Hastings Cent Rep. 2017 Jul;47 Suppl 2:S24-S29. doi: 10.1002/hast.748.
Critics often take conservationists to task for delivering a constant barrage of bad news without offering a compelling vision of the future. Could recent advances in synthetic biology-an optimistic, forward-looking field with a can-do attitude-let conservationists develop a new vision and generate some better news? Synthetic biology and related gene-editing applications could be used to address threats to species. Genetic interventions might also be used in plants to better protect biodiversity in U.S. rangelands and forests. One possibility has stood out in its ability to capture media attention and the public imagination-recreating extinct species. And perhaps a de-extinction story could counter the seemingly relentless negativity in biodiversity talk. De-extinction proponent Stewart Brand writes that resurrecting species could shift the "conservation story … from negative to positive, from constant whining and guilt-tripping to high fives and new excitement." So, why do many people in conservation oppose the de-extinction narrative? This essay is an inquiry into whether there are intrinsic social reactions to these types of conservation solutions that might offset their potential benefits. If genetic tools are to be applied to address conservation issues in a realistic and responsible way, their broader social-cultural implications deserve far more attention than they have so far received.
批评者经常指责环保主义者不断传播坏消息，而没有提供对未来的令人信服的愿景。最近合成生物学的进展——一个乐观、前瞻性的领域，有着积极进取的态度——是否能让环保主义者产生新的愿景并带来一些更好的消息？合成生物学和相关的基因编辑应用可以用来应对物种面临的威胁。遗传干预也可以用于植物，以更好地保护美国牧场和森林的生物多样性。有一种可能性特别引人注目，它能够吸引媒体的关注和公众的想象力——重新创造已灭绝的物种。也许一个物种复活的故事可以扭转生物多样性讨论中似乎不断的负面情绪。支持物种复活的斯图尔特·布兰德（Stewart Brand）写道，重新引入物种可以将“保护故事……从负面转变为正面，从不断的抱怨和内疚转变为击掌和新的兴奋。”那么，为什么许多环保主义者反对物种复活的说法呢？本文探讨了对这些类型的保护解决方案是否存在内在的社会反应，这些反应可能会抵消它们的潜在好处。如果要以现实和负责任的方式应用遗传工具来解决保护问题，那么它们更广泛的社会文化影响值得比以往更多的关注。
