*** 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 positive impacts of the most recent technological developments in the field 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).

To start the discussions, I would like to ask you the following:
What are examples of recent technological developments in synthetic biology since the last forum convened in March 2023?
What could be the potential positive impacts of these developments in the context of the three objectives of the Convention and the KMGF? Which targets could be positively affected?

It will be important to highlight notable examples for the AHTEG. Thus, 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

Synthetic Biology has been associated with the efforts to create plant-based and cultivated meat that is indistinguishable from conventional animal meat, but less expensive, more nutritious, and safer. The current global meat production poses immense risks to geopolitical stability, public health, and the environment.
This Synthetic Biology plant-based and cultivated meat can preserve forests and biodiversity, mitigate climate change and ocean pollution, and lower antimicrobial resistance and pandemic risk (Bruce Friedrich, 2026). Synthetic Biology has been proposed as a tool for alternative proteins that can be a globally scalable solution to some of the most urgent public global health and ecological crises.

Ref:
Bruce Friedrich (2026). Meat: How the Next Agricultural Revolution Will Transform Humanity's Favorite Food―and Our Future

Dear Moderator and Participants,

Regarding the most recent technological developments since 2023, I would like to highlight the significant shift toward precision knock-in gene editing and synthetic-genomics-based research tools in agricultural biotechnology, as exemplified by our ongoing work at the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice).

1. Recent Technological Development: Advanced Synthetic Viral Vectors
Currently, at the Philippine Rice Research Institute in the Philippines alone, we are utilizing synthetic biology for vector construction using synthesized Rice Tungro Virus (RTV) genomes. While this project is in the laboratory stage, the ability to synthesize these genomes to build precise research tools is a notable recent development in our region.

Potential Positive Impact: This directly supports Target 17 (Biosafety) and Target 20 (Capacity-building) by establishing national sovereignty over the diagnostic tools needed to manage regional plant pathogens without relying on imported technology or unpredictable field isolates. This standardized screening approach enhances the biosafety and efficiency of our breeding pipelines.

2. Recent Technological Development: Targeted Knock-in for Multi-Stress Resilience
We are using synthesized gene fragments for homology-driven knock-in editing to develop submergence-tolerant rice, high beta carotene rice, and pest-resistant corn. Moving beyond simple gene knock-outs to precise trait insertion is a major trend in 2024-2026 for enhancing crop resilience.

Potential Positive Impact:

Target 10 (Sustainable Agriculture): By ensuring yield stability in flood-prone areas, we reduce the need for clearing new land, supporting ecosystem conservation.

Target 7 (Pollution Reduction): Engineering endogenous resistance to pests like the fall armyworm offers a transformative alternative to synthetic chemical pesticides, directly reducing the chemical pollution load in our watersheds.

These developments align with the Philippines' forward-looking regulatory framework (DA Memorandum Circular No. 08, 2022), ensuring that these technical leaps are managed with high biosafety standards.

References:

Mansi, M., & Danai, P. (2026). The emerging impact of CRISPR and gene editing on global crop improvement. Transgenic Research. DOI: 10.1007/s11248-026-00484-x

Ordonio, R. L., et al. (2021). Improving Popular Released Rice Varieties Through Gene Editing. DA-PhilRice R&D Highlights.

Kind regards,

Dr. Reynante Ordonio
DA-Crop Biotechnology Center (DA-CBC), PhilRice

Alex Owusu-Biney, UNEP

Whilst there is a lot of discussions on the potential positive impacts of the technoloy and also potential negative impacts highlighted,  The challenge is that most of the discussions are at the pilot stage or in the laboratory.  More demonstrable cases will facilate choices and in decisions. In our work most of our projects after developing the national biosafety frameworks seems stuck on the global discourse on the policy choices either to use status quo biosafety measures on synthetic biology or develop new measures or guidance.  The publication below shows one attempt to put together communication on the positive impacts of the technology.

Voigt, C.A. Synthetic biology 2020–2030: six commercially-available products that are changing our world. Nat Commun 11, 6379 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20122-2

I have read and agreed the terms of use

yes

Dear forum participants,

My name is Delphine Beeckman, and I am participating in the CBD online forum on Synthetic Biology as representative of the Belgian Biosafety Professionals (BBP, https://www.ebsaweb.eu/bbp/bbp). As a biosafety officer, focusing on the use of regulated and non-regulated biological materials in containment (e.g. labs, greenhouses, animal facilities, also see DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00650), I am following up on trends for different types of biological materials, including “so-called” synthetic biology and other biotechnological approaches.

The term “so-called” is employed intentionally, because, as evidenced by numerous posts on this forum, stakeholders interpret the term very differently (e.g. #3495, #3538, #3577), leading to ambiguation in its use and confounding the discussions. In addition, scientific innovation in biotechnology does continue at a high pace, and therefore I take reference to the definition as applied by the AHTEG (reminded to the participants in posts #3560, #3655 and #3675), which provides this element of synbio being a further development and new dimension of modern biotechnology. In light of this definition, I observe that many of the examples of positive and negative impacts are applicable to biotechnology as a whole, and not necessarily to new technological developments from the current intersessional period (2024 - 2026).

Focusing on potential positive impacts, I would like build further upon Mr. Friedman’s posts #3623 & #3624 referring to “soft” technological developments, incl. modernization of regulatory frameworks, in relation to KMGBF Target 17, highlighting the need for workable and transparent regulatory pathways. In that respect, I also refer to Mr. Barrios’ post #3577 which references a publication demonstrating that existing regulatory biosafety frameworks can be leveraged and adapted to accommodate emerging biotechnological innovations. Concrete examples showing that the governance of synthetic biology does not begin from scratch have also been shared on this platform, as reflected in posts #3585 (Brazil), #3606 (Canada), #3610 (Argentina), #3626 (Australia), #3648 (Paraguay) and, #3659 (Panama).

I would like to give the participants to this forum therefore the following food for thought (also in line with recent posts #3650 and #3661): would we not have a much more positive impact if the resources that have been and are currently being spent on synthetic biology discussions - already during several COPs, MOPs and AHTEGs – would be applied to strengthen biotechnology-wide capacity building, in line with paragraph 16(d) of Decision 15/8?

Biosafety organisations such as the European Biosafety Association (EBSA), the American Biological Safety Association (ABSA International), the African Biological Safety Association (AfBSA) and the Asia Pacific Biosafety Association (A-PBA) could play a vital role in this due to their experience and expertise that is broader than just biotechnology applications, and which is very relevant when considering risks and measures to ensure safe and responsible research and innovation. The membership of these organisations is not restricted to biosafety officers but also includes competent authorities, and with a focus mostly on activities in contained use, they encounter biotechnological advances already in the earliest stages of research. Through multiple channels of engagement, including legally established activities, but also through professional discussion fora and training courses they share experience and knowledge on (bio)risk management practices, as well as provide regulatory training, thereby supporting scientific and technological capacity building and knowledge sharing in line with KMGBF Target 20. Against this background, such organisations should be much more actively involved in these international discussions.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this forum and warm regards,
Delphine

References:
EBSA: https://www.ebsaweb.eu/ 
ABSA: https://absa.org/
AfBSA: https://www.afbsa.africa/
A-PBA: https://a-pba.org/

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.

Dear Secretariat Dear Colleagues,

My name is Wei Wei, from the Chinese Academy of Sciences. I highly appreciate this opportunity to discuss issues related to synthetic biology.

Regarding the most recent technological developments and emerging trends in this area, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) tools into synthetic biology,  e.g. applied AI in biofoundry-based production systems, represents one of the most significant and transformative advances. This convergence offers substantial opportunities for innovation, efficiency, and scalability. At the same time, it raises important challenges in relation to the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has published a forward-looking technology assessment report on the benefits, risks, and governance implications of the convergence between synthetic biology, AI, and automation (https://doi.org/10.1787/12158721-en). This report provides a useful analytical framework for discussions concerning the potential impacts of these technological developments.

The report further emphasizes the importance of meaningful human oversight in the development and deployment of such systems and highlights that synthetic cells or engineered life forms may introduce uncertainties and novel risks. From the perspective of biodiversity conservation, applications of synthetic biology should be subject to appropriate governance, risk assessment, and precautionary approaches. Therefore in my opinion, the use of synthetic organisms for conservation purposes should be extremely cautious, as engineered analogues of extant or extinct species could generate ecological and evolutionary risks.

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.
(Also posted to Topic 1.)

Dear Emily, & all others addressed:
I would like to express my gratitude for the valuable introduction you provided along with the EBRC Roadmap for Engineering Biology for Climate & Sustainability. The resource provides a comprehensive overview of new uses for synthetic biology technologies that have the potential to support biodiversity preservation, ecosystem [sic] resilience, and address climate change.
From an African perspective, and from the perspective of those working at the science–policy interface, such as women's networks and indigenous peoples & local community representatives, the innovations you highlight (e.g., biosensors for ecosystem monitoring; tools that assist in resilience of ecosystems; biocontainment) may provide useful applications towards the implementation of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), especially Targets 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, & 17.
In addition, it will be important to ensure that the discussion of these [sic] innovations includes considerations of equitable access to technology; capacity building; inclusive governance; gender responsiveness; and the precautionary principle, particularly for regions where biodiversity dependent livelihoods are critical. Increased collaboration between research and stakeholder communities from developing countries could enhance both the relevance and responsible use of these technologies.
I look forward to continuing our dialogue and learning more about the EBRC work at this forum.
Thank you and all the best,
Fatou

Dear Secretariat and Participants,
My name is Enkhchimeg Vanjildorj, a professor of Biotechnology department of Mongolian University of Agriculture. I was recently selected to participate in the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Synthetic Biology and glad to participate in Open-ended Online Forum.
Synthetic biology has become important in medicine, agriculture, industry, and environmental protection. Also, 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. Recent advances have shown its potential in sectors such as agriculture, bioenergy, and the development of sustainable biomaterials.
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.

Dear Colleagues,

The recent developments in synthetic biology over the past six months have been many. This email addresses technological innovations in this field and how they could support the three CBD objectives and the KMGBF
1) AI-Enabled, Automated "Biofoundries" and Faster "Design-Build-Test-Learn" (DBTL) Cycles
Recent Development: The integration of AI/ML (including LLM-based workflows) with robotics/automation to accelerate engineering cycles, reproducibility and scale within synthetic biology research and development.

DBTL Automation & Modelling Review (2024): DOI: 10.1007/s13721-024-00455-4
Total Laboratory Automation (for DBTL) Conceptual Framework (2025, review): (URL)
Work Flow Example (SynBio): ML and Rapid Testing in DBTL (2025): (URL)
Potential Positive Impacts (CBD/KMGBF):
More efficient development of environmental biosensor, bioremediation and biomanufacturing solutions (supports conservation and sustainable use).
Improved reproducibility and standardization may strengthen the quality of scientific evidence used in making decisions about risk assessment and implementation (supports evidence based practices).
Potentially Supported KMGBF Targets: T7 (solutions to pollutants), T10 (more sustainable modes of production), T21 (knowledge, monitoring and data used in decision-making related to biodiverse ecosystems), and enabling conditions associated with implementation.

2) Engineered Microbial Consortia for Plastic Upcycling and Circular Bio-based Value Chains
Recent Development: The development of engineered systems (microbial) exhibiting a "division of labor" that converts plastic-derived waste products into economically valuable products… thus creating opportunities for moving from only degrading plastics to creating a circular economy from waste. 
Fatou.
Women Caucus CBD

Forum Colleagues,

Acknowledging the many valuable responses thus far in this thread, I would like to share a few additional technical research articles and reviews to highlight more recent developments, and promising opportunities for positive impact, of synthetic biology to confer crop and plant resilience to climate change, including stresses from drought, extreme heat, pests and disease. These opportunities could contribute to conserving biological diversity and sustainability, and to achieving many of the KMGBF Targets; recognizing, however, that many of these tools and technologies need additional testing and technical iteration, thorough review for safety and biosecurity, and engagement from local communities regarding their potential application and introduction. (My apologies if some of these have already been shared.)

Claudia E Vickers, Philipp Zerbe, Harnessing plant agriculture to mitigate climate change: A framework to evaluate synthetic biology (and other) interventions, Plant Physiology, Volume 199, Issue 3, November 2025, kiaf410, https://doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiaf410

Sen MK, Mondal SK, Bharati R, Severova L and Šrédl K (2025) Multiplex genome editing for climate-resilient woody plants. Front. For. Glob. Change 8:1542459. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2025.1542459

Tan C, Kalhoro MT, Faqir Y, Ma J, Osei MD, Khaliq G. Climate-Resilient Microbial Biotechnology: A Perspective on Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability. 2022; 14(9):5574. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095574

Lau, SE., Teo, W.F.A., Teoh, E.Y. et al. Microbiome engineering and plant biostimulants for sustainable crop improvement and mitigation of biotic and abiotic stresses. Discov Food 2, 9 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44187-022-00009-5

Zhang, Daolei et al. Synthetic biology and artificial intelligence in crop improvement. Plant Communications, Volume 6, Issue 2, 101220. DOI: 10.1016/j.xplc.2024.101220

I believe the above also align well with the previous comments from Ms. Fatou Ndiaye of the CBD Women’s Caucus, Dr. Reynante Ordonio of PhilRice, and Ms. Enkhchimeg Vanjildorj of the Mongolian University of Agriculture, and appreciate their contributions.

Kindly,
Emily Aurand, EBRC

Dear Participants,

This is a good start. I appreciate the specific examples of technological developments that have been shared. So far, to name a few, there have been further developments in artificial intelligence, engineered microbial consortia, engineered viral vectors, engineered crops and animal protein alternatives. Thank you for also referencing the potential relation to the targets of KMGBF and providing illustrative examples.

Also, I would like to thank you for sharing the reports, scientific publications, roadmaps and reviews. These references will be crucial for the work of the AHTEG.

I look forward to understanding more about the most recent technological developments in this field. It may also be helpful to read the discussion on the potential negative impacts (Topic 2) and complement those discussions.

Best regards,

Martin

Dear All,
as a lawyer I am particularly interested in the regulation of genetic engineering. The posts 3546, 3547 (Eva Sirinathsinghji) and 3510, 3514 (Pat Thomas) are very helpful in building bridges from facts about positive and negative impacts to legal rules on whether or not to accept the release and bringing on the market of genetically modified organisms. Since decades the focus of regulatory oversight has been on negative impacts, different states operating different systems of risk assessment, evaluation and management. The recent overall trend is to deregulate formerly strict requirements. The EU is even about to release an entire group of the so-called new genomic techniques from any risk oversight. For a critique see G. Winter,  The European Union’s deregulation of plants obtained from new genomic techniques: a critique and an alternative option, Environmental Sciences Europe (2024) 36:47. This deregulatory move has often been motivated with pointing to the benefits of genetic engineering. These benefits have commonly been seen in the highly profitable growth of bioeconomy. More recently ecological benefits have been propounded, agroecological improvements standing out. Many optimistic posts in this forum have been filed to that effect, with Eva’s and Pat’s posts reminding of the ostensible character of many promises. Considering this situation the following questions arise from a regulatory perspective:
(1) what risks for human health and the environment cannot be accepted from the outset?
(2) what risks may be weighed up by benefits?
(3) what benefits shall be accepted as possibly preponderant?
If these questions were to be framed as regulatory requirements, their application would need to be grounded on appropriate methodology of assessment. While the methodology of environmental risk assessment has studiously been elaborated and even legally laid out, almost no methodology at all has been developed concerning benefit assessment. Such new methodology would have to start with basic choices (shall a benefit only be accepted if contributing to agroecological improvements, excluding e.g. its use for nature conservation, or for non-sensical  improvements of products?), and it would have to go on elaborating in more detail the assessment of the chosen category of benefit, as e.g. agroecological improvement, including the required information, the steps of assessment and the criteria of evaluation. This would exclude that a risk is accepted just because a benefit is alleged but not substantiated.

Mr Winter, Thank you for referencing my contribution. I have responded to you under Potential negative effects (most recent technological developments)  [#3566]
Pat Thomas

Dear All,
My name is Bojin Bojinov, and I am teaching genetics at the Agricultural University of Plovdiv, Bulgaria.  I participate in COPs and MOPs with the Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI).
I concur with the various posts expressing that there are many new developments that could allow synthetic biotechnology to have positive impacts on human well-being and the environment, e.g. integration of artificial intelligence tools into synthetic biotechnology, applied AI in biofoundry-based production systems, engineered microbial consortia for plastic upcycling, advanced synthetic viral vectors, and targeted knock-in for multi-stress resilience.
I also concur with post #3526 by Alex Owusu-Biney, that more demonstrable cases will help facilitate choices and decisions for future development, all recognizing of course, that many of these applications require adequate safety review.

Hey all,

My name is Justin Overcash and I am a technical expert with the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health.

Recent advances in synthetic biology, particularly the convergence of genetic engineering and artificial intelligence, are expanding the range of tools available to support the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. These developments are notable not only for new applications but also for marked improvements in controllability, predictability, monitoring, and governance integration.

Several technological trends since the previous forum discussions merit particular attention.

Greater Precision and Programmability to Limit Ecological Impact

Advances in programmable genome editing and gene drive design now allow interventions to be tailored to specific ecological contexts. These include threshold-dependent drives, confinable or self-limiting systems (e.g., split drives and toxin-antidote pairs), precision suppression approaches, and strategies that reduce evolutionary resistance (DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-53631-5; DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-64489-6; DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-52473-5). Such tools expand targeted management of invasive species, agricultural pests, and disease vectors while minimizing off-target disruption. They directly support KMGBF Targets 6 (invasive alien species), 7 (pollution reduction), 10 and 11 (sustainable agriculture and ecosystem services).

Artificial Intelligence in Design and Workflows

AI is dramatically accelerating design-build-test cycles, guide RNA optimization, population modeling, and ecological forecasting. For example, AI-driven tools are now widely used to streamline bioengineering workflows and recommend optimized genetic designs based on large biological data sets (DOI:10.1038/s44385-025-00021-1). New approaches are integrating machine learning into genome editing design (DOI:10.1002/advs.202417029), and comprehensive analyses of AI’s role in information-driven optimization of biological systems are emerging (DOI: 10.1007/978-1-0716-4690-8_26). Meanwhile, policy assessments (OECD 2025 https://doi.org/10.1787/12158721-en) highlight how AI’s capacity to process complex datasets can improve predictive modeling relevant to ecological risk assessment. Collectively, these advances allow developers and regulators to explore far more scenarios before any environmental release, strengthening precautionary and adaptive management across KMGBF targets.

Artificial Intelligence in Risk Assessment

All technologies, including products of synthetic biology, may generate both positive and negative impacts. Risk assessment provides a structured framework to evaluate whether anticipated benefits outweigh plausible risks within defined ecological and societal contexts. By formalizing problem formulation, hazard identification, exposure assessment, and risk characterization, this process enables evidence-based decision-making.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly strengthening this framework. AI-assisted literature retrieval and synthesis tools are improving the comprehensiveness and reproducibility of evidence gathering (Best AI Tools for Literature Review in 2025 – Stage by Stage). Machine learning systems can also being applied to support structured problem formulation, predictive modeling, and scenario analysis across complex biological datasets (DOI: 10.1126/science.ade2574; DOI: 10.1186/s12859-025-06302-1).
Recent advances in multi-agent AI systems further suggest that domain-specialized agents can assist in identifying plausible pathways to harm, stress-testing assumptions, and highlighting areas of uncertainty before environmental release (DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.08155; xAI Launches Grok 4.20 With Four AI Agents That Debate Each Other Before Answering You | Awesome Agents). Importantly, these tools do not replace human oversight; rather, they augment technical capacity, particularly in contexts where specialized expertise may be limited.

Together, these advances suggest that synthetic biology and AI are co-evolving in ways that increase both innovation capacity and evaluative rigor. Continued horizon scanning should therefore consider not only the biological technologies themselves, but also the digital tools that enhance their assessment.

Increased Monitoring Capability

Monitoring has advanced substantially through environmental DNA (eDNA), genomic surveillance, remote sensing, and AI-enabled detection. These tools improve post-release tracking, early detection of unintended spread, and outcome verification (DOI: 10.1016/j.envadv.2023.100370; DOI: 10.3390/jmse12101729). Long-term investment in molecular techniques, robotics, and AI directly supports transparency, reversibility planning, and stewardship, allowing for responsible management of potential plausible pathways to harm.

Biodiversity-Positive Innovation

Synthetic biology also delivers broader benefits, including engineered microbes for bioremediation, sustainable biomaterials that reduce pressure on natural resources, and biological production platforms that limit habitat conversion (DOI: 10.1186/s44314-025-00029-2; DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2025.1644390). These applications align with KMGBF Targets 8 (climate resilience), 9 (sustainable use), and 16 (reduced ecological footprint).

Importantly, these technological advances are matched by progress in governance, including staged testing frameworks, stakeholder engagement, open data practices, and updated international guidance (CBD voluntary guidance materials, Biosafety Technical Series 07, 2025).
Taken together, recent developments show synthetic biology evolving toward greater precision, contextualization, and integration with conservation goals. While uncertainties remain, as with any emerging technology, the expanding toolkit offers new ways to address persistent drivers of biodiversity loss.

A useful distinction in discussions of emerging technologies is the difference between what is theoretically possible and what is scientifically plausible within defined ecological and operational contexts. Decision-making frameworks that emphasize problem formulation and credible exposure pathways help focus attention on realistic outcomes and without stifling innovation that delivers public-health, agricultural, and conservation benefits. Continued horizon scanning should therefore consider not only novel applications but also advances that improve controllability, monitoring, and decision-support capacity. In combination, these features are central to realizing positive biodiversity outcomes under the CBD and the KMGBF.

-Justin

Dear Moderator and colleagues,

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

Building on the discussion on precision and improved governance tools in recent technological developments, I would like to highlight advances in gene drive research, particularly in relation to controllability and assessment methodology.

Technical work has moved beyond early concepts of self-sustaining drives toward systems designed with confinement and reversibility in mind. Approaches such as threshold-dependent systems, split drives and other confinable genetic architectures aim to limit spread to defined ecological contexts and to reduce persistence over time. I discuss these developments in the literature reviews “Built to Spread, Designed to Stop” (https://monitoringgenedrives.com/built-to-spread-designed-to-stop/) and “How to Stop a Gene Drive” (https://monitoringgenedrives.com/how-to-stop-a-gene-drive/). These technical refinements are directly relevant to discussions in this thread on greater precision and programmability (see #3570), and they bear on KMGBF Targets 6 and 17 in particular.

In addition, there is growing attention to stepwise and geographically bounded testing strategies. The article “Islands for Gene Drive Field Trials” (https://monitoringgenedrives.com/islands-for-gene-drive-field-trials/) examines the scientific and regulatory reasoning behind proposals for phased field evaluations in contained ecological settings. This connects to the point raised in #3526 regarding the need for demonstrable cases beyond laboratory stages. Structured, transparent testing frameworks are central to generating the evidence base needed to assess potential impacts under the Convention.

Finally, as noted in #3552, benefit assessment methodologies remain underdeveloped compared to risk assessment. In “Gene Drive Problem Formulation” (https://monitoringgenedrives.com/gene-drive-problem-formulation/), I reviewed how established biosafety concepts such as problem formulation can be applied to gene drive applications. This includes defining protection goals, plausible pathways to harm, and measurable endpoints before any environmental release is considered. Such structured approaches align closely with KMGBF Target 17 on biosafety and governance, and with broader calls in this forum for rigorous and transparent evaluation.

Taken together, these developments suggest that the most recent advances in gene drive research are not limited to molecular tools. They also include refinements in controllability, staged testing design, and assessment methodology, which are central to evaluating any potential positive impacts in line with the objectives of the Convention and the KMGBF.

Dear Secretariat and Dear Colleagues

My name is Gustavo Pinilla from the Genetic Resources Group of the Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia

To talk about the potential positive impacts in the context of the most technological developments on synthetic biology a revision of the current operational definition may be crucial, as it could support a clearer identification of what constitutes a benefit of synthetic biology, and help clarify which available synthetic biology tools or developments may be of greatest relevance to the objectives of the convention and the KMGBF. This exercise could be further complemented by looking at what other fora such as the OECD and IUCN have taken towards synthetic biology.  (Keiper y Atanassova 2025; OECD 2025; IUCN 2024) 

With that in mind, we could take for instance the remediation of soils contaminated by organic and inorganic compounds the toolkit provided by  Synthetic biology , can be used to modify and enhance microorganisms to help them degrade contaminants more efficiently(Cheng et al. 2023; Bairagi et al. 2024; Fan et al. 2024; Fleeharty et al. 2025). Since the bioremediation of contaminated environments is heavily dependent on the type of the contaminant and the environment that is contaminated, the tools provided by synthetic biology could help us tailor the response needed to treat those sites (Aminian-Dehkordi et al. 2023; Lean 2024 ; Li et al. 2025). 

The aforementioned activities could be related with target 17 of the KMGBF and are also related to the objectives and article 19 of the convention, and it could also bridge target  2 (effective restoration) and target 17 with target 7 (as a way to reduce pollution on soils) and target 10 (sustainable management of areas under agricultural use). 

On the other hand, reducing the need to consume products related to threatened species has a direct relationship with target 4 (halting of known threatened species) and the objectives of the convention. With synthetic biology there is a potential for the development of alternatives to these products(Rock y MacMillan 2022; Tibbetts 2022), but information on the subject is scarce. More research is needed on the subject. 

In the confluence of AI, bioinformatics and synthetic biology, (with the concern of a new operational definition of synthetic biology notwithstanding) the use of recent models or tools such as Alphafold, Boltz and EVO 2 could impact the aforementioned targets of the KMGBF and the objectives of the convention. An assessment targeted at synthetic biology and AI and the convention might also be in order. To name a few, AI has been useful to unveil interactions within cells in insects (Chidambara Thanu et al. 2025)(Chidambara Thanu 2025) to study pathogens that affect species of commercial interest (Sun et al. 2023; Skern y Oakey 2026) and understanding biofilm of bacteria (Diehl. 2026). As a whole, it has been useful l to fill the gaps in knowledge of the interactions of proteins, using information in existing databases to make predictions of proteome (Ochoa y Milam 2025 ; Schmid 2025). 



References 

Aminian-Dehkordi, Javad, Shadi Rahimi, Mehdi Golzar-Ahmadi, et al. 2023. «Synthetic Biology Tools for Environmental Protection». Biotechnology Advances 68 (noviembre): 108239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2023.108239.

Bairagi, Nachiketa, Jessica L. Keffer, Jordan C. Heydt, y Julia A. Maresca. 2024. «Genome Editing in Ubiquitous Freshwater Actinobacteria». Applied and Environmental Microbiology 90 (11): e00865-24. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.00865-24.

Cheng, Xiyu, Abdur Rahim Khan, Karima ELKarrach, y Feng Wang. 2023. «Editorial: Environmental Bioremediation: Application of Enzymes and Microbes». Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 11 (noviembre): 1327124. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1327124.

Chidambara Thanu, Vaanathi, Amara Jabeen, Spyros E. Zographos, Phillip W. Taylor, y Shoba Ranganathan. 2025. «TBM Preferred to AlphaFold 3 for Functional Models of Insect Odorant Receptors». Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 27: 3908-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2025.08.028.

Fan, Siqing, Hao Ren, Xueni Fu, Xiangyu Kong, Hao Wu, y Zhenmei Lu. 2024. «Genome Streamlining of Pseudomonas Putida B6-2 for Bioremediation». mSystems 9 (12): e00845-24. https://doi.org/10.1128/msystems.00845-24.

Fleeharty, Megan S., Kate B. R. Carline, Bilalay V. Tchadi, Bjorn B. Shockey, Emma C. Holley, y Margaret S. Saha. 2025. «Survival and Spread of Engineered Mycobacterium Smegmatis and Associated Mycobacteriophage in Soil Microcosms». Preprint, Microbiology, enero 29. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.01.27.635130.

Iftehimul, Md., Neaz A. Hasan, David Bass, Abul Bashar, Mohammad Mahfujul Haque, y Morena Santi. 2025. «Combating White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV) in Global Shrimp Farming: Unraveling Its Biology, Pathology, and Control Strategies». Viruses 17 (11): 1463. https://doi.org/10.3390/v17111463.

IUCN. 2024. Recommendations of the  IUCN Citizens’ Assembly on  Synthetic Biology in Relation  to Nature Conservation.

Keiper, Felicity, y Ana Atanassova. 2025. «International Synthetic Biology Policy Developments and Implications for Global Biodiversity Goals». Frontiers in Synthetic Biology 3 (junio): 1585337. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsybi.2025.1585337.

Lean, Christopher Hunter. 2024. «Synthetic Biology and the Goals of Conservation». Ethics, Policy & Environment 27 (2): 250-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2023.2298646.

Li, Hongxia, Xinglan Cui, Yingchun Sun, Peng Zheng, Lei Wang, y Xinyue Shi. 2025. «Advances in Microbial Remediation of Heavy Metal-Contaminated Soils: Mechanisms, Synergistic Technologies, Field Applications and Future Perspectives». Toxics 13 (12): 1069. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics13121069.

Liu, Siqian, Benfeng Xu, Chongyang Li, et al. 2025. «Advancements and Prospects in DNA-Based Bioanalytical Technology for Environmental Toxicant Detection». JACS Au 5 (6): 2443-62. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacsau.5c00398.

Ochoa, Steven, y Valeria Tohver Milam. 2025. «Direct Modeling of DNA and RNA Aptamers with AlphaFold 3: A Promising Tool for Predicting Aptamer Structures and Aptamer–Target Interactions». ACS Synthetic Biology 14 (8): 3049-64. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.5c00196.

OECD. 2025. Synthetic Biology, AI and Automation: A Forward-Looking Technology Assessment. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers. 187.a ed. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers. https://doi.org/10.1787/12158721-en.

Rock, Katherine I., y Douglas C. MacMillan. 2022. «Can Substitutes Reduce Future Demand for Wildlife Products: A Case Study of China’s Millennial Generation». Human Ecology 50 (1): 91-111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-021-00279-0.

Skern, Tim, y Jane Oakey. 2026. «AlphaFold Modeling of the White Spot Syndrome Virus Polymerase». Virology 617 (abril): 110818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2026.110818.

Sun, Meiling, Mingdong Liu, Hong Shan, et al. 2023. «Ring-Stacked Capsids of White Spot Syndrome Virus and Structural Transitions with Genome Ejection». Science Advances 9 (8): eadd2796. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.add2796.

Tibbetts, John H. 2022. «Synthetic Biology and Endangered Species». BioScience 72 (7): 610-17. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac040.

AI tools : 

GitHub - ArcInstitute/evo2: Genome modeling and design across all domains of life

Boltz - Build Better Molecules with AI

AlphaFold — Google DeepMind

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.

The horizon scanning exercise for the positive and negative impacts of synthetic biology, which has been carried out for a decade by the different AHTEGs, is an important part of the process; however, there is a new element that should be given due focus, which is the Action Plan - the decision CBD/COP/DEC/16/2 "Decides to develop a thematic action plan to support capacity-building and development, access to and transfer of technology and knowledge-sharing in the context of synthetic biology, building on the needs and priorities of Parties…”. This forward-looking element warrants particular attention, as it focuses on enabling conditions and implementation support.
 
Rather than concentrating efforts on categorizing technological dimensions in isolation, it may be more effective to identify structural gaps that limit equitable participation in innovation processes, particularly in developing countries. Addressing disparities in scientific infrastructure, regulatory capacity and access to and transfer of technology remains essential for the balanced realization of the Convention’s objectives.
Investments in scientific and technological capabilities - including laboratory infrastructure, bioinformatics systems, regulatory expertise and specialized training - may enhance Parties’ ability to assess, govern and, where appropriate, utilize biotechnological tools in a manner consistent with biodiversity conservation, sustainable use, as well as fair and equitable benefit-sharing. Strengthening such enabling conditions is central to ensuring that biotechnology developments are accompanied by scientifically sound assessment, risk evaluation and institutional preparedness.

Based on this exercise, and with the other inputs from the country’s submissions and the scientific independent study, it is important to clear identify areas where there are gaps in the field of synthetic biology. The Action Plan should reflect the inequalities in the innovation in the global south and present the necessary actions to fulfill those gaps towards the KMGBF targets. 
 
Within this broader perspective, there are some examples related with the potential positive impacts:

- Target 4 (halt sp extinction): the genome engineering, advanced assisted reproductive technologies, and ecological modeling tools developed for de-extinction are providing new pathways for genetic rescue, species resilience, and ecosystem restoration. As these technologies mature, their integration into mainstream conservation will offer transformative approaches to biodiversity preservation (https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esaf069 )

- Target 6 (invasive sp): genetic biocontrol using self-propagating gene drives that rely on normal mating to spread genes that cause infertility or skewed sex ratios (https://research.csiro.au/gbc/)

- Target 7 (pollution): development of microbial biosensors that detect heavy metal contaminants by expressing fluorescent or electrochemical signals upon exposure to target compounds (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dwt.2024.100456); Escherichia coli whole-cell biosensor engineered to detect and monitor microplastic degradation products (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113568)

- Target 8 (climate change): development of programmable artificial photosynthetic cells as a synthetic platform for CO2 capture and conversion (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42591-x); convertion of C3 plants into C4- like systems, aiming to minimize photorespiration and boost photosynthetic efficiency (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2023.108256); genetic engineering of yeasts and bacteria as microbial platforms for sustainable biofuel production (https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1423935, https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01140-07, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.femsec.2005.02.010) 

- Target 10 (sustainable agriculture): engineered microorganisms with specialized functions, such as biocontrol, biofertilization, and biostimulation that directly enhance agricultural productivity (https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00164-18; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-019-0383-z); use of engineered endophyte beneficial microorganisms that live within plant tissues (https://doi.org/10.1007/s44351-025-00011-z); use of engineered diazotrophs that can be applied directly in the field to boost crop yield (» https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-78243-3); whole-cell biosensors engineered to detect specific metabolites, nutrient concentrations, or phytohormonal signals (https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.7b00292).

- Target 16 (sustainable consumption choices): integration of metabolic pathways for polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs ) biosynthesis into Escherichia coli or Pseudomonas putida for biodegradable plastic production (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2023.01.002, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2019.08.010, https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1275036); Komagataeibacter strains engineered to enhance bacterial cellulose production (https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21239185); spider silk–inspired proteins produced in microbial systems and tailored for high-strength applications in textiles, biomedicine, and lightweight composites (https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.958486) 

Thank you.

Best regards,
Luciana P. Ambrozevicius

Dear participants,

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

One recent technological development in synthetic biology relevant to biosafety is the design of genetic biocontainment systems that limit the survival and propagation of engineered organisms outside controlled environments. For example, a quadruplet codon decoding–based genetic containment strategy (QCODE) has recently been proposed as a versatile genetic firewall that restricts engineered microorganisms by relying on expanded genetic codes that are not naturally present in the environment (Nucleic Acids Research, 2025, DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkae1292).

Such biosafety-by-design approaches may have positive implications for the responsible development and deployment of synthetic biology by reducing the likelihood of unintended environmental persistence of engineered organisms. In this sense, advances in genetic containment technologies may help strengthen biosafety considerations relevant to the objectives of the Convention and the implementation of the KMGBF.

I look forward to the continued exchange of useful information in this forum.

All the best,
Taemin Woo

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).

Several participants have already highlighted important examples of recent technological developments, including advances in AI-enabled biofoundries, precision genome editing, biosensors for environmental monitoring, microbial bioremediation systems, and genetic biocontainment approaches, and their potential relevance for the objectives of the Convention and the implementation of the KMGBF.

As noted by Ms. Luciana Ambrozevicius in post #3584, Decision CBD/COP/DEC/16/21 also includes the development of a thematic action plan to support capacity-building, access to and transfer of technology, and knowledge-sharing in the context of synthetic biology. Related considerations regarding capacity-building and equitable access were also highlighted by Ms. Fatou Ndiaye in post #3523.

In this regard, it could be useful if discussions of potential positive impacts are also accompanied, where relevant, by reflections on the enabling conditions that would allow Parties to assess, govern and, where appropriate, benefit from these developments, in line with the objectives of the Convention and the implementation of the KMGBF.

Such enabling conditions may include, for example:

• scientific and technical capacity (e.g. laboratory infrastructure, bioinformatics and data analysis);
• access to technologies, knowledge and collaborative research networks;
• mechanisms that facilitate technology transfer, training and knowledge-sharing, including collaboration between institutions and regions.

Highlighting these elements alongside technological developments may help inform the thematic action plan envisaged under Decision 16/21 and clarify where further capacity-building, knowledge-sharing and collaboration may be needed to support their responsible assessment and potential application, thereby strengthening understanding of how recent advances in synthetic biology could contribute to the implementation of the KMGBF.

Looking once more at the Kunming targets I believe - realistically - one goal is neglected and even eroded by SynBio, i.e. Target 13: Increase the Sharing of Benefits From Genetic Resources, Digital Sequence Information and Traditional Knowledge. The more SynBio builds on genome information and modification techniques it delinks the resulting organisms from their origin in a provider community (be this foreign or domestic). This means that it becomes unknown who the provider is and with whom benefits shall be shared. It is true that the resolution CBD COP 16-2 pleads for a multilateral fund based on commercial DSI users and aimed at biodiversity protection but the resolution is only adhortatory, and by now no fund has been set up nor have voluntary contributions been provided. One might seek replacement in Target 20: Strengthen Capacity-Building, Technology Transfer, and Scientific and Technical Cooperation for Biodiversity as mentioned by Lucia de Souza (no 3592). I only ask myself to what extent the scientific and technical cooperation is a reality that includes developing countries, or if it is rather fairy tales of good willing individuals or reach outs of large think tanks and industries.

Dear Moderator and colleagues,

Building on the previous discussion on enabling conditions, it may also be useful to consider how recent developments relate more specifically to Target 20 of the KMGBF, which focuses on strengthening capacity-building, technology transfer, and scientific and technical cooperation. Many of the technological developments discussed in this thread rely on specialized infrastructure, technical expertise, and access to research tools and data. Their potential contributions to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use under the Convention may therefore depend not only on the technologies themselves, but also on the capacity of Parties to access, assess and apply these tools responsibly.

Developments in collaborative research infrastructure illustrate how such enabling conditions may support broader participation in synthetic biology research and innovation. For example, the expansion of international biofoundry networks provides shared platforms for biological design, testing and training, supporting collaboration and capacity development across institutions and countries (Hillson et al., 2023). Recent analyses of synthetic biology governance have also highlighted the importance of strengthening capacity-building, technology access and cooperation to enable broader participation in innovation and biodiversity-related applications (Keiper & Atanassova, 2025; OECD, 2025).

Reflecting on these enabling conditions alongside technological developments may help clarify how advances in synthetic biology could contribute to the implementation of the KMGBF, while also supporting the objectives of Target 20 related to capacity-building, technology transfer and international scientific cooperation.

References

Hillson, N. et al. (2023). Building a global network of biofoundries for engineering biology. Nature Communications.
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-36671-3

Keiper, F., & Atanassova, A. (2025). International synthetic biology policy developments and implications for global biodiversity goals. Frontiers in Synthetic Biology.
DOI: 10.3389/fsybi.2025.1585337

OECD (2025). Synthetic Biology, AI and Automation: A Forward-Looking Technology Assessment.
DOI: 10.1787/12158721-en

Dear all,

The same post-2023 advances could generate positive impacts only under a biosafety-first, rights-based and ABS-consistent approach. For example, portable biosensors based on synthetic biology could significantly improve environmental monitoring of contaminants affecting ecosystems and biodiversity, facilitating faster response to environmental threats (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.155632). Similarly, synthetic biology approaches for plastic biodegradation, including improved PET-degrading enzymes, could support strategies to reduce plastic pollution in terrestrial and marine ecosystems (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.154183). Advances in engineering biology for environmental applications suggest that synthetic biology could contribute to pollution mitigation, ecosystem restoration, and resource recovery when integrated into broader sustainability strategies (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-58492-0).

These developments may contribute to KMGBF Target 7 (pollution reduction), Target 10 (sustainable management of production systems), and Target 21 (knowledge for biodiversity management).

However, we reiterate that potential positive impacts depend on robust biosafety systems, transparent governance, equitable benefit-sharing, including in relation to DSI, and meaningful participation of Indigenous peoples and local communities.

In this regard, synthetic biology should be considered within the broader framework of biosecurity, sovereignty over biodiversity resources, and responsible innovation aligned with the objectives of the CBD and the KMGBF.

Thank you,

Nancy Serrano Silva, PhD in Biotechnology.
“Investigadoras e Investigadores por México” program
Executive Secretariat of the Intersecretarial Commission on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (Cibiogem), Mexico.

Hi forum colleagues,

Engineered microbes can serve as biosensors, measuring and reporting the presence of bioavailable analytes. While traditional methods for environmental monitoring, such as chromatography (HPLC, GC) and spectrometry (ICP-MS), are sensitive and accurate, they are expensive, time-consuming, labor-intensive, and require periodic sampling of the environment of interest. Biosensors are an attractive alternative because they are relatively low-cost, energy-efficient, easy to use, and do not require sampling from the environment of interest, but have been restricted in environmental applications because reporters that function well in natural environments are limited. This has led to innovations in reporting modalities, particularly for terrestrial settings, including ice nucleation protein (Jaeger et al., 1999), gas reporters (Cheng et al., 2016), and hyperspectral reporters (Chemla et al., 2025). For marine settings, only one functional reporter system has been developed, leveraging extracellular electron transfer to rapidly report the detection of an analyte within a bioelectronic device (Atkinson et al., 2022), but is limited by the need for wired instrumentation. Ultimately, more research and development are needed before these technologies can be safely deployed for environmental applications. Recently, scientists developed an RNA-based barcoding system to record horizontal gene transfer events, a major concern for the safe deployment of synthetic biology, across microbial communities, enabling the monitoring of DNA elements (Kalvapalle et al., 2026).

Engineered microbes can also remove toxic contaminants, promoting environmental health, or recover valuable resources from waste streams and unconventional feedstocks, contributing to circular bioeconomies and reducing dependence on environmentally destructive extraction practices such as mining (Aslam et al., 2025; Zurier et al., 2025). Additional materials describing the potential benefits of synthetic biology are listed here (Aminian-Dehkordi et al., 2023; Jones et al., 2024; Nguyen et al., 2023)

Aminian-Dehkordi, J., Rahimi, S., Golzar-Ahmadi, M., Singh, A., Lopez, J., Ledesma-Amaro, R., & Mijakovic, I. (2023). Synthetic biology tools for environmental protection. Biotechnology Advances, 68, 108239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2023.108239

Aslam, A., Kanwal, F., Javied, S., Nisar, N., & Torriero, A. A. J. (2025). Microbial biosorption: A sustainable approach for metal removal and environmental remediation. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 22(13), 13245–13276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-025-06611-1

Atkinson, J. T., Su, L., Zhang, X., Bennett, G. N., Silberg, J. J., & Ajo-Franklin, C. M. (2022). Real-time bioelectronic sensing of environmental contaminants. Nature, 611(7936), Article 7936. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05356-y

Chemla, Y., Levin, I., Fan, Y., Johnson, A. A., Coley, C. W., & Voigt, C. A. (2025). Hyperspectral reporters for long-distance and wide-area detection of gene expression in living bacteria. Nature Biotechnology, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-025-02622-y

Cheng, H.-Y., Masiello, C. A., Bennett, G. N., & Silberg, J. J. (2016). Volatile Gas Production by Methyl Halide Transferase: An In Situ Reporter Of Microbial Gene Expression In Soil. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(16), 8750–8759. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b01415

Jaeger, C. H., Lindow, S. E., Miller, W., Clark, E., & Firestone, M. K. (1999). Mapping of sugar and amino acid availability in soil around roots with bacterial sensors of sucrose and tryptophan. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 65(6), 2685–2690. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.65.6.2685-2690.1999

Jones, E. M., Marken, J. P., & Silver, P. A. (2024). Synthetic microbiology in sustainability applications. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 22(6), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-023-01007-9

Kalvapalle, P. B., Staubus, A., Dysart, M. J., Gambill, L., Reyes Gamas, K., Lu, L. C., Silberg, J. J., Stadler, L. B., & Chappell, J. (2026). Information storage across a microbial community using universal RNA barcoding. Nature Biotechnology, 44(2), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-025-02593-0

Nguyen, P. Q., Huang, X., Collins, D. S., Collins, J. J., & Lu, T. (2023). Harnessing synthetic biology to enhance ocean health. Trends in Biotechnology, 41(7), 860–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2022.12.015

Zurier, H. S., Banta, S., Park, D. M., Reed, D. W., & Werner, A. Z. (2025). Biotechnological solutions for critical mineral recovery from unconventional feedstocks. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 95, 103336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2025.103336

Dear Participants,

Thank you participants with sharing additional information on new technological developments and trends since the last forum. I have noted further used for some of the technologies, including artificial intelligence, eDNA methodologies, engineered gene drives, biocontainment, engineered microbes and infrastructure, among others. It is also good to see how example applications can relate to the targets of the KMGBF.
I would also like to encourage you to also share considerations related to these applications under the thread on the potential negative impacts as well.
Thank you as well for being so proactive with sharing DOI links for the publication. I am sure the Secretariat appreciates this greatly.

As a kind reminder, the forum will close tomorrow at 5 p.m. Montreal time. I hope to see further contributions.

Best,

Martin

Dear colleagues—

I am Bob Friedman with the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), a non-profit genomics research institute in the United States that has a very active synthetic biology research program.  My thanks to Martin our moderator, for guiding this discussion, and to all the participants for their useful perspectives and many relevant literature citations. Note that I am posting this note on both the “potential positive impacts” and “potential negative impacts” thread, as it is relevant to both.

Both Martin and I served on the first Synthetic Biology AHTEG in 2015.  One of the tasks undertaken by that AHTEG was to outline separate lists of “illustrative examples of potential benefits and potential adverse effects of synthetic biology in accordance with the objectives of the Convention” http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/synbio/synbioahteg-2015-01/official/synbioahteg-2015-01-03-en.pdf  Those tables of examples are still current today, though the many  useful interventions during this online forum have greatly expanded the list.

However, this binary approach often misses two important aspects: 1) what “technologies” are available to enhance the potential positive impacts and 2) what “technologies” are available to minimize the potential negative impacts?  Such technologies help determine the realized (rather than just the potential) positive impacts and negative impacts of synthetic biology.

I put technologies in quotes because many think of technological developments in their narrowest sense, focusing on wet-lab biotechnologies (e.g., CRISPR) and research technologies (e.g., AI, biofoundries).  Others use this term to mean a specific application of synthetic biology, sometimes as an idea on paper, or wet-lab pilot, application under testing, approved product ready for commercialization, or product already in commercial use.  2015 marked the early days of wet-lab pilots.  Eleven years later we are just beginning to see the first commercial products from these new developments in wet-lab biotechnologies and research methods.  This timeline is to be expected.

But the list above is missing entire categories of technologies that can enhance the potential positive impacts and minimize the negative impacts of these eventual products.  These include risk assessment methodologies, field testing methods, regulatory frameworks, national R&D and bioeconomy plans and similar “soft” technologies.  Indeed, many of the components of the Technology Action Plan mentioned by #3584, #3591, and #3610 (e.g., training programs) fall into this category. 

As one example of the importance of soft technologies, #3542 includes a long list of potential negative ecosystem impacts from gene drives.  However, among the significant technological developments that should be considered since the online forum last met in 2023 is the development of Biosafety Technical Series #7 “Additional voluntary guidance materials to support case-by-case risk assessments of living modified organisms containing engineered gene drives”, developed by a recent Risk Assessment AHTEG.  This document provides a framework for both regulators and developers to evaluate the potential negative ecosystem impacts #3542 and thereby avoid them.

Many colleagues have discussed new applications of gene editing technologies, for agriculture (and other sectors). Rather than my attempting to list the many research articles on gene editing for agricultural uses, the non-profit organization ISAAA has already done that here: https://www.isaaa.org/resources/genomeediting/default.asp. These applications of gene editing technologies (in all stages from wet-lab pilots to approved products in commercial use) have been accompanied by ongoing development of regulatory frameworks. For example, ISAAA has prepared a 2024 update on the “Global Regulatory Landscape for Gene Edited Crops” . As of 2024, the US, Canada, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatamala, Honduras, Paraguay, Argentina, Australia, Japan, Philippines, India, Nigeria, Kenya, Malawi, and Ghana have issued regulations or guidelines for new breeding innovations.

Countries are also modernizing their regulatory systems to deal with other synthetic biology applications.  For example, in the United States, the National Security Commission on Emerging Technologies (a commission chartered by the US Congress) recently released a report entitled, The Future of Biotechnology Regulation, which includes over 50 in-depth options for modernizing US regulation of the next generation plant, animal, microorganism, and medical biotechnology products enabled by synthetic biology.  

Yet another crucial soft technology for minimizing the potential negative impacts of synthetic biology applications is procedures for field testing of modified organisms. #3575, #3599, and #3600 discuss new approaches for field testing of gene drives and other new biotechnologies.

Finally, at the broadest level of soft technology is an overarching governmental plan for biotechnology innovation and regulation, often as a “bioeconomy plan”.  These overarching plans are indeed very important new technological developments, as they include policies to both enhance the potential positive impacts of synthetic biology and to minimize the potential negative impacts as the technology develops. Several of the colleagues participating in this forum are skeptical that the potential benefits from synthetic biology will ever be achieved and feel that scarce resources could be better spent elsewhere.  In the end they may be correct, but R&D programs in the US, UK, Australia, Brazil, and quite a few other nations view synthetic biology as one of a small number of key technologies of the future.  The World Bioeconomy Association  includes links to over 25 national and multi-national bioeconomy strategies across the globe. (Note that not all of these bioeconomy strategies focus on biotechnology, rather on the broader use of biological resources.)

I do hope that the upcoming Synthetic Biology AHTEG includes consideration of these “soft” technological developments to enhance the potential positive impacts and to minimize potential negative impacts of synthetic biology in their deliberations.

Regards to all,
Bob Friedman

Dear colleagues—

I am Bob Friedman with the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), a non-profit genomics research institute in the United States that has a very active synthetic biology research program.  My thanks to Martin our moderator, for guiding this discussion, and to all the participants for their useful perspectives and many relevant literature citations. Note that I am posting this note on both the “potential positive impacts” and “potential negative impacts” thread, as it is relevant to both.

Both Martin and I served on the first Synthetic Biology AHTEG in 2015.  One of the tasks undertaken by that AHTEG was to outline separate lists of “illustrative examples of potential benefits and potential adverse effects of synthetic biology in accordance with the objectives of the Convention” http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/synbio/synbioahteg-2015-01/official/synbioahteg-2015-01-03-en.pdf  Those tables of examples are still current today, though the many  useful interventions during this online forum have greatly expanded the list.

However, this binary approach often misses two important aspects: 1) what “technologies” are available to enhance the potential positive impacts and 2) what “technologies” are available to minimize the potential negative impacts?  Such technologies help determine the realized (rather than just the potential) positive impacts and negative impacts of synthetic biology.

I put technologies in quotes because many think of technological developments in their narrowest sense, focusing on wet-lab biotechnologies (e.g., CRISPR) and research technologies (e.g., AI, biofoundries).  Others use this term to mean a specific application of synthetic biology, sometimes as an idea on paper, or wet-lab pilot, application under testing, approved product ready for commercialization, or product already in commercial use.  2015 marked the early days of wet-lab pilots.  Eleven years later we are just beginning to see the first commercial products from these new developments in wet-lab biotechnologies and research methods.  This timeline is to be expected.

But the list above is missing entire categories of technologies that can enhance the potential positive impacts and minimize the negative impacts of these eventual products.  These include risk assessment methodologies, field testing methods, regulatory frameworks, national R&D and bioeconomy plans and similar “soft” technologies.  Indeed, many of the components of the Technology Action Plan mentioned by #3584, #3591, and #3610 (e.g., training programs) fall into this category. 

As one example of the importance of soft technologies, #3542 includes a long list of potential negative ecosystem impacts from gene drives.  However, among the significant technological developments that should be considered since the online forum last met in 2023 is the development of Biosafety Technical Series #7 “Additional voluntary guidance materials to support case-by-case risk assessments of living modified organisms containing engineered gene drives”, developed by a recent Risk Assessment AHTEG.  This document provides a framework for both regulators and developers to evaluate the potential negative ecosystem impacts #3542 and thereby avoid them.

Many colleagues have discussed new applications of gene editing technologies, for agriculture (and other sectors). Rather than my attempting to list the many research articles on gene editing for agricultural uses, the non-profit organization ISAAA has already done that here: https://www.isaaa.org/resources/genomeediting/default.asp. These applications of gene editing technologies (in all stages from wet-lab pilots to approved products in commercial use) have been accompanied by ongoing development of regulatory frameworks. For example, ISAAA has prepared a 2024 update on the “Global Regulatory Landscape for Gene Edited Crops” . As of 2024, the US, Canada, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatamala, Honduras, Paraguay, Argentina, Australia, Japan, Philippines, India, Nigeria, Kenya, Malawi, and Ghana have issued regulations or guidelines for new breeding innovations.

Countries are also modernizing their regulatory systems to deal with other synthetic biology applications.  For example, in the United States, the National Security Commission on Emerging Technologies (a commission chartered by the US Congress) recently released a report entitled, The Future of Biotechnology Regulation, which includes over 50 in-depth options for modernizing US regulation of the next generation plant, animal, microorganism, and medical biotechnology products enabled by synthetic biology.  

Yet another crucial soft technology for minimizing the potential negative impacts of synthetic biology applications is procedures for field testing of modified organisms. #3575, #3599, and #3600 discuss new approaches for field testing of gene drives and other new biotechnologies.

Finally, at the broadest level of soft technology is an overarching governmental plan for biotechnology innovation and regulation, often as a “bioeconomy plan”.  These overarching plans are indeed very important new technological developments, as they include policies to both enhance the potential positive impacts of synthetic biology and to minimize the potential negative impacts as the technology develops. Several of the colleagues participating in this forum are skeptical that the potential benefits from synthetic biology will ever be achieved and feel that scarce resources could be better spent elsewhere.  In the end they may be correct, but R&D programs in the US, UK, Australia, Brazil, and quite a few other nations view synthetic biology as one of a small number of key technologies of the future.  The World Bioeconomy Association  includes links to over 25 national and multi-national bioeconomy strategies across the globe. (Note that not all of these bioeconomy strategies focus on biotechnology, rather on the broader use of biological resources.)

I do hope that the upcoming Synthetic Biology AHTEG includes consideration of these “soft” technological developments to enhance the potential positive impacts and to minimize potential negative impacts of synthetic biology in their deliberations.

Regards to all,
Bob Friedman

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

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.

Since 2023, the role of Artificial Intelligence in SynBio has continued to grow, with general and domain-specific large language models, such as GPT-4, BioGPT, Evo, Evo 2 and BioMedLM, enabling advances, for example, in de novo protein design and genetic circuit development.

Hybrid AI – which integrates predictive, generative, and symbolic AI methods – offers a framework for advancing agricultural synthetic biology by being able to integrate a wide range of data sources and by considering structured relationships between genes, traits and environmental variables.
Employing AI can accelerate the development of beneficial organisms by utilising tools of SynBio. For example, SynBio tools can be used to endow plants with entirely new functions, such as nitrogen fixing ability. Such developments can potentially help to enhance the sustainability of production systems (Target 10).

In addition, in combination with other technologies (e.g. nanotechnology, Internet of Things, AI) SynBio may be used to address some global environmental challenges, for example through bioremediation, biosequestration of CO2, monitoring of pollutants, and resource recovery. As it is phrased in the publication by Rylott and Bruce (referenced below) “SynBio could be used to design biosensors, enzymes with unique activities towards persistent organic xenobiotics, organisms that are resistant to challenging environmental conditions, robust biopolymers, artificial storage organelles for toxic metals and much more.” addressing Target 2 (Restoration of 30% degraded ecosystems) and Target 7 (pollution reduction).

References:
Shang, Y. et al. (2025) Using synthetic biology to express nitrogenase biosynthesis pathway in rice and to overcome barriers of nitrogenase instability in plant cytosol. Trends in Biotechnology 43, 946 – 968, doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2024.12.002

Lea-Smith DJ, Hassard F, Coulon F, Partridge N, Horsfall L, Parker KDJ, Smith RDJ, McCarthy RR, McKew B, Gutierrez T, Kumar V, Dotro G, Yang Z; EBIC partners; Krasnogor N. Engineering biology applications for environmental solutions: potential and challenges. Nat Commun. 2025 Apr 14;16(1):3538. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-58492-0

Rylott EL, Bruce NC. How synthetic biology can help bioremediation. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2020 Oct;58:86-95. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2020.07.004.

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

My name is Ediner Fuentes-Campos, Environmental Engineer with a Master's degree in Environmental Microbiology, Deputy Director of Research and Development at the Secretariat of Science, Technology and Innovation of Panama, member of the National Biosafety Commission of Panama, national focal point for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, and former member of the OECD expert advisory group on synthetic biology.

I wishes to contribute to this discussion by highlighting several elements that we consider particularly relevant for the work of the AHTEG and for informing the thematic action plan envisaged under Decision CBD/COP/DEC/16/21.

As noted in #3584, the development of the thematic action plan to support capacity-building, access to and transfer of technology, and knowledge-sharing in the context of synthetic biology deserves particular attention in this forum. I shares this perspective and considers that the most concrete and actionable contribution of this process lies precisely in identifying the structural gaps that limit equitable participation in innovation processes, particularly in developing countries. In this regard, the enabling conditions highlighted in #3591 and #3592 — including laboratory infrastructure, bioinformatics capacity, regulatory expertise, and access to collaborative research networks — are directly relevant to ensuring that the potential positive impacts discussed in this thread can be realized responsibly and equitably by all Parties.

In terms of concrete positive impacts, I wishes to complement the examples already shared in this thread with additional references that illustrate the potential of synthetic biology in contained settings, organized according to the KMGBF Targets:

Target 7 (pollution reduction): the development of engineered bacteria specifically designed for the detection and bioremediation of heavy metals — including lead, mercury, and arsenic — represents a concrete advance with direct applicability in ecosystems degraded by industrial and agricultural activities (Jia et al., 2023; https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1178680). Likewise, engineered microbial consortia have demonstrated superior capacity for the degradation of complex contaminants compared to individual strains, with scalability potential in developing country contexts (Blasco et al., 2025; https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-025-01103-y).

Target 9 (sustainable use of wild species): the production of high-demand pharmaceutical compounds — such as recombinant insulin, semisynthetic artemisinin, and recombinant Factor C — in contained microbial systems directly reduces extractive pressure on wild species and their habitats, representing a realized and quantifiable benefit with direct relevance to the objectives of the Convention (Lim et al., 2023; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-023-01440-5).

Target 16 (sustainable consumption): synthetic microbial communities designed under synthetic biology principles offer platforms for the production of biomaterials, biofuels, and high-value molecules from industrial and agricultural waste, contributing directly to circular economies and reducing dependence on raw materials of extractive origin (Díaz-Colunga et al., 2025; https://doi.org/10.3389/fsybi.2025.1532846).

These applications are notable precisely because they operate within existing biosafety frameworks and can be evaluated through the case-by-case methodology already established under the Cartagena Protocol.
In this context, I values the distinction raised in #3570 between what is theoretically possible and what is scientifically plausible within defined ecological and operational contexts, and its observation that decision-making frameworks based on problem formulation and credible exposure pathways help focus attention on realistic outcomes. This perspective is fully consistent with the case-by-case approach of the Cartagena Protocol and reinforces the importance of considering advances in monitoring capacity, governance, and risk assessment as relevant technological developments in their own right. Along the same lines, the example presented in #3587 on the design of genetic biocontainment systems illustrates concretely how responsible innovation can operate within existing biosafety frameworks, contributing a relevant positive dimension to the AHTEG's deliberations.

I also values the point raised in #3621 on the importance of considering regulatory frameworks and risk assessment methodologies as technological developments in their own right. The most recent OECD prospective analyses on synthetic biology are directly relevant in this regard, identifying the convergence of synthetic biology with artificial intelligence and automation as a significant trend, and proposing the strengthening of adaptive governance mechanisms and international collaboration as priority responses (OECD, 2025a; OECD, 2025b).

Consistent with this, I wishes to emphasize that the greatest value the upcoming AHTEG can deliver 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. International cooperation among Parties in this direction constitutes, in our 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
Republic of Panama

References
Jia et al. (2023). Synthetic bacteria for the detection and bioremediation of heavy metals. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1178680
Blasco et al. (2025). Harnessing bacterial consortia for effective bioremediation. Environmental Sciences Europe. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-025-01103-y
Lim et al. (2023). Applications of synthetic biology in medical and pharmaceutical fields. Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-023-01440-5
Díaz-Colunga et al. (2025). Towards synthetic ecology: strategies for the optimization of microbial community functions. Frontiers in Synthetic Biology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsybi.2025.1532846
OECD (2025a). Synthetic Biology, AI and Automation. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/12158721-en
Robinson, D. and Nadal, D. (2025b). "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

Thank you, Martin, for initiating this important discussion.
As noted in my previous intervention under the earlier thread, several recent technological developments in synthetic biology since the previous forum convened in March 2023 are particularly relevant to the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the implementation of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). Some of these developments were already briefly mentioned in that earlier intervention; therefore, the present contribution aims to expand on them and highlight their potential positive implications for biodiversity conservation, sustainable use, and benefit-sharing, while avoiding repetition of the earlier discussion on risks.
1. Advances in gene-drive systems and targeted genetic biocontrol
Recent studies demonstrate continued progress toward more refined gene-drive systems designed to control insect populations that act as disease vectors or agricultural pests. In 2024, researchers reported a multiplexed and confinable CRISPR/Cas9 gene-drive system capable of propagating in caged populations of Aedes aegypti. Another study demonstrated gene-drive-based genetic sex conversion in the Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata), a major agricultural pest.
Such developments suggest that synthetic biology tools may eventually enable highly targeted population management strategies, which could reduce reliance on broad-spectrum chemical control methods such as insecticides. If proven safe, effective, and socially acceptable in specific contexts, these approaches could potentially support biodiversity conservation by addressing key drivers of species decline and ecosystem disruption.
In terms of the KMGBF, such developments could potentially contribute to:
• Target 4 – halting human-induced extinctions and supporting species recovery
• Target 6 – management and control of invasive alien species
• Target 10 – sustainable management of agriculture and other productive sectors
Anderson, M.A.E. et al. (2024).
A multiplexed, confinable CRISPR/Cas9 gene drive can propagate in caged Aedes aegypti populations.
Nature Communications.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-44956-2
Meccariello, A. et al. (2024).
Gene drive and genetic sex conversion in the global agricultural pest Ceratitis capitata.
Nature Communications.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-44399-1
2. Synthetically assisted conservation and conservation genomics
Another significant development concerns the increasing exploration of synthetically assisted conservation, where emerging biotechnology tools are considered as complementary additions to conventional conservation approaches.
Recent work suggests that tools such as genome editing, advanced reproductive technologies, and targeted biological control strategies may potentially help:
• restore lost ecological functions,
• enhance the resilience of threatened populations,
• address invasive species impacts more precisely, and
• recover lost genetic diversity in small or fragmented populations.
While these approaches remain under scientific and ethical debate, they represent an expansion of the technological toolbox available to conservation practitioners.
Potentially relevant KMGBF targets include:
• Target 4 – species recovery and genetic diversity
• Target 2 – ecosystem restoration
• Target 3 – effective conservation and management of biodiversity
Brodie, J.F. et al. (2025).
Synthetically assisted conservation and the application of emerging biological technologies for the protection of biodiversity.
Conservation Letters.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.13114
Turner, S.D. et al. (2025).
De-extinction technology and its application to conservation.
Journal of Heredity.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esaf069
3. Synthetic biology for environmental remediation and ecosystem monitoring
Synthetic biology is also advancing rapidly in the field of environmental biotechnology, including engineered biological systems designed to detect pollutants, degrade environmental contaminants, and monitor ecosystem conditions.
Recent work highlights the development of:
• engineered microbial systems for pollutant degradation,
• biosensors capable of detecting environmental contaminants or ecosystem signals,
• biological platforms for waste valorization and circular bio-economy applications.
These technologies may contribute to reducing pollution pressures affecting ecosystems and improving environmental monitoring capacities.
Potentially relevant KMGBF targets include:
• Target 7 – reducing pollution risks and impacts on biodiversity
• Target 8 – minimizing impacts of climate change and ocean acidification
• Target 21 – strengthening access to data, knowledge, and technologies for biodiversity action
Lea-Smith, D.J. et al. (2025).
Engineering biology applications for environmental solutions: potential and challenges.
Nature Communications.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-58492-0
Aminian-Dehkordi, J. et al. (2023).
Synthetic biology tools for environmental protection.
Biotechnology Advances.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2023.108239
4. AI-enabled biological design and accelerated biotechnology innovation
Another major technological development is the rapid convergence between artificial intelligence and synthetic biology, which is accelerating the design and optimization of biological systems.
For example, large-scale genomic modelling systems such as the Evo genomic foundation model are capable of analyzing and generating genomic sequences at unprecedented scale. AI-guided modelling of CRISPR systems is also enabling the design of new genome-editing tools with enhanced efficiency and specificity.
Such developments could accelerate the discovery of biological systems relevant to biodiversity conservation, environmental monitoring, and sustainable production.
Potentially relevant KMGBF targets include:
• Target 21 – knowledge generation and accessibility
• Target 10 – sustainable management of agriculture and other productive sectors
Nguyen, E. et al. (2024).
Sequence modeling and design from molecular to genome scale with Evo.
Science.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ado9336
Ruffolo, J.A. et al. (2025).
Design of highly functional genome editors by modelling the universe of CRISPR systems.
Nature.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09298-z
5. Microbiome engineering and sustainable agriculture
Another emerging area of synthetic biology involves the design and manipulation of plant-associated microbiomes to improve agricultural sustainability.
Recent research indicates that engineered or designed microbial communities may:
• enhance nutrient uptake,
• improve plant resilience to environmental stress,
• reduce reliance on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides,
• improve soil health and productivity.
If successfully implemented, such approaches could contribute to reducing the environmental footprint of agriculture and support more biodiversity-friendly production systems.
Potentially relevant KMGBF targets include:
• Target 7 – pollution reduction
• Target 10 – sustainable agriculture and land use
Hanif, M.S. et al. (2024).
Plant microbiome technology for sustainable agriculture.
Frontiers in Microbiology.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1500260
6. Potential contributions to the three objectives of the Convention
Across the three objectives of the CBD, recent synthetic biology developments may therefore offer potential contributions in several areas:
Conservation of biodiversity
• targeted control of invasive species and pests
• restoration of ecological functions
• improved environmental monitoring tools
Sustainable use of biodiversity
• lower-input agricultural systems
• more precise biological pest management
• bio-based production systems and circular bioeconomy approaches
Fair and equitable sharing of benefits
• new opportunities for scientific collaboration and technology transfer
• innovation based on genetic resources and digital sequence information (DSI)
However, whether these technological developments ultimately contribute positively to benefit-sharing will depend strongly on the implementation of governance frameworks and KMGBF Target 13.
Concluding observation
Overall, recent developments in synthetic biology could potentially influence several KMGBF targets, particularly Targets 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, and 21, depending on the specific application and governance context.
At the same time, discussions of potential positive impacts should remain careful and evidence-based. Many of these technological developments remain at the research or early implementation stage, and their biodiversity outcomes will depend on responsible governance, case-by-case risk assessment, monitoring, and implementation consistent with the Convention and its Protocols.

Dear Forum Participants and Mr. Batič,   

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.   

In response to the call for most recent technological developments, a non-exhaustive list of examples spanning applications from the 2024-2026 timeframe are provided below. The potential positive impacts also correspond to the potential benefits (discussed more broadly under #3489).

Target 4 (species conservation) and Target 11 (nature contribution to people - reduction of disease risk): research on transmissible vaccines that propagate among wild animals (e.g. bats) to immunize hard-to-reach populations against diseases like rabies and Ebola (Streicker et al., 2024, DOI: 10.1126/science.adn3231). These vaccines are designed to spread through wildlife cohorts via benign viral vectors, with the aim of preventing disease-driven declines of endangered species and reducing spillover risks. This article also outlines commitments for the responsible development of transmissible vaccines for infectious disease control in animals, aligning with Target 21 on access to knowledge to guide biodiversity action.

Target 6 (invasive species) and indirectly Target 4 by helping protect native biodiversity: CRISPR-based eDNA detection (2024) – A CRISPR-Cas12a assay rapidly identifies invasive Brook Trout DNA in stream water, enabling on-site detection of invasive fish and faster management responses (Blasko et al. 2024, DOI: 10.1002/tafs.10494).

Targets 5 and 8 (sustainable use & climate): CO₂-derived palm oil alternative (2025) from a dual-fermentation process (please note that both fermentation steps use naturally occurring, non-genetically modified microorganisms) that converts captured industrial CO₂ emissions into oils chemically similar to palm oil. This technology aims to reduce reliance on palm oil from tropical plantations and to provide a renewable, carbon-recycled substitute for use in cosmetics and other products (https://www.cbp.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/2025/co2-recycling-powers-a-new-palm-oil-alternative-for-the-cosmetics-industry.html). 

Target 7 (pollution): whole-cell arsenic biosensor (2026) based on E. coli sensor (pNarsenic system) that fluoresces in the presence of arsenic can be used a portable, low-cost tool for real-time monitoring of heavy metal contamination (Crabbe et al. 2026, DOI: 10.1093/synbio/ysag001).

Targets 7 and 8 (pollution & climate): A high-throughput cell-free screening platform that uses biosensors and automation to rapidly identify enzymes that degrade biomass and plastics, contributing to the acceleration of development of biofuels and waste biodegradation processes (Kim et al. 2025, DOI: 10.1093/synbio/ysaf005).

Target 7 (reducing excess nutrients lost to the environment, through more efficient nutrient cycling and use), Target 8 (reduction of greenhouse emissions since synthetic fertilizer production is energy-intensive) and Target 10 (sustainable agriculture): use of commercial strains with increased capacity to fix atmospheric nitrogen and transfer it to cereal crops (2024) can contribute to reduction in synthetic N fertilizer use / improving the effectiveness of nitrogen fertilizers (Martinez-Feria et al, 2024 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-78243-3). 

Target 17 (biotech capacity & biosafety) and Target 20 (capacity building and knowledge transfer): The AlphaFold3 web-service release (Abramson et al.2024, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w) is available to researchers to generate highly accurate biomolecular structure predictions for proteins, DNA, RNA, ligands, ions, and also model chemical modifications for proteins and nucleic acids. This tool accelerates scientific discovery and innovation and can also speed up development of solutions from vaccine development, drug discovery, and eco-engineering solutions across all biotechnological sectors (Callaway 2024, DOI: 10.1038/d41586-024-03708-4). Such open access scientific tools expand global capacity to research and biotechnology (Targets 17 and 20), enabling all countries to participate in innovation and promoting the sharing of benefits (consistent with Target 17 on biosafety, and Target 13 on benefit-sharing).

Targets 7 & 8 (pollution & climate): A 2025 study of extremophilic microbes that enable industrial bioprocesses in harsh conditions, such as high-temperature fermentation and saltwater-based production. Such innovations support a shift towards a circular, low-carbon bioeconomy by saving energy and freshwater, contributing to pollution reduction and climate mitigation (Targets 7, 8) (Zheng et al. 2025, DOI: 10.1038/s44319-025-00389-6).

Targets 8 & 10 (climate adaptation & sustainable agriculture): the Indian Agricultural Research Institute is field-testing a CRISPR-edited rice variety carrying a mutated DST gene that confers tolerance to drought and salinity (Kumar et al, 2000 DOI: 10.1007/s12298-020-00819-w). This gene-edited rice (that is not an LMO), is an example for the use of biotechnology tools in plant breeding, and is expected to be released by 2026. It was reported to show enhanced water retention and salt resistance (broader leaves with fewer stomata), which could help maintain yields under climate stress (Sankaranarayanan 2024, DOI: 10.1038/d44151-024-00076-w). More broadly, stress-tolerant crops have the potential to contribute to improved food security and reduce pressure to convert natural habitats for agriculture, advancing Targets 8 and 10.

In addition to these recent developments, we note the increasing integration of artificial intelligence tools in biotech innovation. We appreciate the informative contribution in #3570 and agree that these tools have the potential to expand both innovation capacity and evaluation rigor, which should reduce R&D attrition rates (#3666) and timelines, and contribute to delivering more beneficial outcomes.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this exchange, 

Kind regards

Dear colleagues,

I would like to begin by extending my greetings and sincere appreciation for the organization of this forum and for the opportunity to participate in this important exchange of perspectives.

Recent advances in synthetic biology represent scientific developments within the field of biotechnology. The integration of advanced computational tools, artificial intelligence, and new genetic design platforms has expanded the capacity to modify, assemble, or design biological systems with potential applications in sectors such as medicine, industry, and agricultural production.

However, these developments also raise ecological, social, and governance uncertainties that require careful evaluation within the framework of international commitments on biodiversity, particularly those established under the Convention on Biological Diversity. In this regard, as noted in comments [#3596 and #3600, in Topic 2: Most recent technological developments] and in other contributions to this forum, the accelerated pace of technological development appears to be surpassing the capacity of current regulatory frameworks to adequately assess their potential environmental and social impacts.

In this context, within the field of biosafety it is essential to strengthen and update risk analysis and assessment tools in order to properly consider the potential effects that these new biotechnologies could generate both in ecosystems and in the socioeconomic systems associated with biodiversity.

Humberto Peraza Villarreal, PhD in Biological Sciences
Deputy Director of Social Engagement and Socioeconomic Research
Executive Secretariat of the Intersecretarial Commission on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (SEj-CIBIOGEM), Mexico.

Dear Participants,

As the forum comes to a close, I would like to express my gratitude for your active participation during these last two weeks.

I appreciate the many examples of the most recent technological developments that have been shared, in particular those that have arisen since the last online forum in 2023. The considerations regarding areas/trends of research and development are pertinent to the work of the AHTEG and are important to highlight. It is also good to see how these technological development may potentially relate to the targets of the KMGBF.
Together with the discussions on the potential negative impacts of these most recent technological developments, I believe that the AHTEG will have a balanced and complementary view of how these developments could relate to the Convention and KMGBF.

I will work the Secretariat to assist with capturing the information accordingly.

Best,

Martin

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.

Dear Participants,

Thank you kindly for your active participation and robust discussions.

The Open-Ended Online Forum is now closed.

Kind regards,

The Secretariat