Ryan Phelan The intended consequences of helping nature thrive TED
Meet Elizabeth Ann.
She’s a black-footed ferret,
America’s most endangered animal.
She was cloned using cells
from a ferret that lived 33 years ago.
Elizabeth Ann is a new hope
for the future of her species,
a chance to actually restore
lost genetic diversity.
She was born for this
intended consequence.
I’ve been working in conservation
for the last 10 years
with innovative scientists
from around the world
to bring biotechnology
to wildlife conservation.
We need to solve the escalating threats
to biodiversity from climate change,
habitat loss, fragmented populations
and wildlife diseases.
These are the unintended consequences
of the human-dominated time we live in.
A time when we need new tools
for the conservation toolbox
and with genetic rescue,
we can actually help stop more species
from crossing the line into extinction.
And the black-footed ferret
is a great example.
The black footed-ferret
historically ranged
all across the Great Plains
of North America,
from Canada to Mexico.
That is, until their habitat was converted
to ranches and farmland.
By 1981, there was only one colony
of ferrets living in Wyoming.
They were brought into captivity,
and the US Fish and Wildlife Service
has successfully been breeding
and releasing these individuals back
into the wild for the last 30 years.
But all 600 living ferrets today
are the descendants
of just seven ancestors.
And with inbreeding that jeopardizes
their long-term survival in the wild.
To solve this challenge
of a lack of genetic variation,
we reached back in time.
Luckily, scientists had the foresight.
Starting in 1975, Dr. Oliver Ryder
and his team at the San Diego Zoo
started banking endangered species,
and it was with one of these cell lines
that we were able to actually
bring in a new individual
who lived 33 years ago,
who had unique genetic variation.
Elizabeth Ann is a result of that cloning.
She has three times more genetic variation
than any living ferret today.
And when she breeds
in the next couple of years,
her offspring will help create
greater resilience for her species.
Now Elizabeth Ann isn’t the only time
that we’ve done cloning.
We’ve worked with the Przewalski’s horses.
These are the only true species
of wild horse remaining in the world.
Historically, they were native
to Central Asia,
but they roamed all the way
from the Pacific
to the Atlantic Ocean for centuries.
Until they were basically
extinct in the wild,
with only several horses
left in captivity.
Conservationists have reintroduced
some of those horses since 1960,
back into the wild.
But all 2,000 horses all living today
are again at risk of inbreeding.
And many scientists
refer to this challenge
as the extinction vortex,
when small, fragmented populations
lose genetic variation
and become at risk
for the vortex of extinction
as their populations dwindle.
Now, with genetic rescue,
we can reverse this extinction vortex
by bringing a new genetic variation
and increasing the long-term survival
of these populations.
And that’s exactly what we did
with this Przewalski’s foal
named Kurt.
That’s actually his surrogate
mother to the right.
She’s an American Quarter Horse,
a different species.
But Kurt’s genome is all wild horse.
Now, here’s Kurt, exactly one year later,
this August.
He’s a wild, healthy,
vibrant Przewalski’s horse.
Now, these genetic rescue stories
could not have happened
without the collaboration
of multiple partners
and the tools of biotechnology.
Fundamental to all of this is the most
essential tool, is genomic sequencing
and the power of bringing
that information into the light
to help the management of these species.
In addition, the bio banking,
the cell culturing
and the in vitro technologies
have made this kind
of genetic rescue possible.
But even these technologies
are not widely adopted by conservation.
We hope to change that.
Emerging technologies
of genetic engineering
hold the promise of helping species
adapt to climate change,
solve wildlife disease problems,
and even help solve
invasive species problems.
But very often these technologies
never get out of the starting gate
because the fear of unintended
consequences absolutely stymies
even the most basic
innovation at the get-go.
Probably there’s no more urgent need
to overcome some of this reluctance
to use these technologies
than in the case of coral.
Coral, as many of you know,
are the most diverse and rich
ecosystems in the world.
They provide a rich biodiversity
for reef-dwelling fish and all ocean life.
And yet, sadly,
50 percent of the Great Barrier Reef
has been lost already to climate change
and environmental degradation.
Estimates predicts that by 2050,
we could lose as much as 90 percent
of the coral in the world.
There is hope.
Scientists around the world
are utilizing new technologies
to cryopreserve
even living coral fragments
that can be transplanted
onto artificial reefs.
This is just the beginning
of some of the work that is pioneering
and can happen.
I’m most excited about the use
of the new technologies
for developing stem cells.
Now these stem cells could be used
to actually genome edit in
thermal resilience to warming oceans.
Now, you may be
looking at that and saying,
“Genetically modified corals?
What about the unintended consequences?”
This question comes up so often
with any innovation in science,
we decided to actually identify
just how often, when humans intervene,
did they cause the disasters
that people fear so much.
And yes, your classic stories
of humans intervening in nature
and causing disasters,
like bringing rodents to islands,
that stowed away
on colonial sailing ships.
These invasive species and others
have caused greater than 60 percent
of the extinctions worldwide
since the early 1500s.
And then there’s the poster child
for intentionally releasing
the poisonous cane toad to Australia.
Back in 1935,
the sugar cane industry brought
this invasive, poisonous cane toad in
to solve their problem
with beetles in their crops.
It didn’t do much for the beetles,
and instead, since 1935,
it has continued to work
its way across Australia,
leaving nothing in its wake
and killing native species
all along the way.
These disasters stoke the minds of people
about fear of intervention,
and yet they happened in an era
when there was little regard
for the overall environmental ecosystem.
And they were done, in some cases,
even with profit motivation in mind,
they weren’t done
for conservation benefit.
And sadly, we never hear
about the success stories.
So when we looked at the research
about what happens when conservation
intend to intervene in nature,
we found a very different story.
All across the globe, for over a century,
scientists have been introducing
and reintroducing plants and animals
with no environmental harm.
You may know the classic success story
of introducing wolves to Yellowstone.
But that’s not the only one.
Think about this.
Over 1,000 species have been introduced
all across North America
for the last 125 years.
There has been no documented case,
except one,
of any intervention
causing a local extinction.
That was a native freshwater fish
from a small spring in Alabama.
Ninety-nine percent of these
interventions have succeeded
in achieving their intended consequence.
So you may look at this and wonder,
if intervention is so common in nature,
why aren’t we more aware of this?
And I think it’s because sometimes
success is actually invisible to us.
Take, for example, this image
of the Great Smoky Mountains,
America’s most visited national park.
What we see as pristine wilderness
is actually a very managed environment.
Those elk you see,
they’re the result
of being absent for 200 years
and being reintroduced.
That meadow is a result
of repeated controlled burns.
And non-native insects have been used
to control pathogens and invasive pests.
And there’s one more iconic species
that could come back to this forest.
That’s the American chestnut tree.
Historically, this majestic tree
rained down sweet nuts and fed humans
and animals alike for centuries.
For thousands of years,
it was the most abundant tree species
across the eastern deciduous forest.
It’s lumber was used to create
fine musical instruments
and hardwood furniture.
And until 1800,
there were four billion
of these trees across the forest
until blight, a fungal blight
that came in, imported,
invasive species,
absolutely wiped out these trees.
By 1950, all four billion
trees were decimated.
Now, since that time,
scientists have tried for decades
to figure out how to create
a blight-resistant chestnut tree.
And it’s happened.
Scientists at the State University
of New York have identified a way
inserting a single gene from wheat
that will convey blight resistance.
These genetically modified trees right now
are the first chance in 100 years
to restore these majestic
trees to the forest.
The US Department of Agriculture
right now is reviewing these trees
for release into the wild.
These are all bold initiatives.
Engineering coral to withstand
warming waters,
restoring the American chestnut tree,
the genetic rescue
of the black-footed ferret.
All of these initiatives will require
public engagement and public support.
I think it matters how people
think about intervention.
I believe we need to bring more balance
to how we think about risk.
There will always be unexpected outcomes
to any innovation in science,
but we have the tools and technology today
and the protocols to minimize risks
and maximize benefits.
So the next time you hear
about some bold new idea,
I hope you’ll think first
about the intended consequences.
We don’t have the luxury of time
to stand by and wait and see what happens
for the thousands of plants
and animals at risk today.
We know that doing nothing
can cause extinction.
Instead, let’s carefully
and intentionally plan
with all the tools in the toolbox
to achieve and create the future we want
and not overreact
to a future that we fear.
Thank you.
(Applause)
Chris Anderson: Please stay.
I think this is so interesting.
It seems to me, at the heart
of what you’re wrestling with each time
is this, you know, it’s a moral question.
So most moral philosophers, I think,
would say that fundamentally,
there’s not a difference
between intentional action
and intentional inaction
that leads to the same thing.
So why is it that in so many
areas of public policy
and certainly in the
environmental movement,
there is this huge distinction that people
make between action and inaction?
They would rather not act
and see something go wrong
than take the risk of acting.
Why?
Ryan Phelan: You know, I think
it’s public pressure that they feel
as scientists innovating.
They don’t want to get it wrong.
They have funders that challenged them
on taking on innovation and action.
They run the risk of losing jobs,
funding, security, public shame.
It’s so much easier for people
to stand by and do nothing
and not take ownership of it.
And I think this is really
what we’re trying to say,
is if we can encourage scientists
and innovators to be bold,
it will behoove all of us.
CA: Right.
So one advantage of inaction is just
that you’re less likely to be blamed.
RP: Exactly.
You don’t get credit either.
CA: No.
Ryan, these same technologies,
synthetic biology and so forth,
like in principle, they allow
actual de-extinction,
species that the planet
hasn’t seen for years,
in principle, we could bring back.
Are there any projects
you’re involved with
that excite you or possibly terrify you,
where we could see
such de-extinction taking place?
RP: Well, technically the American
chestnut tree is almost extinct.
You know, people will see
some sprouts come up
because the roots are there,
but they basically, you know,
fail within 15 years.
So they’re not totally extinct,
but they’re very close to it.
You know, we are working on everything
from the woolly mammoth,
as some of you may know,
to the passenger pigeon.
But to me, the most motivating part
of these technologies is,
de-extinction is just a big,
hairy, audacious goal.
And if we get there, it’ll be grand.
But getting there, all of these
genetic rescue tools and technology
can be applied to save endangered species.
It’s all a fundamental tool kit.
It’s essential.
CA: Well, Ryan, you’re an extremely
compelling and persuasive
and trustworthy voice, I would say.
So thank you so much
for the work you’re doing
and for sharing this.
(Applause)