Nature Reviews Biodiversity (@natrevbiodiv.nature.com)

Genome engineering for conservation might be a game changer but only with the incorporation of Indigenous voices https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00118-w might be a game changer but only with the incorporation of Indigenous voices t was encouraging to read the well-measured Perspective by van Oosterhout et al. (van Oosterhout, C. et al. Genome engineer ing in biodiversity conservation and resto that focused on the pros and cons of genome engineering for conservation. However, we contend that the proposed recommendations, if followed, could inadvertently have a negative negative experiences of gene technologies We feel that van Oosterhout et al. underu tilize a substantive body of literature that editing (for example, ref. ; and Indigenously authored literature, and incorporating the understand ings therein, provides a stronger basis for Moreover, we recommend additional con sideration of factors such as power inequi ties and practicalities regarding Indigenous . This includes the nature of Indigenous representation and who can moral and (sometimes) legal requirements tion of gene editing also needs to adhere to overarching national frameworks (such as treaties and compacts that recognize Indigenous peoples’ sovereign status) in addition to international agreements that recognize Indigenous rights and interests in culturally significant biodiversity (including genetic variation) that stem from centuries to millennia of interactions. We therefore recommend modifying van Oosterhout et al.’s principles 2, 4 and 6 (which were adapted from ref. ) to reflect these realities. For principle2, we advocate that Indigenous ethical frameworks take precedence: any scientific study that involves biodiversity that is important to Indigenous people or the potential release of geneti cally modified organisms must be co-led and co-designed by the mandated Indigenous community members. Such frameworks are taught in undergraduate genetics education. This also addresses principle3, by ensuring For principle 6, we recommend adding of Indigenous communities — who are sov ereign entities — rather than those defined by existing national boundaries. Respect ing these rights would ensure long-held traditional boundaries sometimes cross inter- national borders) and biodiversity remains biodiversity that is subject to Indigenous data sovereignty principles, which ensure In addition, for principle 4, we recommend Indigenous communities are resourced to co-manage and monitor the release of geneti cally modified organisms, with ongoing key Following best practice, funders and scien- tists should support education and upskill knowledge inequities. A prime example is the peoples in Genomics (SING), which has col lectively trained about 1,000 Indigenous We contend that Indigenous knowledge and Indigenously authored ethical guide lines and related literature provide a more robust and equitable basis for gene editing in conservation and therefore should be more explicitly incorporated than outlined. There is a reply to this letter by van Oost doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00119-9 4,6 Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 1. van Oosterhout, C. et al. Genome engineering in 2. Taitingfong, R. & Ullah, A. Empowering indigenous 3. Garrison, N. A. et al. Genomic research through an 4. Mead, A. T. P. & S. Ratuva, S. 5. Clark, A. et al. Identifying Māori perspectives on gene 6. Claw, K. G. et al. A framework for enhancing ethical 7. Roberts, M. Consultation concerning novel o Tūhoe v Tāmati Kruger on behalf of Tūhoe – Te Uru https://www.courtsofnz. govt.nz/assets/cases/2024/2024-NZSC-130.pdf 10. Gordon, D. R. et al. Responsible governance of gene editing The authors declare no competing interests. http://dlvr.it/TR1v10