35107068  ).
In this context, synthetic biology and centres of origin of crop diversity represent a critical interface between biotechnology innovation and biodiversity protection. Evaluating potential benefits therefore requires particular attention to the ecological and evolutionary dynamics of these regions.
Beyond ecological considerations, the evaluation of potential benefits should also incorporate socio-economic dimensions and human rights considerations, including impacts on smallholder agriculture, traditional seed systems, and the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities who actively conserve agrobiodiversity. These aspects are recognized within the Convention, including under Articles 8(j), 16 and 19, and are also reflected in discussions on equitable participation and benefit-sharing.
As highlighted in several contributions in this forum (#3514, #3565 and #3595), the realization of potential benefits from synthetic biology is therefore contingent upon enabling conditions that include:
• robust biosafety and environmental risk assessment frameworks
• long-term monitoring and baseline ecological data
• equitable access to technology and capacity-building
• consideration of socio-economic impacts and human rights
• fair and equitable benefit-sharing, including discussions on digital sequence information (DSI)
Strengthening these conditions will be essential to ensure that developments in synthetic biology contribute meaningfully to the objectives of the Convention while safeguarding biodiversity and the communities that depend on it.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion.

Cinthia Valentina Soberanes Gutiérrez
Executive Secretariat of the Intersecretarial Commission on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (CIBIOGEM), Mexico.

Hello everyone.  My name is Jenna Shinen and I work in the Office of Conservation and Water at the U.S. Department of State.  I am pleased to see the continued discussion on the forum and thank the moderators for their work and other participants in the forum for their thoughtful comments. 

New developments in biological engineering are enabling scientists to develop biotechnology applications to address pressing challenges and opportunities, including in the context of human health, improving food security, securing supply chains, and growing local economies.  These technologies are revolutionizing biological research; advancing our understanding of living organisms, their ecosystems, and their diversity; and becoming vital to sound management of natural resources and powering the global economy.  Research, education, and product development using modern biotechnologies has led to clear direct and indirect benefits relevant to the Convention’s objectives as well as achievement of the KMGBF and these benefits will continue to emerge with continued application of biological engineering tools and techniques.  

Many beneficial applications of synthetic biology technologies have already been specifically mentioned by previous posters, including those that assist in species conservation efforts, environmental monitoring and remediation, and invasive species control.  Genetic engineering is also improving crop production methods by reducing soil erosion, decreasing fuel and chemical pesticide use, increasing disease and pest-resistance within plants, increasing on-farm insect biodiversity, enhancing crop product quality, and improving farm productivity and farmer income.  Synthetic biology advancements alongside other transformative technologies, such as artificial intelligence, can unlock new benefits—including the development of novel medicines, crops, and materials.



Some recent examples from the U.S.:

https://www.nsf.gov/news/microbes-brooklyn-could-help-mitigate-industrial 

https://www.nsf.gov/news/tiny-lenses-grown-bacteria-enzymes-may-help-doctors-see 

https://www.energy.gov/articles/energy-department-announces-26-genesis-mission-science-and-technology-challenges 

https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/guardian-genetic-utilization

https://www.usgs.gov/programs/biological-threats-and-invasive-species-research-program/science/edna-science-species 

https://research.fs.usda.gov/rmrs/centers/ngc  



Additional conservation genetics examples:

White oak: https://www.nsf.gov/news/conserving-white-oak-tree-critical-timber-distilling

Przewalski’s Horse: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11898140/ 

Northern White Rhino: https://www.scripps.edu/news-and-events/press-room/2025/20250513-loring-rhino.html

Biobanking: https://www.fws.gov/story/2023-12/biobanking-wildlife-recovery-insurance-policy

Livestock conservancy: https://livestockconservancy.org/resources/conservation-genetics/



In terms of capacity building, the United States encourages cooperative scientific research, development, skill enhancement, and technology transfer (on voluntary and mutually agreed terms) in many fields relevant to biotechnology and biological engineering, both domestically and with partners around the world.  Some of the research focuses on filling the gaps in fundamental understandings of biological systems, as well as technology development to speed the application of biological engineering.  We support specific programs in areas associated with stability and evolution of genetically engineered organisms, including mechanisms of containment, biosafety, and biosecurity to reduce the likelihood of adverse effects, as well as specific programs to examine the relationship between environmental pressures, ecology, and evolution.  For example, the United States led creation of an APEC High Level Policy Dialogue that resulted in a Public Approaches Document for Regulatory Cooperation on Agricultural Biotechnology, which benefitted from the consensus-driven nature of APEC. 



Some recent cooperative examples from the U.S.:

https://biotechpolicyportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/APEC_PAD_Peru_Workshop_PAD.pdf 

https://www.nsf.gov/news/nsf-announces-first-ai-engage-awards-modernize-global

*** Posted on behalf of M. Christophe Boëte (France)***

Dear all,

My name is Christophe Boëte and I am a research scientist at IRD / University of Montpellier in France where I work on the evolutionary biology of mosquito-pathogens interactions. I have been previously involved in the AHTEG on Risk Assessment that focused on gene drives.

I fully agree with the post #3595 regarding the need to critically assess the hype surrounding synthetic biology. This phenomenon is not new: it has already been discussed since decades including with the concept of genohype described by Holtzman (Science , 286 (4539), pp. 409-410, 1999).  Moving beyond theoretical promises, there is a need to prioritize robust, multidisciplinary evaluation of its potential impacts.

The emphasis on the precautionary approach, as embedded in the CBD, is also particularly crucial not only for environmental and health safety but also to ensure equitable access and benefit-sharing.

Best regards,
Christophe Boëte

Hello, everyone.
I’m Kathleen Lehmann working at the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety of the European Commission. I’m a member of this year’s AHTEG of synthetic biology (SynBio) and was also a member of the last multidisciplinary AHTEG, participating for the European Union. My general background is in biochemistry and I’m a specialist for regulation and risk assessment of genetically modified organisms, including for SynBio.

Let me first thank Martin for moderating this discussion and all participants for their pertinent contributions.

Some potential benefits of SynBio could lie in agricultural and environmental applications. Examples include applications for bioremediation and the sustainable increase in crop yields by utilising novel fertilizers/nitrogen fixation or adapted plant architectures that are better able to cope with environmental change. Such examples particularly address Target 2 (Restoration of 30% degraded ecosystems), Target 7 (pollution reduction), Target 10 (Sustainable agriculture) and Target 16 (sustainable consumption choices).

References:
Maull, V. & Solé, R. (2024) Biodiversity as a firewall to engineered microbiomes for restoration and conservation. R Soc Open Sci.  11 (6). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.231526.

Borowsky, A.T. & Bailey-Serres, J. (2024) Rewiring gene circuitry for plant improvement. Nat Genet 56, 1574–1582 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01806-7

Guo, K. et al. (2026) Biological nitrogen fixation in cereal crops: Progress, strategies, and perspectives. Plant Communications 4, 100499, https://www.cell.com/plant-communications/fulltext/S2590-3462(22)00346-7

Ragland, C.J. et al. (2024) Choreographing root architecture and rhizosphere interactions through synthetic biology. Nature Communications 15, 1370. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-45272-5

Chen, X. et al. (2025) A synthetic glycolate metabolism bypass in rice chloroplasts increases photosynthesis and yield. The Crop Journal, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2025.03.001

Thank you, Martin, for initiating this important discussion.
Synthetic biology is increasingly discussed as a technological field that may potentially contribute to the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)—namely the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources. In this context, several areas of possible relevance have also been discussed in relation to the implementation of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF).
While many applications remain at the research or early development stage, the scientific literature identifies several areas where synthetic biology tools could potentially complement existing biodiversity conservation and sustainability efforts.
1. Conservation of biodiversity
One area frequently discussed in the literature concerns the potential use of synthetic biology tools to address specific drivers of biodiversity loss.
In particular, genome editing technologies and gene-drive systems are being explored as possible approaches for controlling certain invasive species or addressing emerging wildlife diseases. Invasive alien species are widely recognized as a major driver of biodiversity loss globally, and targeted genetic approaches have been proposed as potential future tools for conservation management.
For example, gene-drive technologies are being studied as possible strategies for managing invasive rodent populations that threaten endemic species on islands.
Godwin, J. et al. (2019)
Rodent gene drives for conservation: opportunities and data needs
Proceedings of the Royal Society B
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1606
More broadly, reviews of the field note that synthetic biology could provide additional tools for conservation interventions where conventional methods are difficult or ineffective.
Macfarlane, N.B.W. et al. (2022)
Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation
iScience
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.105423
If demonstrated to be safe, effective and socially acceptable, such approaches could potentially contribute to KMGBF Target 4, which calls for halting human-induced extinctions and enabling the recovery of threatened species.
Synthetic biology has also been discussed in relation to ecosystem restoration, including research on engineered microbial communities that may support ecosystem resilience or recovery of degraded environments. These potential applications may therefore also have relevance to Targets 2 and 3 concerning ecosystem restoration and effective conservation.
2. Sustainable use of biodiversity
Synthetic biology may also contribute to more sustainable production systems.
Research is ongoing on engineered microorganisms and plant-associated microbiomes that could potentially improve nutrient efficiency, enhance resilience of crops, and reduce reliance on chemical fertilizers and pesticides. If implemented responsibly, such approaches could contribute to reducing pressures on biodiversity arising from agricultural production.
Ke, J. et al. (2021)
Synthetic Biology of Plant-Associated Microbiomes in Sustainable Agriculture
Trends in Biotechnology
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.07.008
These developments may therefore be relevant to several KMGBF targets, particularly Target 10, which focuses on sustainable management of agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry, and Target 7, which calls for reducing pollution risks to biodiversity.
3. Environmental monitoring and remediation
Another area frequently highlighted in the literature is the potential use of synthetic biology for environmental monitoring and remediation.
Engineered microorganisms, enzymes and biosensors are being developed to detect or degrade environmental contaminants, including hydrocarbons, heavy metals and plastics. These technologies may contribute to addressing pollution affecting ecosystems.
Aminian-Dehkordi, J. et al. (2023)
Synthetic biology tools for environmental protection
Biotechnology Advances
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2023.108239
Such approaches may therefore be relevant to KMGBF Target 7, which aims to substantially reduce pollution risks and negative impacts on biodiversity.
4. Benefit-sharing and biodiversity-based innovation
Synthetic biology also intersects with the third objective of the Convention regarding the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.
Innovation in synthetic biology often relies on biological knowledge and genetic information derived from biodiversity, including digital sequence information (DSI). As such, developments in this field may have implications for benefit-sharing arrangements, technology transfer, and capacity-building.
Depending on governance frameworks and international arrangements, synthetic biology innovation could potentially generate new opportunities for:
• scientific cooperation
• technology transfer
• capacity-building
• development of bio-based products and industries
These aspects may therefore be relevant to KMGBF Target 13, which addresses the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated digital sequence information.
Important considerations regarding potential benefits
At the same time, any discussion of the potential benefits of synthetic biology should remain careful, evidence-based and consistent with the principles of the Convention.
Many synthetic biology applications remain at the research or early development stage, and in several cases the anticipated outcomes are still largely theoretical or based on modelling studies. Consequently, these technologies should not be considered substitutes for established biodiversity conservation measures or ecosystem-based approaches.
Importantly, the possible benefits of synthetic biology do not remove the need for precaution, rigorous risk assessment, monitoring and appropriate governance frameworks. This also includes ensuring respect for the rights, knowledge and participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, which remain essential elements of biodiversity governance under the Convention.
In this context, it is important to recall that the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted by Parties in CBD Decision 15/4, explicitly states that implementation of the framework should be carried out in a manner consistent with the Convention and its Protocols, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing.
CBD COP Decision 15/4 – Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf
Concluding observations
Overall, synthetic biology could potentially influence several KMGBF targets depending on the specific application and governance context. The targets most frequently discussed in relation to synthetic biology include:
• Target 4 – halting species extinction and recovery of threatened species
• Target 2 – ecosystem restoration
• Target 3 – conservation and effective management of biodiversity
• Target 7 – reduction of pollution risks
• Target 10 – sustainable management of productive sectors
• Target 13 – fair and equitable sharing of benefits
At the same time, the biodiversity implications of these technologies will ultimately depend on their practical implementation, governance frameworks, risk assessment processes and broader societal considerations.

In complement to the intervention presented in #3558, and taking note of the valuable contributions received since then, I wish to highlight some positions that reinforce the elements already raised and that contribute to building a technically sound consensus in this forum.

We support the contribution of #3582, which underscores the importance of foresight exercises and roadmaps developed by specialized international bodies as instruments to identify both the opportunities and the challenges associated with synthetic biology innovation. These exercises represent precisely the type of existing processes that Parties can draw upon directly, avoiding duplication of efforts under the CBD. Along the same lines, the contribution of #3609 is particularly constructive, especially its observation that biosafety regulatory frameworks should not constitute an obstacle to the responsible development of synthetic biology products, and that the case-by-case methodologies developed over decades of GMO risk assessment experience remain fully applicable.

I equally value the observation in #3569 that applications in contained industrial settings represent a concrete sustainable use pathway aligned with the objectives of the Convention, and that the strengthening of scientific and technical capacities — including biosafety assessment — constitutes in itself an enabling benefit with direct relevance for the effective implementation of the KMGBF.

The concrete examples of realized benefits presented in #3500 — the production of recombinant Factor C as a direct substitute reducing pressure on wild horseshoe crab populations — and in #3586, which illustrates how national policy frameworks can channel synthetic biology toward measurable environmental and sustainability goals, reinforce the value of applications in contained settings as the most immediately verifiable pathway to positive biodiversity outcomes under the Convention. The contribution of #3635 supports this same perspective by highlighting the direct and indirect benefits already derived from the responsible use of biological engineering tools in regulated contexts.

In that regard, I reiterate that the greatest contribution this forum and the upcoming AHTEG can make is to orient available resources toward the effective strengthening of national capacities for risk assessment and biosafety governance under the Cartagena Protocol. In a context of significant budgetary constraints facing the United Nations system, it is essential that resources be directed as a priority toward ensuring that countries — particularly developing ones — have the technical tools, trained personnel, and institutional infrastructure needed to assess, govern, and where appropriate benefit from these developments. Investing in parallel assessments or new regulatory categories when existing frameworks are underutilized would not represent the best use of the limited resources available to the Parties.

International cooperation among Parties in this direction constitutes, in my view, the most concrete and lasting contribution that can emerge from these processes.

Thank you very much.

Ediner Fuentes-Campos
Deputy Director of Research and Development, Secretariat of Science, Technology and Innovation of Panama / National Focal Point — Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

Dear Forum Participants and Mr. Batic,

My name is Ana Atanassova, and I represent the Global Industry Coalition (GIC) in this online forum. My input draws upon over 20 years of academic and biotech industry experience in research, development, and regulation of biotech crops, as well as advancements in agricultural biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. I have served as a participant in the AHTEG on Synthetic Biology 2017-2018 and have been contributing to the development of GIC materials and submission of information in response to SCBD Notifications. I look forward to contributing to the work of the AHTEG on Synthetic Biology 2026.

The GIC (Global Industry Coalition | BCH-ORG-SCBD-16266 | Biosafety Organization | Biosafety Clearing-House) has consistently emphasized that “synthetic biology” is part of the continuum of modern biotechnology, not a distinct field. In its 2017–2025 submissions (2017 Global Industry Coalition | BCH-SUB-SCBD-112053 | Submissions | Biosafety Clearing-House; 2019 3ae0db4bc9891f094e2c24a8; 2023 Global Industry Coalition | BCH-SUB-SCBD-266293 | Submissions | Biosafety Clearing-House; 2025 Global Industry Coalition | BCH-SUB-SCBD-280061 | Submissions | Biosafety Clearing-House), the GIC reiterated that focusing on “biotechnology”, term defined in the Convention (Art 2) and accordingly used in Target 17 of the KMGBF, provides a more inclusive and coherent framework for achieving their goals. Therefore, we do not consider many of the examples contributed to this discussion to be “synthetic biology”, and in our engagement, we maintain the broader “biotechnology” view.

For this thread, we are asked to consider the potential benefits of synthetic biology broadly in relation to the Convention and KMGBF. This has overlap with the “potential positive impacts” thread [#3491], and this type of information has been repeatedly collected in previous synthetic biology programs of work. A “potential” benefit must be understood as exactly that – “potential”. As noted by other contributors to this thread, many of the listed examples are still in early developmental stages (e.g. #3489, #3491, #3555). We can speak from our own experience as biotech product developers that there is a time lag between such early stage research, to field testing and an eventual product. This reflects long R&D timelines and processes which involve several developmental phases. For example, for a biotech crop this can be 10-16.5 years between discovery and product launch (see AgbioInvestor 2022, available at: https://croplife.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/AgbioInvestor-Trait-RD-Branded-Report-Final-20220512.pdf). For other biotech applications, these timelines can be longer, particularly where the regulatory environment is less mature. These long timelines will generally not correspond with delivery of “potential benefits” for 2030 KMGBF targets (in the next 4 years!).

We notice references to the difference between “potential” and realized benefits (e.g. #3561, #3639), and cautioning against hype. We have flagged from the beginning of the synthetic biology work under the CBD that concepts, early-stage research, and speculation of what might be possible with every “new development” do not reflect impending environmental release or commercial use, or potential positive or negative impacts. Across global biotechnology sectors, the vast majority of R&D projects do not reach commercialisation, with only a single-digit percentage ultimately maturing into new products or services. This reflects attrition rates well above 90% throughout the development pipeline. The few projects that do reach market represent the culmination of rigorous filtering of thousands of initial ideas, reflecting the challenging path from lab to commercial biotech product (https://go.bio.org/rs/490-EHZ-999/images/ClinicalDevelopmentSuccessRates2011_2020.pdf; https://croplife.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/AgbioInvestor-Trait-RD-Branded-Report-Final-20220512.pdf). In the area of biotech crop development, attrition rates are not well documented but are generally highest in early R&D, reflecting the experimental nature of this phase, and can remain high through field trial and regulatory phases. These realities of R&D need to be understood when considering benefits that could be “realized”, and where not realized in the short or long term this is not due to technology “failure”. Attrition can also be attributed to external factors including also disproportionate or dysfunctional regulation. We appreciate the efforts of the moderator to focus the discussion on more advanced developments near deployment (#3549).

Advancements in biotechnology are driven by the continuous improvement and refinement of tools – for example tools like genome editing, metabolic engineering, AI, and machine learning. Such tools, paired with knowledge and experience, enhance efficiency and predictability across modern tech fields, not just synthetic biology. As outlined by Mr. Overcash (#3570) under Topic 2 for potential positive impacts, the integration of synthetic biology with AI, using iterative cycles such as Design-Build-Test-Learn, is expected to greater precision, improved workflows as well as new opportunities to enhance existing risk assessment and monitoring processes. However, in the context of product development, it should be clear that while computational design is quick, testing in living systems takes time, creating both opportunities and challenges. Fast innovation calls for flexible regulation, but slow implementation allows for careful risk assessment. Ultimately, accelerated R&D does not guarantee faster product delivery. 

As a final point, we agree with the contributions pointing out that “synthetic biology” does not “start from zero” (e.g. #3585) and those that point that it is part of biotechnology. This is also attested by the type of examples that are contributed to the forum. What might be described as “new” is building upon a foundation of accumulated scientific, technical, and technological knowledge, as well as regulatory/risk assessment experience. There is also a large body of published quantified benefits of “biotechnology” that can inform considerations of the potential benefits of “new” approaches, that in their large part will likely be improvements and refinement of the earlier products.


Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the exchange,

Kind regards to all

Dear all,
Thank you to the contributors and to our moderator for the constructive exchanges. I'm Jens Warrie, Belgian NFP to the Cartagena Protocol and part of the CBD NFP team for Belgium, following this agenda item since 2020 from my perspective as an ecologist and biodiversity policy expert.

Building on the reflections in this thread, I would like to echo the need for a more structured approach within the CBD to assess the potential benefits of synthetic biology. At present, benefits often enter decision‑making only implicitly at the end of a risk assessment, where judgments about “acceptable risk” can differ between decision makers. Bringing benefit evaluation explicitly into scope could support more transparent and evidence‑based weighing of risks and opportunities.

Several contributors in other threads have highlighted the strong context dependence of benefit assessments. As noted in posts such as #3515, #3546 and #3597, the ability to demonstrate benefits in real‑world settings can depend on monitoring capacity, biosafety expertise, and deployment infrastructure—factors that influence feasibility and timelines across varying contexts. Likewise, many Parties are also working with other types of innovation, including nature‑based approaches and technological tools such as drones or AI, which can shape what solutions are most effective or accessible in a given situation.

For this reason, it seems important not to examine synthetic biology in isolation. Under the KM‑GBF’s 2030 targets and 2050 goals, assessing how different approaches—synthetic biology, nature‑based solutions, and other technological or societal innovations—compare in terms of effectiveness, accessibility, and resource efficiency will be essential to help Parties make informed choices. A method that enables such comparisons would also help identify when these approaches may be complementary, allowing policy mixes that maximise biodiversity outcomes.

In summary, a CBD‑guided methodology that enables Parties to weigh positive and negative impacts across different types of innovations, identify trade‑offs and synergies, and support evidence‑based decision‑making could be highly valuable for achieving the KM‑GBF targets and goals.

This point is further elaborated in the Belgian reaction to Notification 2025-065 which can be found on this link: https://bch.cbd.int/en/database/SUB/BCH-SUB-BE-280112-1

Dear valued colleagues and moderator,

As pointed out by many participants in this Open Forum, the promise of Synthetic Biology in many sectors has yet to be realized. Notwithstanding, there is wide recognition of the potential of synthetic biology applications contributing to KMGBF Targets, notably Target 4.

The extinction of native birds in Hawai’i, due to the anthropogenic introduction of viral pathogens and their vectors continues as ambient temperatures increase and extend the range of mosquitos carrying avian malaria. Only 17 of the 60 species of the honeycreeper radiation on the islands of Hawai’i remain. Numbers of the ‘Akekeke (Loxops caeruleirostris), are estimated to have declined by 99%. A genomics-informed population viability modeling approach to evaluate the potential impacts of mosquito control measures on population recovery for ‘akekeʻe demonstrated that, if a new mutation were to arise conferring complete immunity to malaria, it would not necessarily save the species from extinction (10.1016/j.cub.2025.04.078). Additional simulation analyses show that to effectively recover ‘akekeʻe a rapidly reduction of mortality due to avian malaria would need to occur. Population recovery could still occur if malaria-induced mortality rates were to be immediately reduced by 75 percent or more. A substantial reduction in malaria transmission could potentially come from development of synthetic biology interventions which are being explored.
The northern white rhinoceros (NWR) is one of two subspecies of white rhinoceros. Only two living NWR remain, but cell cultures have been established and cryobanked from 12 individuals that, from whole genome sequencing analysis, represent more genetic diversity than remains in the standing population of >12,000 southern white rhinos, a subspecies that experienced a population bottleneck a century ago. Stem cell technology is being developed to assist in preventing the extinction of the NWR and serve as a repository of genetic variation for the species (10.1146/annurev-animal-111523-102158). Additionally, simulation of recovery using genomics-based fitness estimates for southern white rhinos as a benchmark for a viable population, with repeated reintroduction of founders into a restored population, the fitness cost of genetic load remained lower than that borne by southern white rhinos.  Unlike traditional restoration, cell-derived founders can be reintroduced in subsequent generations to boost lost genetic diversity and relieve inbreeding. (10.1111/eva.13683)

Although unproven for conservation impacts including reducing extinction risk in endangered species (although demonstrated for a model biomedical species), the potential of stem cell technologies to add to the portfolio of synthetic biology applications is recognized (10.1242/dev.203116).

These examples contribute to the recognition of the potential applications of synthetic biology to “significantly reduce extinction risk, as well as to maintain and restore the genetic diversity within and between populations of native, wild and domesticated species,” as stated in KMGBF Target 4.
With best regards,
Oliver Ryder

Hello.  My name is Karen Hokanson and I am a Senior Scientific Project Manager with the Agriculture and Food Systems Institute based in Washington DC.  I have been following the discussions on synthetic biology under the Convention, as well as risk assessment and risk management under the Cartagena Protocol, for many years.

I’d like to also thank Martin for hosting this forum and the Secretariat for administering it.  I appreciate the many posts from participants and have found the contributions in this forum thoughtful and constructive in general.  Although I have not yet given posts the thorough review they deserve, I’d like to share some general observations.

A number of posts [#3656 and several others] have reminded us of the intentionally broad ‘operational definition’ of synthetic biology accepted by the parties in order to facilitate the discussion: “Synthetic biology is a further development and new dimension of modern biotechnology that combines science, technology and engineering to facilitate and accelerate the understanding, design, redesign, manufacture and/or modification of genetic materials, living organisms and biological systems.”
This broad definition includes ‘living organisms’, therefore allowing overlap between the discussions that have been taking place on risks and benefits of modern biotechnology under the Cartagena Protocol and the risk and benefits of synthetic biology in this forum and in previous discussions.  I agree with a number of posts that have also suggested that synthetic biology is on a continuum with modern biotechnology, and it does strike me how repetitive the discussions in this forum are of earlier discussions, when it comes to LMOs developed with synthetic biology, especially regarding ‘potential’ negative impacts.  It’s not particularly helpful to use ‘synthetic biology’ as a means to start this conversation all over again, when we can build on the advances that we’ve made already under the Cartagena Protocol, especially regarding risk assessment (e.g., ‘the voluntary guidance materials on risk assessment of LMOs containing gene drives, also mentioned in other posts).

I have found the posts on potential ‘benefits’ of synthetic biology (which also provide examples of LMOs) much more interesting, particularly as a ‘horizon scanning’ tool. After all, no technology should be worth pursuing if there weren’t potential benefits (as no technology is fully without risk). The many examples of current and potential applications of synthetic biology presented in this forum (LMOs and non-LMO applications clearly distinguished) should provide a useful list for the AHTEG to consider.  Perhaps the AHTEG could use these examples to revisit the ‘operational definition’ of synthetic biology.  It is clear in this forum that different participants still have very different ideas about what is synthetic biology.  These discussions would be more productive if we can narrow the definition or at least categorize applications in a way that would allow more focused  discussions.

Kind regards,
Karen

Dear Participants,

As the forum comes to a close, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your active participation during the online forum and responding so well to my posts.

Under this thread, we have seen several illustrative examples and descriptions of the potential benefits of synthetic biology. Thank you for doing the hard work of connecting this potential to the targets of the KMGBF as it seems that we have a large number of targets mentioned in the various posts. Given the cross-cutting nature of synthetic biology, I also appreciate the important distinctions that have been raised regarding the context of use, socioeconomics and the limited experience thus far of assessing the potential benefits. I also see the importance of capacity-building. I believe that this rich information will assist the AHTEG in performing their critical assessment of the potential benefits of synthetic biology in relation to the Convention and the KMGBF.

I will work with the Secretariat to ensure the information has been captured.

Best,

Martin

As I pointed out in my post [#3686] on the current benefits, synthetic biology can already be applied in ways that contribute to the three objectives of the convention. The range of potential synthetic biology applications will continue to grow. Hence, it is crucial that regulatory frameworks are in place to ensure these technologies are used safely and fairly. When used consciously and responsibly, synthetic biology can be applied in various fields to make processes more efficient and sustainable, ultimately helping to protect biological diversity.

The potential of synthetic biology lies primarily in applications within confined systems. However, caution is needed with applications that intend to release organisms or other entities obtained through synthetic biology into the environment.

Dear all, my name is Mitscheli Sanches da Rocha. I am a biologist with a PhD in Pathology, and an expert in toxicology and product safety for biotechnology with more than a decade of hands-on experience in regulatory toxicology, ecotoxicology, and safety assessments of biotechnology, chemical, pharmaceutical, and food products. I have represented industry in stakeholder fora, delivered invited academic talks, and organized biotechnology focused events, always striving for science- and evidence- based regulatory approaches, and committed to strengthening transparent, data driven decision making for the safe development and deployment of biotechnological innovations. Currently, I am a Global Regulatory Policy Manager at BASF, following the development of new and emerging biotechnologies, and I contribute to the Global Industry Coalition. This is my first time participating in this forum, and I appreciate the opportunity to contribute and be exposed to different perspectives.
Most technologies and scientific developments entail both potential benefits and risks. One example is vaccine mRNA technology, which, despite early efficacy and safety concerns, contributed to the development and successful deployment of COVID‑19 vaccines during a global pandemic. Synthetic biology itself is an established field, and a range of applications are already in use with documented societal benefits (WEF_What_is_synthetic_biology_2024.pdf). At the same time, discussions in this forum reflect the accelerating pace of developments in synthetic biology, particularly when combined with enabling tools such as artificial intelligence (AI), large language models (LLMs), biofoundries, and design–build–test–learn (DBTL) platforms. These developments raise questions related to regulatory frameworks, biosecurity, and socio‑economic impacts.
It is critical to ensure appropriate oversight and risk anticipation while avoiding regulatory approaches that may unnecessarily constrain research and development or delay potential applications relevant to human health, conservation, and biodiversity. The same technologies that raised concerns may also be applied to support risk management objectives. AI‑based tools can improve precision in biological design, contribute to the development of products with improved safety profiles, and support monitoring and assessment processes, thereby reducing unintended or adverse outcomes. The OECD forward‑looking technology assessment report outlines potential pathways, including the integration of “human‑in‑the‑loop” system to address risks and limitations, as supporting legal and ethical accountability, enhance resilience and cyber‑biosecurity, and help guide research priorities (https://doi.org/10.1787/12158721-en).
In the context of living modified organisms (LMOs), AI–related applications are an enabling tool in the research and development of new products and services. Synthetic biology is within the scope of “biotechnology” definition under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and where the outcome of synthetic biology is an LMO, these are adequately covered by existing risk assessment frameworks. Existing regulatory frameworks, when applied in a product‑focused, risk-proportionate, and science‑based manner, are adequate and appropriate to also address product outcomes enabled by AI. Nevertheless, the convergence of synthetic biology and AI tools underscore the need for strengthening capacity building for research and assessment of new technologies and for the development of best practices that can support the safe deployment of innovations. Such efforts can contribute to the achievement of the KBGBF 2050 Vison and 2030 Targets, particularly Targets 20 and 21.
Thank you for the opportunity, this forum has been an exciting and unique experience.
Have a good weekend!
Mitscheli

My name is Delphine Thizy. I am a senior advisor on policy and stakeholder engagement at Imperial College and an advocacy consultant for Friends of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. I am part of the current OECD biofutures expert group and was part in the past of the OECD synthetic biology focus group and of the 2019 IUCN taskforce on synthetic biology.

I would like to support various statements (including #3521, #3515, #3539, #3558, #3569, #3573, #3589, #3609, #3656, #3669) that point to the potential benefits of synthetic biology to target 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 20, 21

The OECD has published a variety of reports that point to the contribution that synbio can make to these targets and to the need of an enabling policy environment. I would particularly like to point to Synthetic biology in focus from 2025 that provides examples related to human health, Food security and soil regeneration (relevant amongst others for target 10), circularity, and emissions reduction (relevant amongst others for target 12).

I would also like to point to IUCN’s report on synthetic biology that lays out the potential benefits of this field to biodiversity conservation, which includes several relevant to KMBGF targets including targets 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10. The recent IUCN policy on synthetic biology supports IUCN members and the broader community to ensure informed decisions based on a case-by-case assessment to harness the potential benefits of this technology and avoid its potential risks. 


Robinson, D. and D. Nadal (2025), “Synthetic biology in focus: Policy issues and opportunities in engineering life”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2025/03, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3e6510cf-en.

Redford, K.H., Brooks, T.M., Macfarlane, N.B.W. and Adams, J.S. (eds.) (2019). Genetic frontiers for conservation: An assessment of synthetic biology and biodiversity conservation. Technical assessment. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. xiv + 166pp. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2019.05.en

https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/resrecfiles/WCC_2025_RES_086_EN.pdf

My name is Tobias Erb, I am a Chemist and Biologist at the Max Planck Society, Germany, where I am Director at the Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology. I am also member of the National Academy of Sciences (Leopoldina), the National Academy of Engineering (acatech), as well as the working group “Gene Technology Report” at the BIH, for which I serve as expert for synthetic biology.
I have organized and participated in several workshops on the current achievements, opportunities, and challenges in Synthetic Biology. I also served as expert for the OECD working paper on Synthetic Biology (https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/3e6510cf-en), which provides an excellent and balanced view on policy issues and opportunities in synthetic biology.
There has been a deep and long discussion on potential benefits and ‘potential’ risks of living engineered organisms (LMOs) created through modern biotechnology. In my view, the operational definition of ‘synthetic biology’ used by the CBD overlaps with and includes these biotechnological methods and thus does not warrant a complete new discussion. Instead, I would find it much more important to shift focus from a generalized, process-based view to concrete, product-centric evaluations: There is no evidence that LMOs created through synthetic biology methods (e.g., NGT) would behave fundamentally different compared to organisms created through ‘classical’ methods (conventional breeding, EMS-enhanced methods, etc.).
In this sense, I would like to highlight one concrete examples, with clear benefits. For instance the conversion of steel-mill off gases by engineered microbes (Liew et al. Nature Biotech 2024; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-01195-w), which directly capture greenhouse gas emissions from the point source, thus contributing to KMGBF targets 8 and 11.
While a bit more speculative, recent work has shown that synthetic CO2-fixation pathways (Schwander et al. Science 2016 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aah5237) – when translated to plants – increase photosynthetic efficiency (Roell et al. PNAS 2022; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022307118; Lu et al. Science 2026 https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.adp3528), thus potentially increasing agricultural productivity while saving land, contributing (indirectly) to KMGBF target 3.
In fact, these example shows that biotechnological products have the potential to contribute synergistically to KMGBF targets, if assessed on an individual base.

*** Posted on behalf of Ricarda Steinbrecher (Federation of German Scientists (Vereinigung Deutscher Wissenschaftler))***

Dear colleagues,

First of all, thank you to Martin and the Secretariat for enabling this valuable discussion and exchange.

I am Ricarda Steinbrecher, a (developmental) biologist and molecular geneticist, based in the UK and nominated by the Federation of German Scientists. I’ve had the pleasure and honour to be a member of the AHTEGs and mAHTEG on Synthetic Biology in previous rounds. In the current discussion I appreciate the breadth of angles taken to reflect on this topic and would like to add some additional thoughts.

If producing a collection of potential benefits is to help understand and judge a situation, and to help decision making e.g. with regards to generating or redirecting resources, it deems important to be clear what we mean by “potential benefits”. Clearly there is a need to differentiate between
hypothetical potential benefits on one end and fully assessed potential benefits on the other. How real do they need to be to qualify as potential benefits – if at all? This notion came up in many contributions, including #3560, #3588, #3595 and #3597, the latter stating the importance of “avoiding hype or proof-of-concept being treated as realized outcomes”. Without clarity as to what we consider ‘potential benefits’ it will be hard to follow each others arguments or to establish common ground – and I want to flag this up as a task yet to be undertaken.

Concerning hype: Researchers have found that the level of “promotional language” – also referred to as hype - has been steadily increasing in the scientific literature. For example, Millar et al. published a series of findings (2022a,b & 2023) after investigated the use of “promotional language” (hype) in abstracts of successful National Institute of Health (NIH) grant applications and in the abstracts of the publications from NIH funded research. They found that between 1985 and 2022 promotional language has increased significantly. In abstracts of publications - describing the work and findings – there was an increase for example of the words “crucial” by 1123% (relative increase), “unprecedented” by 2567% and “transformative” by 4489%. He also refers to it as “increasing levels of salesmanship”. This again may be related to Jack Heinemann’s findings re crispr companies in comment #3561.

Context: To ascertain the benefit a technology (any technology) may achieve requires context and comparison. Other comments importantly highlighted the need for choosing the right baselines, e.g. #3514 and #3597, or to investigate to whom the benefits accrue (#3595).  Additional to these aspects, attention needs to be given to already established or alternative approaches. This is not only in the function of comparators, but also to counteract the power of hype. Concerning mosquito-borne diseases, Boëte (2025) for example warns that rhetoric around gene drives targeting mosquitoes ‘often goes along with a negative presentation of current “conventional” tools and exaggerated promises about EGD themselves, leading to a situation of hype’. He warns that focusing on the limitations of existing interventions reinforces ‘the notion that new tools are needed rather than improving the use of those currently available’.  If interested, the problem of hype in science communication, including in the context of gene drives, is further addressed in Wells & Steinbrecher (2025).

Type of application and technology:
It has been mentioned in many comments that synthetic biology is a very broad term, covering many technologies, techniques and applications. As others, I find it important to highlight the contribution that certain technologies, techniques and methodologies bring to identification, detection, monitoring and assessment of ecosystems and their components and interactions – and thus to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. These would include for example the whole range of omics tools, the detection and analysis of environmental DNA, as highlighted in #3569.  Equally, certain contained-use applications, such as the recombinant Factor C (rFC) to substitute for horseshoe crab blood (#3500) has clear benefits for biodiversity. However, it will be much harder to come to a reliable assessment of potential benefits, where the application is the genetic engineering of the environment, of species in the wild. Preliminary or laboratory proof-of-concept publications are insufficient to extrapolate a reliable potential benefit from. Firstly, many proof-of-concept developments don’t ever go any further, either because biology does not allow it, or scaling up and real world conditions are a different matter. Secondly, the potential for negative impacts is high, due to high levels of uncertainty, insufficient levels of knowledge, and high degrees of complexity and spacio-temporal dynamics. Please also see my comment in the thread on potential negative impacts, which I have yet to post.

With kind regards, Ricarda

References:
Millar et al. (2022a) doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.28676
Millar et al. (2022b) doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.43221
Millar et al. (2023) doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.48706
Boëte C. (2025) https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjaf007
Wells & Steinbrecher (2025)  https://genedrivemonitor.org/sites/default/files/2025-12/Cutting%20through%20the%20hype%20%20-%20Oct%202025%20-%20A4.pdf

Dear Colleagues,

I echo Ricarda's comments regarding the question of the actual benefits of synthetic biology. I would like to share a brief reflection.

As it is important to evaluate both the benefits and risks of the applications of synthetic biology, I wonder whether it would be appropriate for the AHTEG group to develop a set of parameters, indicators, or tools to assess benefits and risks (or potential negative impacts), in addition to identifying these impacts.

Best regards

Wei

Dear Participants,

Thank you kindly for your active participation and robust discussions.

The Open-Ended Online Forum is now closed.

Kind regards,

The Secretariat