That’s what a recent paper in PLoS Biology asks—and doesn’t really answer.

Instead, it lays out a great argument, giving the pros and cons of using the controversial technique in addressing conservation issues. It also urges the two parties—synthetic biologists and conservation biologists—to get in the same room and talk about the possibilities and problems with open minds. In fact, the authors of paper organized a meeting this week in the United Kingdom, bringing the two groups of scientists together. (Ed Yong has an article about the meeting at National Geographic.)

The paper describes several examples of how synthetic biology could work to help conservation efforts—restoring habitats, supporting endangered species, and even reviving extinct species. It also lays out several examples of how synthetic biology could wreak havoc on the natural world. (The open-access article is very readable. We encourage you to review it or at least take a look at the examples in Table 1.)

The paper and meeting come on the heels of huge media coverage on de-extinction. National Geographic’s April issue on the topic garnered a lot of press and generated public interest. In some cases, these articles say, de-extinction could be just a few years away, if not closer.

The PLoS paper and de-extinction topic seemed to be a great opportunity to speak to Terry Gosliner, the Academy’s Dean of Science and Research, about the subject.

“Do you really want to encounter a saber-toothed cat in Muir Woods?” Terry joked when we sat down.

He sees huge potential risks in using synthetic biology for conservation, but admits that the meeting and discussion are a great idea. “Open dialogue is the only way to explore the topic, see the potential and understand what the concerns and dangers are,” he says. “Bad things happen when there isn’t discussion. Informed dialogue is the best way to deal with controversial issues.”

Terry believes some aspects of synthetic biology in the natural world could work, with appropriate regulation.

But he also sees that synthetic biology may not be the right approach. When thinking about threatened species, the problem is usually “habitat loss, not necessarily genetic constraints.” He uses the re-emergence of California condors as an example of this.

And in some cases, extinction is a natural process, Terry reminds us. Synthetic biology could just be more of humans interfering with nature, and not in a good way.

The resources going toward de-extinction could be better used to protect life before it goes extinct, Terry thinks. “If we use the same resources to address climate change and how we use energy,” Terry says, “We literally could save hundreds and thousands of species.”

And those energy and climate resources could be from synthetic biology. The PLoS paper cites a 2009 report on synthetic biology: “Many believe that synthetic biology will be one of the transformative technologies necessary to combat climate change, energy shortages, food security issues and water deficits.”

What do you think? Can synthetic biology save wildlife? Where do you stand on the issue?

Take the session entitled, “Is the Future of Conservation at a Crossroads?” With speakers such as Peter Kareiva of the Nature Conservancy, John Robinson of the Wildlife Conservation Society, and Alan Thornhill, who just moved from the Department of the Interior to the U.S. Geological Society, it offered up an all-star cast of conservationists.

Kareiva started by saying for the future, conservationists need to restore, reconnect and rethink. In his own years as an eco-warrior, he’s seen corporations as the bad guys. But he urged us to rethink that for long-term success. He described corporations as a “keystone species.” Just as the sea otter is a keystone species off the coast of central California, keeping sea urchins in-check and kelp forests thriving, he says, so are corporations.

Next, he gave examples of ground-breaking collaborations. The Nature Conservancy is working with the Dow Chemical Company to create better air quality around the Houston area by restoring forests. Kareiva admits it’s an experiment The restoration of such a large ecosystem has never been done, and they are starting with only 1,000 acres.

When Robinson took the podium, he granted that sometimes placing a value on biodiversity and ecosystems just for the sake of biodiversity does work. But more often, if you place an economic value on the services that the ecosystem provides, it will prove more effective for conservation efforts. He calls it mainstreaming conservation. He looks at the future of conservation as making very hard, pragmatic choices and understanding that one size does not fit all.

Alan Thornhill spoke to our need to expand the conversation, allowing divergent views and stakeholders a seat at the table for some of these decisions. His work within a government agency taught him the wisdom of this approach. He says it’s all well and good to speak with like-minded conservationists, but we also need to reach out to others outside that group.

“Companies are not necessarily conservation-oriented,” he said. “But they may just need a little help to get there. At their base, they have that desire to protect the planet for their kids and grandkids.”

According to these speakers, the non-conservation world is not as hostile as you might think. We just need to speak the same (or at least a similar) language. Thornhill said that framing ecosystem conservation like an infrastructure such as roadways or water system might help. “When you turn your tap on, you get water.” Ecosystem services are no different.

The conservationists are hopeful. Robinson said, “Change is going to happen, but likely very slowly. Sometimes it might be dramatic and revolutionary, so be prepared.”

We may be at the crossroads of conservation, as the session title suggested, but that may not be a bad thing. It’s also an opportunity.

Image: cherie’/Flickr

Academy scientist John McCosker describes a healthy, tropical shallow coral reef as an intricate network of shape, motion, and color. “The variety, amount, and numbers of coral, fish and invertebrates is impossible to describe,” he says. “It’s visually overwhelming.” In contrast, a reef damaged by dynamite, poison, or other methods of excessive resource extraction, appears as an ash-gray scar of calcium carbonate rubble along the ocean floor.

McCosker knows the difference first-hand. He made his first dive in the tropical Indo-Pacific with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in 1972 in the vicinity of Raja Ampat. Recently, he accompanied Terry Gosliner, the Academy’s Dean of Science and Research Collections on a scouting expedition to Northwestern Papua in Indonesia. “There is no comparison between a healthy coral reef and one that’s been dynamited,” says McCosker. “That said, Raja Ampat remains one of the least inhabited and most pristine areas of the Coral Triangle.”

Many are working to keep it that way. The trip, explains Gosliner, is an initial step in what will be a five-year collaboration with the government of Indonesia, LIPI (the Indonesian Institute of Sciences), Conservation International, Papuan Indonesian scientists, educators and local fisherman. The Academy will work with Papuan residents to provide baseline documentation and training that will strengthen their effort to monitor and protect their newly formed marine sanctuaries.

Gosliner is working to complete a Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Indonesia that will identify marine sites off of Birds Head peninsula where Academy scientists and their partners will document the biodiversity of those coral reefs.

Academy scientists will use the same methodology employed during the 2011 Hearst Philippines Biodiversity Expedition. Gosliner hopes the five-year effort will also settle an ongoing question among scientists—exactly where is the richest part of the ocean? “Some say it’s the Verde Island Passage in the Philippines,” Gosliner says, “others say it’s Raja Ampat. We hope to gather enough data to compare the two areas.

“Coral reefs are actually far more resilient than people realize,” says Gosliner. “We’ve seen transformation of once-decimated reefs into productive, recovering ecosystems. The key is to work with the local population to adopt sustainable practices. We will survey the biodiversity. But it’s just as important to build relationships with Indonesian scientists.”

The Academy, Gosliner explains, is not a newcomer to the issue of sustainability. “It’s been part and parcel of what we’ve done throughout our entire history. But we’re stepping up our efforts because the issue is so urgent and the challenges we face today are so great.”

Barbara Tannenbaum is a science writer working with the Academy’s Digital Engagement Studio. Her work has appeared in the New York Times, San Francisco Magazine and many other publications.

Image: Terry Gosliner

10 years

102 researchers from 21 countries

129,000 specimens

25,000 species in a 6,000-hectare forest

…yielding an estimate of 6 million arthropod species on our planet.

Ready for the details behind the numbers?

In 2003 and 2004, a large team of scientists (see numbers above) led by the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute on an endeavor called Project IBISCA-Panama, scoured Panama’s San Lorenzo rainforest for arthropods (which includes insects, spiders, and millipedes).

They sampled the forest from top to bottom from a construction crane, inflatable platforms, and balloons, climbing ropes through forest layers as well as crawling along the forest floor to sift soil and trap arthropods.

They then spent the next eight years identifying the 129,000 specimens collected within twelve 20-by-20 meter squares. They determined that within those specimens, there were over 6,000 species of arthropods. Using various models the team extrapolated the total number of arthropod species to 25,000 residing in the 6,000-hectare forest.

The research is published in the current edition of Science.

According to Science Now,

The study is the most extensive survey of insects, spiders, and their relatives ever undertaken and should help researchers get a better understanding of what factors influence biodiversity.

“This is a high number as it implies that for every species of vascular plant, bird or mammal in this forest, you will find 20, 83, and 312 species of arthropods, respectively,” explains lead author Yves Basset.

“If we are interested in conserving the diversity of life on Earth, we should start thinking about how best to conserve arthropods,” adds Tomas Roslin, one of 35 co-authors.

“Another exciting finding was that the diversity of both herbivorous and non-herbivorous arthropods could be accurately predicted from the diversity of plants,” says Basset.

“By focusing conservation efforts on floristically diverse sites, we may save a large fraction of arthropods under the same umbrella. Further, this strengthens past ideas that we should really be basing estimates of global species richness on the number of plant species,” stresses Roslin.

For some amazing images of these arthropods and the collection process, please visit National Geographic.

Image: Thomas Martin, Jean-Philippe Sobczak, and Hendrik Dietz, T.U. Munich

Much of the news is alarming. Using data on more than 25,000 species, the current results show that, on average, 50 species of mammals, birds and amphibians move closer to extinction each year due to the impacts of agricultural expansion, logging, over-exploitation, and invasive alien species.

Birds are faring the best, amphibians, the worst. The paper highlights that the percentage of species threatened among vertebrates ranges from 13% of birds to 41% of amphibians. Although the study focused on vertebrates, it also reports on the levels of threat among several other groups assessed for the IUCN Red List, including 14% of seagrasses, 32% of freshwater crayfish, and 33% of reef-building corals.

The study involved some 174 authors from 115 institutions and 38 countries. It was made possible by the voluntary contributions of more than 3,000 scientists under the auspices of IUCN’s Species Survival Commission. One of the authors is the Academy’s own mammalogist Galen Rathbun, who contributed data to the report on the status of the members of the Afrotheria supercohort, an ancient group of African mammals that includes elephants, sea cows, hyraxes, sengis (also known as elephant-shrews), tenrecs, golden moles and aardvarks. Of the 83 species currently recognized in this supercohort, 30 are considered Threatened, and an additional eight species are considered data deficient—these species are quite possibly threatened, but scientists don’t know enough about their distribution to be able to assign them a status.

Now for the good news in the report—conservation programs are working. This is the first study to present clear evidence of the positive impact of conservation efforts around the globe. Results show that the status of biodiversity would have declined by almost 20% if conservation action had not been taken.

The study highlights 64 mammal, bird and amphibian species that have improved in status due to successful conservation action, including three species that were extinct in the wild and have since been re-introduced back to nature– California Condor, the Black-footed Ferret and Przewalski’s Horse. (Last spring, Science in Action produced a video on the Condors’ recent success at Pinnacles National Park.)

Can we learn from this and expand these conservation efforts? An article in Nature concludes this way:

Although the Nagoya negotiations are currently stalling on detailed aspects of conservation funding and access to the resources of ecologically rich nations, [lead author of the study, Michael] Hoffmann remains optimistic. As he concludes from his review of conservation efforts: “We can really turn things around and that’s a powerful message — you should never give up hope.”

Wikipedia image by Bob the Wikipedian, using images from Christian Jansky, J. Patrick Fischer, BS Thurner Hof, Trisha Shears and NOAA

It’s not news that tigers are in trouble. Fewer than 3,500 tigers remain in the wild, of which only about 1,000 are breeding females. They are threatened by overhunting of both tigers and their prey, and by loss and fragmentation of habitat. Much of the decline is being driven by the demand for tiger body parts used in traditional medicines.

Their situation may sound hopeless, but yesterday a group of scientists and conservationists published an article in PLoS Biology outlining ways in which this majestic animal can be saved from extinction.

They make it pretty simple: 70% of the remaining tigers live in just 6% of their current range. Focusing conservation efforts on the that 6% range and specifically, 42 source sites that are mostly in India, Sumatra and the Russian Far East, would be the most efficient way to save these big cats.

The authors calculate the total required annual cost of effectively managing these source sites to be $82 million, which includes the cost of law enforcement, wildlife monitoring, community involvement, and other factors.  From the New York Times:

The cost of these efforts is quite modest, according to John G. Robinson of the Wildlife Conservation Society in New York, one of the authors of the paper. He said that protecting the 42 source sites would cost $82 million a year, more than half of which is already being provided by governments. The remainder — about $35 million — is roughly what the Yankees pay Alex Rodriguez each year in salary and benefits, Mr. Robinson noted.

“The tiger is facing its last stand as a species,” said Dr. Robinson. “As dire as the situation is for tigers, the Wildlife Conservation Society is confident that the world community will come together to save these iconic big cats from the brink for future generations. This study gives us a roadmap to make that happen.”

It’s not impossible. According to Wired:

Tiger populations can rebuild quickly since they have litters of up to four or five cubs every year. As long as they are given space, food and continued protection from poaching over the long term, they will have a fast recovery, [World Wildlife Fund scientist Eric] Dinerstein said.

Image by Julie Larsen Maher/Wildlife Conservation Society

Fewer than 3,200 tigers remain in the wild. Their populations are half what they were a decade ago, due primarily to poaching for medicine, but also to deforestation.

At the recent Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in Qatar, Willem Wijnstekers stated, “If we use tiger numbers as a performance indicator, then we must admit that we have failed miserably and that we are continuing to fail.”

Chinese tiger farms aren’t helping, say conservationists, because they have reignited the trade in tiger medicinal products. Although China does not officially permit the sale of goods from the farms, several investigations have revealed they still sell the illegal goods for medicinal purposes.  Unfortunately (and somewhat illogically), the farm-raised tiger parts are considered less effective than those harvested from wild sources. This makes the wild parts more valuable. However, the World Federation of Chinese Medicine Societies (WFCMS) is trying to help solve this problem.

In a statement issued prior to CITES, the WFCMS called on traditional medicine practitioners to abandon the use of tiger parts. Its deputy secretary Huang Jianyin said, “We will ask our members not to use endangered wildlife in traditional Chinese medicine, and reduce the misunderstanding and bias of the international community.”

He added, ”The traditional Chinese medicine industry should look for substitutes and research on economical and effective substitutes for tiger products.”

According to the World Wildlife Federation, tigers face extinction by the next Year of the Tiger, in 2022. You can learn more about the plight of tigers here or do something here.