The introduction of new genetic material into wild populations, using novel biotechnology, has the potential to fortify populations against existential threats, and, controversially, create wild genetically modified populations. The introduction of new genetic variation into populations, which will have an ongoing future in areas of conservation interest, complicates long-held values in conservation science and park management. I discuss and problematize, in light of genetic intervention, what I consider the three core goals of conservation science: biodiversity, ecosystem services, and wilderness. This (...) uneasy relationship, however, does not forgo the use of such interventions. I argue there is a case for the application of this technology within some interpretations of the moral frameworks of wilderness and biodiversity, despite apparent conflict between these values and the technology, and the possibility that this technology's use displays some limitations of the ecosystem services framework. Ultimately, the advent of biotechnology assisted restoration highlights the need for us to reevaluate our ethical concepts of conservation at times of global environmental and technological change. (shrink)

Christian Diehm has argued against using a genetically modified American chestnut variety in forest restoration. He is concerned that a GM variety sets a bad precedent and is disrespectful toward nature. He is also concerned that not enough has been done to consult with Native American tribes. We give evidence that consultation with tribes, environmental organizations, and the public is valuable and necessary – and that there is support for the GM chestnut. Genetic modification that saves a species from functional (...) extinction shows respect to that species and its ecological relationships. Hopeful, wise, coordinated action is needed to save ecosystems. (shrink)